Hello:

Texas is too big.. So is California, Arizona, Florida, NY, and Washington. In California, one senator represents about 18 MILLION people. In Wyoming, one senator represents about 250,000 people. It ain't right, I tell you.

So, according to Article IV, section 3 of the US Constitution,
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress,I suggest we split California and Florida into THREE states, and Arizona, Washington and NY into TWO. I don't know WHAT to do with Texas. Giving it to the Mexicans comes to mind.. But, I digress..

As you can see, from a legal standpoint, it would be easy to do. That's how West Virginia got created, and in the states I mentioned, there's a logical political divide too. Northern California tends to be a bit more liberal than it's southern counterpart. Same with Washington, Arizona and New York. There may be other states that qualify too.

This way we'd ALL be better represented. Wouldn't we?

Excon

Um, we fought and won Texas from Santa Ana, who had pi$$ed off even the Mexicans living in Texas. Now we have nukes, don't pi$$ us off again.

I'm all for splitting up California though, San Francisco can be its own country.

I've always said that if you could saw off NYC and Long Island at the Hudson River and let them float away ;the whole State would benefit.

Do whatever you want with the rest of the world, but don't mess with Texas!!

Ex there is a lot to be said for less government, that means the less states and the less politicians you have the better. You have some pocket hankichef states over there that really should amalgamated with others to have efficient government. From where we stand Texas is about right for the size of a state, but if you feel you are underrepresented then why not have more representatives and senators for each state

Every State has proportional representation in the House of Reperesentatives . The Senate is different . Every State has 2 Senators. That's the way it is and has been since the Founding . I could get into a detailed explanation why that is so . But suffice it to say that it was part of the compromises amongst the original states when creating the bicameral legislature to ensure that the smaller states weren't dominated by the larger.

Every State has proportional representation in the House of Reperesentatives . The Senate is different . Every State has 2 Senators. That's the way it is and has been since the Founding . I could get into a detailed explanation why that is so . But suffice it to say that it was part of the compromises amongst the original states when creating the bicameral legislature to ensure that the smaller states weren't dominated by the larger.

Yes we have a similar system although more senators for each state but it is interesting because any new states are not entitled to the same number of senators. What we have found is having more senators doesn't provide better representation because senators aren't there for that purpose that is the purpose of the representatives

In the U.S. senators represent there states, two to a state, and Representatives have the interests of their districts in a particular state. The whole idea is that there is a check and balance in place between the 3 parts of government, representatives, and senators, make of the legislative branch, the Prez, in the White House, and the Supreme Court, housing the 9 judges. They are supposed to be equal, and work together, and that's debatable since the non elected government, composed of banks, and corporations control every freaking' thing, including who the judges, representatives, senators, and the Prez through lobbyists ( for rules and regulations, and campaign money), and direct pay off to politicians, both state, and federal, as well as local.

You have a queen, who is going broke from what I heard, but we still have kings, who are not going broke, and have a hands on approach to the functions of everyone's lives.

Quite a system.

Hello again,

So, here's the problem as I see it... With 60 votes required in the Senate to get any bill passed, do we really want to be held hostage to the Southern states?

excon

You didn't mind it so much when Republicans had a majority that wasn't fillibuster proof.

And as you know ;Senate rules are not set in the Constitution ,they are set each session . But both parties realize that they will not always hold the majority so they don't change the rules often or for issues like denying a region of the country their say.

The South is no longer the solid block that it once was either . Florida is a swing State ;as was New Mexico and Virginia in 2008 . Georgia has one of the youngest populations in the nation ,as young workers have migrated there because of their favorable business environment... and northern liberals ,like locust, having already destroyed their states,migrate south to devour those states in their retirement.

In the U.S. senators represent there states, two to a state, and Representatives have the interests of their districts in a particular state. The whole idea is that there is a check and balance in place between the 3 parts of government, representatives, and senators, make of the legislative branch, the Prez, in the White House, and the Supreme Court, housing the 9 judges. They are supposed to be equal, and work together, and that's debatable since the non elected government, composed of banks, and corporations control every freaking' thing, including who the judges, representatives, senators, and the Prez through lobbyists ( for rules and regulations, and campaign money), and direct pay off to politicians, both state, and federal, as well as local.

In fact your system has become ex officio a dictatorship because the President doesn't have equality in the process but rules over it.


You have a queen, who is going broke from what I heard, but we still have kings, who are not going broke, and have a hands on approach to the functions of everyone's lives.

Quite a system.

