selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easier

Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.
User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by drm » January 9th, 2017, 10:05 am

I think the bottom line is this: all votes should count the same, have the same weight. The cost of these efforts to make states with smaller population count more is that some people's votes count more than others due to where they live. That violates the principle of one person, one vote.

By the way, Oregon is not a low population state. Not a high population state either. We're pretty much right in the middle of of state population rankings.

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3333
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by Guy » January 9th, 2017, 12:46 pm

drm wrote:I think the bottom line is this: all votes should count the same, have the same weight. The cost of these efforts to make states with smaller population count more is that some people's votes count more than others due to where they live. That violates the principle of one person, one vote.

By the way, Oregon is not a low population state. Not a high population state either. We're pretty much right in the middle of of state population rankings.
I think the electoral college (in some form) is important because the US isn't a county, it's a union of states. If we went to a popular vote many states would become inconsequential. I think there are some good middle ground alternatives that have been mentioned here that would be worth further exploration.
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by Aimless » January 9th, 2017, 1:13 pm

The chances that the present Congress would pass an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the electoral college, or that 2/3 of the states would ratify one, are precisely zero, so hypothesizing the system we should use to replace it is about as productive as doing a crossword puzzle or playing some other moderately fun intellectual game. However, considering better ways to elect a president does give a person a good feel for the obvious flaws in our much-idolized founding document.

The electoral college was a rather ugly and awkward compromise on how to apportion power, just like counting each slave as 2/3 of a citizen for the purpose of representation, while not allowing slaves to vote. It took a civil war to rid ourselves of that ugly compromise. Until passions around the electoral college rise much higher than they are at present, we're stuck with it.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14395
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by retired jerry » January 9th, 2017, 1:30 pm

You haven't kept up with this thread :)

States with a total of 1/4 of electoral votes have agreed to vote their electoral votes based on national popular vote, contingent on states with more than 1/2 of electoral votes agreeing

We're half way there

No need for constitutional amendment

This isn't specified by the constitution, but based on state law. There are some differences, like Nebraska and Maine vote some of their votes on Representative district basis.

Oregon hasn't agreed to this but Washington and California have

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by drm » January 9th, 2017, 1:43 pm

It is sort of specified in the constitution in the sense that it specifically lets states determine how they allocate their electoral votes. They can choose to allocate them to the winner of the popular vote. States with 165 electoral votes have already signed on. Needs to get to states with 270 electoral votes, then goes into effect.
I think the electoral college (in some form) is important because the US isn't a county, it's a union of states.
I assume you meant country. The United States is not a country? I think you are confusing the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation before it. The constitution was adopted specifically because a stronger central government was needed. People forget that. But underlying all that is citizens. We are a country of citizens, and treating some of those citizens as second class citizens because they choose to live where lots of other citizens live violates our core values. Are we citizens of the United States or of Oregon? I know what my passport says.

And I'll be honest, I really don't care whether some states feel inconsequential. I've lived in four states in my lifetime and one country. My vote should not change it's value based on that. I care more how people feel. People shouldn't be treated as inconsequential and that is the tradeoff to protecting small states, something the structure of the US Senate provides plenty of.

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by Aimless » January 9th, 2017, 1:49 pm

Answering Jerry: I think that, if I were to look at the roster of states who have agreed to this 'solution', it probably would not include any of the twenty-five lowest population states, except possibly Vermont or Delaware. Nor would it include any of the thirty-seven or so states where Republicans control both the legislature and governor's office. The Republicans have greatly benefitted from electing presidents with a minority of the popular vote and would see no gain in trying to subvert a system that gains them so much power. I could be wrong on the exact numbers and locations, but if so, I'm pretty sure I'm in the near neighborhood of being right.

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3333
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by Guy » January 9th, 2017, 1:54 pm

drm wrote:
I assume you meant country.
Yes I did, Thanks.

I guess I'm lucky enough to hold 2 passports, one says "The United States of America" (50 states) & the other says "Great Britain & Northern Ireland" (4 Countries)
Retired Jerry wrote: States with a total of 1/4 of electoral votes have agreed to vote their electoral votes based on national popular vote, contingent on states with more than 1/2 of electoral votes agreeing

We're half way there
"If" we ever get there, it's going to be a brave state indeed that chooses to vote against the will of it's own people to honor this compact! Might just get cold feet at the last minute.
Last edited by Guy on January 9th, 2017, 2:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by drm » January 9th, 2017, 2:00 pm

Aimless wrote:Answering Jerry: I think that, if I were to look at the roster of states who have agreed to this 'solution', it probably would not include any of the twenty-five lowest population states, except possibly Vermont or Delaware. Nor would it include any of the thirty-seven or so states where Republicans control both the legislature and governor's office. The Republicans have greatly benefitted from electing presidents with a minority of the popular vote and would see no gain in trying to subvert a system that gains them so much power. I could be wrong on the exact numbers and locations, but if so, I'm pretty sure I'm in the near neighborhood of being right.
Hawaii, Vermont, and Rhode Island have signed on. You are right that no Republican-controlled states have signed on, but the Arizona House approved 40-16 last year, as did the Oklahoma Senate, and my Republican state rep is a co-sponsor of past bills signing on here in Oregon. Polls quite clearly show bipartisan support among people, who think more about fairness than state advantages. We like to point out that Trump claims he would have won the popular vote if that is what his campaign had been based on - I'm happy to let him and his supporters think so, and we really can't know how the vote would turnout if candidates campaigned for it. There are valid reasons to expect that the popular vote would have been at least closer had they campaigned for that.

The question is whether this recent election will undermine existing Republican support for NPV and only time will tell. But we might get close enough that some state initiatives in places like Florida and Michigan, where Republican legislatures might balk, might get it over the top. But that lets the people decide, as individuals, as citizens - after all, we are a country of people. Maybe Florida will do so just in order to share some of those wonderful campaign TV ads with the rest of us.

Btw, there are studies that show that swing states get more Federal pork spending from Senators anxious to able to brag about that when they run.

Post Reply