Ask Me Help Desk - Speaking of Texas

Speaking of Texas

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,

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

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:

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!

Quote:

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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

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"..

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

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 ?

Quote:

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.