That is a mistaken idea. The "Queen" is a figurehead, the equivalent of your president here is the Governor-general, a person appointed by Parliament to act in place of the queen. This person acts on the advice of the executive. Our system will remain whether the queen exists or not. The executive branch of government is not in the hands of one person. The real power is in the hands of the legislature and the Senate provides a moderating role. The only kings we have around here are those who live in grass castles or perhaps you could call them dirt castles

QUOTE by paraclete;
In fact your system has become ex officio a dictatorship because the President doesn't have equality in the process but rules over it.
Naw, when the congress doesn't like what the president puts down, they vote against his wishes, and talks about him like a dog. LOL, he wishes he could dictate what he wants!


That is a mistaken idea. The "Queen" is a figurehead, the equivalent of your president here is the Governor-general, a person appointed by Parliament to act in place of the queen. This person acts on the advice of the executive. Our system will remain whether the queen exists or not. The executive branch of government is not in the hands of one person. The real power is in the hands of the legislature and the Senate provides a moderating role. The only kings we have around here are those who live in grass castles or perhaps you could call them dirt castles
We call them corporate board rooms, or golf courses. That's where our kings hang out.

Dictator ? Lol ,even Obama's greatest legislative success was done with little participation from the White House. Properly named it would be called Pelosi-Care .

No one suggested dictators lack facilitators, Tom, the process by which that became law smacks of dictatorship. What is the point of a legislature if they can be bypassed. Are they there to rubber stamp the decisions of the administration? Or to merely decide how the decisions of the administration might be implemented? I am aware that most legislatures operate this way but this is not the way the system should work

I agree of course... however ,you being a proponent of a large centralized government ,I don't see how you can object to a system where the administrator has the most power .

I agree of course ...however ,you being a proponent of a large centralized government ,I don't see how you can object to a system where the administrator has the most power .

Checks and balances Tom no one should have all the power

Now that makes sense . So a duly elected legislature that rubber stamps executive decisions can still claim checks and balances . Certainly the US Congress in the 1930s thought they were doing due dilligence as they passed one unconstitutional law and created unconsitutional institutions one after another . I'm sure if you asked them they'd claim they were performing their proper role.
No... the only way to guarantee that is to make sure the central government doesn't get too large.

I disagree Tom, as a weak central government creates a vacuum that allows special interests and corporations to have more power than ordinary people, and those who put the bottom line before the welfare of all the people.

Greed has no ideology, just an agenda.

yeah we need a strong central government .....after all ,when Mussolini was in control the trains ran on time .

We need a strong central government that works effectively because we the people can hire, and fire anyone every TWO years if its not.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
Thomas Jefferson

Sorry Tom, and Thomas. I have to disagree again. The enemy of the people is ignorance, and laziness. The effectiveness of government is a reflection of the people being informed, and voting. The mess we have today with all the problems yet unsolved is a mirror of how we the people have been lax in our own responsibilities. You can't lock your problems away, or not vote, and expect good results to come of it.

the people have been lax in our own responsibilities. You can't lock your problems away, or not vote, and expect good results to come of it.

That's it Tom that's why our system works well, we have compulsory voting, no sitting on your duff blaming the other bloke here

Forcing people to vote makes a responsible citizenry ? Lol Dictatorships get huge turnouts too.

forcing people to vote makes a responsible citizenry ? lol Dictatorships get huge turnouts too.

What you get is a true reflection of opinion, not apathy. The donkey vote is surprisingly low, not any greater than we see over there. We don't have to use guns to get people to vote, they have been educated to understand their obligation, which is to ensure responsible government

They don't want everyone to vote here, and have ALL KINDS of tactics to stop it.Even though voter fraud is very low. That makes it easier for the few to have power, who can then make laws to make money, and keep power. But I think some are waking up, and seeing how precious their vote is, and will lawfully get their ducks in a row... and express themselves with their vote.

Even in TEXAS!!

forcing people to vote makes a responsible citizenry ? lol Dictatorships get huge turnouts too.


Hi Tom,

Well actually it does. It forces us to take social responsibility. Dictatorships do get huge turnouts but the analogy is a poor one. It would be impossible to argue that Australia is dictatorship because we are forced to vote.


Tut.

Hi Tom,

Well actually it does. It forces us to take social responsibility. Dictatorships do get huge turnouts but the analogy is a poor one. It would be impossible to argue that Australia is dictatorship because we are forced to vote.


Tut.

Yes, Tut it is strange, isn't it, a place where people are free, yet they have compulsory voting and no guns, sort of gives the lie to some cherished notions of freedom.

