My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« In Barack Obama’s acceptance speech, ‘Enough’ wasn’t enough | Main | AP: Investors flee Russia »

August 29, 2008


Christopher Taylor

I dunno if she's ready to be president or not - but I reckon she's certainly more experienced and qualified than Senator Obama. Doesn't make me want to vote for Senator McCain though.

And by the way, being someone from one of those "fake states" you mock, up yours, you elitist jerk.

Frank Warner

"Fake states" don't deserve two senators. They should be combined into other states.

Delaware should be part of Pennsylvania, Alaska and Hawaii should have shared representation. North and South Dakota should combine, as should Montana and Wyoming, and New Hampshire and Vermont.

In fact, state lines should be readjusted to a more equal basis every 20 years or so. But no, I won't hold my breath on this. I'd rather get rid of the Electoral College first.

Oh, and "elitist"? What's more elitist than a tiny state having its own two senators?

Christopher Taylor

You, by being dismissive of states because they don't fit your big city idiocy. I liked you before this post, you're just another left leaning latte-sipping jerk.

jj mollo

Lots of conservatives sip latte.

I don't think you remember our earlier discussions on the Electoral College. Frank is outraged that Presidential elections are not strictly based on a national popular vote. Personally, I disagree. I think that the Founders knew what they were doing in designing the Electoral College. It is, among other things, a mechanism for preventing regional supremacy. I do understand what he's saying, however.

The small state advantage in presidential and senatorial representation is galling to some people. The general idea is that all states should be the same size, meaning same population. Obviously, Alaska represents a lot of territory, but it does not represent a lot of people. Combining states, such as Rhode Island and Connecticut, would improve the fairness of representation for individual voters. Calling Rhode Island a "fake" state is a bit over the top, I think, but it's a good measure of Frank's frustration.

My personal remedy for the situation would be in the opposite direction. Large states like California, should split up into a number of smaller states, each of which has internally consistent territorial interests. Each of the smaller states would get a new state government and two new senators, as well as a proportionally greater representation in the Electoral College. California could split into seven states, each of which would still be larger than the median state.

The question I asked some time ago was why don't the large states split up if it would be in their best interests? Nobody has responded, and no states have offered to split, so I have to assume that the small state advantage is overrated. Something else, such as bloc-voting, is compensating the large states.

Frank Warner

I think inertia is the main problem. And no one likes tampering with tradition. We've all grown up looking at the same map of the United States. Many look at those state borders as divinely inspired.

Beyond that, there are more important things to do, like protecting democracies, keeping nuclear weapons from more dictators, taking nuclear weapons from dictators who have them, finding more energy, curing more diseases, saving Social Security, finding cash to cover $99 trillion in unfunded federal obligations and getting rid of the Electoral College.

Compared to those priorities, reconfiguring states is trivial. Then again, our elected representatives are often happy to obsess themselves with the trivial in order to ignore the tough decisions.


Frank, I'm not a big supporter of either McCain or Obama in this election, but I believe that in some ways Sarah Palin is a good choice. Even prior to her selection I felt that the Republicans should choose a Vice Presidental running mate who was a woman, youthful, and not part of the long-running establishment. She is very intelligent and personable, and I believe she will appeal to a good portion of the American voting public for those reasons. Some will criticize her lack of experience in the political arena or say she is an unknown, but there would be criticism whoever was chosen as McCain's running mate. She may just prove to be more appealing to the voters than Biden, and I look forward to learning more about her.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)