Yes, Tut it is strange, isn't it, a place where people are free, yet they have compulsary voting and no guns, sort of gives the lie to some cherished notions of freedom.


Hi Clete,

I couldn't agree more with your statement and I could be more mystified.
As a fellow Aussie I am preaching to the converted here.

Therefore, my comments are directed at Tom and perhaps others of a similar persuasion. Naturally I would be interested in your response as well because the answer is beyond me.

Every time we put forward the 'social responsibility' argument in relation to such things as media and freedom of speech we get the standard response. This usually takes the form of some dictatorial figure in history who, by implication, demonstrates that we live in anything less than a free society.

Tut

Maybe it's just me. I see a disconnect between the words "free " and "compulsary"..

Maybe it's just me. I see a disconnect between the words "free " and "compulsary"..


Hi Tom,

Good response.

I thought you might say that the shadow of Marxism is looming over Australia.

One way of looking at it is to acknowledge there are degrees of freedom.

Tut

Well Tom the interesting thing is we haven't had to remove any of our leaders by assassination, the closest we came is what you might call impreachment, when an elected leader was thrown out on his duff for a similar situation to what exists in america at the moment, irresponsible fiscal policy and you know what? The electorate endorsed the move at the election. True democracy in action

Tom thinks we are marxist because citizens are required to exercise the most precious aspect of their citizenship. You can abstain but it costs money or you can waste your vote and write sweet nothings on the ballot, but be recorded you will. What can't and doesn't happen here is any coercion at the ballot box and no hanging chards

Clete ;I'll call you one hanging chad and raise you charges of 'branch-stacking' .
Keep up your illusions... your system is as pure as the wind driven slush .

Clete ;I'll call you one hanging chad and raise you charges of 'branch-stacking' .
Keep up your illusions .....your system is as pure as the wind driven slush .

Hi Tom,

I guess political slush comes in degrees, a bit like political freedom.

It seems to me that freedom of speech is the Rosetta Stone. Compulsory voting is anathema to freedom. Therefore, if you are forced to vote then you don't really have freedom because compulsory voting contradicts the 'ideal' of freedom. The assumption is that freedom is an ideal rather than something subject to checks and balances, just like most things in politics. Isn't that a problem if we look at freedom as an ideal.

Tut

Clete calls it lazy not to vote, as your system makes fraud easier by allowing mail in balloting. If you are going to make voting mandatory why not just do it on a single day with everyone parading goose step to the polling places ?
I see a non-vote as a legitimate expression of preference as much as registering a vote. The politicians here have to bust their butts prior to an election to convince the electorate to vote for them . Turn out is always a significant factor. It was a large part of the Obama and Bush strategy in the 2004 and 2008 campaigns .

Clete calls it lazy not to vote, as your system makes fraud easier by allowing mail in balloting. If you are going to make voting mandatory why not just do it on a single day with everyone parading goose step to the polling places ?


Hi Tom,

Last time I voted I didn't goose step. I had to run because the local booth closed at 6 pm.

See, there you go again... Now you got me doing it!

Being forced to vote is an affront to someone's freedom not to vote. By definition this is the antithesis of freedom. Australians force people to vote therefore,the only logical conclusion is that Australia must be a non-free country.

Assuming we are a free country, can you explain why it is the case we are free? Or, is it the case we are deluded?

Tut

Clete ;I'll call you one hanging chad and raise you charges of 'branch-stacking' .
Keep up your illusions .....your system is as pure as the wind driven slush .

Branch stacking, if and when it occurs, is little different to the methods of candidate selection employed by your party machines and please remember you are speaking of candidate preselection, not elections and false counts. Our leftists are full of failed union candidates, but we know it. Even the little red fox is a former union leader, as red as they come, so we have no illusions and certainly no messiahs

LOL, you can exercise your right not to vote, but they only count the ones that do vote.

National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960?2008 — Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html)

Notice a pattern? Only a bit more than half the people vote any way. In years there are no presidential elections, less than 4 in 10 Americans vote. You wonder where this wacky politicians come from? From us, not being there to be counted. Just look at the current make up of the House and Senate. Like Newt said, right wing radicalism is just as bad as left wing radicalism, and has no place in a democracy!!

You see where that got him since he didn't walk lock step with his own party.

Why bring up Newt ? He's so 20th century irrelevant. He made a global warming add with Pelosi calling it 'settled science. He is in favor of Obamacare mandates . He attacked the Ryan budget proposal.

With positions like that he'd best go register as a Dem.

I did enjoy his alternate history ficton novels about Gettysburg . They were well done enjoyable reading books . In an alternate world he'd be a good conservative Republican. Maybe he should come out of his fantasy world .

Now to low voter turnout ;perhaps you are misreading it. I get involved from time to time in local elections . I find when there is dissatisfaction there is a larger turn out. Maybe just maybe those off year elections are representative of the population generally being satisfied with the status quo. I don't know why that is so ;but it is an observation that has held up over time.
Gee... I wonder if mandatory elections would force people to know the names of the elected school board or town board or building inspector ?

No ,I don't buy the lazy and stupid argument... but I understand that the patronizing left would feel that way. Mandatory voting does nothing to address the question :why are they chosing not to vote ?

Assuming we are a free country, can you explain why it is the case we are free? Or, is it the case we are deluded?

You just can't distinguish between a civic duty and a civil right. Civil rights, like having the franchise ,is for the individual to chose to exercise .
Civic duties like jury duty or paying taxes are not . Fining a free person for not exercising a civil right is tyranny.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about being a free society. Deluded but free. Compulsory is by force and by force is not free.

Compulsory? Like mandatory, has no legal or criminal consequences does it?

And who said freedom was FREE?

Compulsary? Like mandatory, has no legal or criminal consequences does it?

And who said freedom was FREE?

Yes there are a lot of misconceptions about freedom. We are not free to do whatever we want to. Being part of a society comes with obligations. No one gets sent to jail for not voting, but they do get asked to provide an explanation and can be fined. It's like the census, same deal. What it comes down to is you are either part of the society or you are not. You want to be free go live in the forest and subsist

Compulsary? Like mandatory, has no legal or criminal consequences does it?

The Aussies get fined if they don't vote . So there are consequences.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about being a free society. Deluded but free. Compulsary is by force and by force is not free.

Hi Tom.
As far as civil rights and civic duty are concerned are concerned I though one implies the other-but anyway.

As far as your last three sentences are concerned I am wondering how it is possible to be free ( perhaps deluded) and not free at the same time. Or, are you saying we are not fee when it comes to particular instances?

Tut

I was just being polite. Anyway free is not the operative word... liberty would be a better word.
But if you think donkey voting is an expression of the public will then knock yourselves out. Obviously your politicians benefit from mandatory suffrage. They don't have to bother to court the electorate.

Just do me a favor .Stop using the qualifier "right" to vote. It's just another thing that government has decided you MUST do.

I was just being polite. Anyway free is not the operative word ...liberty would be a better word.
But if you think donkey voting is an expression of the public will then knock yourselves out. Obviously your politicians benefit from mandatory sufferage. They don't have to bother to court the electorate.

Just do me a favor .Stop using the qualifier "right" to vote. It's just another thing that government has decided you MUST do.


Hi Tom,

I promise I will not use the words "right to vote again".


Ok, so we seem to be in agreement that being forced to vote is characteristic of a tyranny. You agree that this particular instance of 'tyranny' does not make our country a tyranny overall?

If we want to talk about liberty in a general way then we need to distinguish between positive and negative liberty. Being forced to vote detracts from your negative liberty. On this basis are you opposed to it on ideological grounds rather than actual outcomes?

Tut

Tom we get less donkey voting here than you do in the US. I hear the donkey vote in the US is more than 50% which accounts for your presidential selection

I live in America, and the cornerstone of freedom is a free election. The consequence of not voting is not fines or any recriminations, but no vote, no beeyatch.

Don't complain who the other guy votes for or why, just cast your vote, and be counted. That's the way it works, and that's why you have so many rookie tea party reps in the house now. The ones who showed up voted them in.

If they stay in we will see next year! That's how it works. Like EVERYTHING in America, donkeys, or elephants, its all about the money. No matter what you call the system, you get a say in it every two years. But you have to listen to the propaganda in between. Choice is freedom, and you shouldn't give that choice away lightly.

All due respect to my Australian, and Canadian friends, glad your system works for you, there are obviously different ways that work, but I think here in America, we are in transition, and recovery, and no doubt we still find a way forward, despite the diverse and numerous opinions as to the how. That's what makes us great, we all can holler and cavort, but we will get to where we are going. That's comes with being free, hollering and expressing, not only what we like, but what we don't like. That's freedom.

I live in America, and the cornerstone of freedom is a free election....

Thats what makes us great, we all can holler and cavort, but we will get to where we are going. Thats comes with being free, hollering and expressing, not only what we like, but what we don't like. Thats freedom.Hello tal:

**Greenie**

excon

Hello tal:

**Greenie**

excon

Now that's not nice he is only allowed to be either red or blue, that's the american expression of democracy

Tom we get less donkey voting here than you do in the US. I hear the donkey vote in the US is more than 50% which accounts for your presidential selection

OK then... jackass votes then . The Dems defame donkeys.

Now that's not nice he is only allowed to be either red or blue, that's the American expression of democracy

Actually, after and election we all should be purple, but some people get entrenched so into themselves they don't want want to change. We have deep seated feelings in America, and sometimes all we can see is the next election, and not the work that needs to be done.

Sort of comes with a diverse, GROWING society. Some are more diverse than others, and some are less flexible than most, but still we move slowly forward.

Actually, after and election we all should be purple, but some people get entrenched so into themselves they don't want want to change. We have deep seated feelings in America, and sometimes all we can see is the next election, and not the work that needs to be done.

Sort of comes with a diverse, GROWING society. Some are more diverse than others, and some are less flexible than most, but still we move slowly forward.

I think it comes from having elections too often, you never get out of election mode and get the opportunity to be bipartisan. In a modern society with professional politicians you can afford to have your representatives elected less often particularly as many serve more than one term. Now if you held house and senate elections concurrent with presidential elections it would make the whole process much more interesting. Less lame ducks and an electorate which has to be much more careful with its selection.

On reflection I think we both have a system designed to limit government as much as possible

I on the other hand encourage term limits . One of the biggest scourges of our system is the professional political class.

I would agree, but I would be wary of those with idealogical solutions to complex problems. Like holding the debt ceiling hostage to budget cuts without reforming corporate welfare. This while totally ignore jobs! Unacceptable. Making a debt the excuse to shrink government, and grow corporations, even more is not what a free society is about. That's slavery in my view.

and grow corporations, even more

Very interesting . That was considered the ideal in our parent's generation . One established phone company ;3 established airlines;a handful of defense contractors ;3 major auto makers ,3 major news networks , only a couple of energy companies and gas companies in the market ,utilities completely owned by the local government... all powerful... all working in conjunction and in coordination with the government.
There is more choice than ever and yet the complaint is that it isn't the way it was.

Those are the winds of change. Adjustments must be made, in thought, and action. All CAN benefit, not just a privileged few. The world is smaller since my parents had one TV, and 4 network channels. They went to the moon, we are going to Mars.

we are going to Mars.

What will you do when you get there? It will not be the featured television event the moon was, live pictures take a long time to come and interview is not practical, reality TV will have to give over to what happened yesterday.

People think Mars is some place you can live, reality is you can't, there is no life there for a reason

Just like the moon, half the fun is just going, planting a flag, and coming back. And saying we did it!

So the Russians take possession of the North Pole you take possession of the Moon and Mars, people love taking possession of useless inhospitable places. Will everyone race China for the prize and what is the prize, to see who can build the biggest space ship? The last time we got the shuttle, we are not very imaginative are we?

Now if by going we solved some problem that needed to be solved like cold fusion there would be some point to it, but right now we need to put our resources into fixing up the space ship we have not building new ones

Uh oh, Newt's campaign chiefs resigned en masse today. David Carney, Rick Perry's long-time political advisor and Rob Johnson, the guy who managed Perry’s reelection campaign last year are among them. Looks like Gov. Goodhair is jumping in (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20070378-503544.html?tag=nl.e886).

Poor Newt, the rats are jumping ship. Oh the indignity! Pssssst!

Will they work for Perry again, I hope so!! Run Perry Run!! And will Newt crawl back to his hole now??

I could see myself supporting Perry ,worts and all . I'd have to school him on the "rights" of states as opposed to the "powers" of the people ;and how foolish he sounded about secession .
But over-all I like the guy.

Newt?? I'm looking forward to his next historical fiction. He really is a skilled author .

Newt ???? I'm looking forward to his next historical fiction. He really is a skilled author .He wrote the foreword to a novel I tried to read One Second After (http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William-Forstchen/dp/0765356864/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307665344&sr=1-1), but it turned out to be have a well-to-the-right slant that was offputting and didn't belong in that type of novel.

I'm glad you like the historical fiction, his other stuff is a little over the top: Amazon.com: To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine (9781596981904): Newt Gingrich: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Save-America-Stopping-Secular-Socialist-Machine/dp/1596981903/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307665525&sr=1-3)

I'm no fan of my governor, but he would be a game changer in the election and I'd gladly take him over another round of Obama.

I want him to run so the whole nation can see what he has been up to for the last 12 years. I'm no fan either, but as a VP, he does add to the ticket. He helps in the south big time. Romney, and Perry, truly formidable.