At 11:20 AM 1/1/01 -0600, Dan M. wrote:
>Technically, this is not true. Indeed, the U.S. Civil War is now called the
>War Between the States by most because it was not a true civil war. The
>southern states wished to succeed from the Union; they didn't want to gain
>control of the Union.
This is a bizzarre definition that I have never encountered before..... the
only people I know who call it the War Between the States are Southerners
who still lust after the glory of the Old Confederacy.
The War in Chechnya, for example, is frequently called a Civil War.
> Its true that in a
>shooting war that each party to the war tends to have a geographical base
>and there are fighting lines.
And this is my point, differences which are expressed along geogrpahical
lines are most likely to erupt in fighitng.
>Wars can also break out where ethnic minorities have a homeland within the
>country. In our country, we have ethnic minorities congregated in the big
>cities.
That is pretty broad generalization. Pretending the descendants of freed
slaves, elderly immigrants of Eastern and Southern Europe, Latinos from two
dozen countries, Asians from another dozen countries, and Blacks immigrants
form three dozen countries from across Africa and the Carribean have a
single unifying force in our cities is rather naive.
> I would argue that giving extra votes to low population states
>would tend to exasperate any tensions, not ameliorate them.
And you would argue completely in the face of all logic. Disband the
electoral college and the Senate, and a large swath of America suddenly has
little influence in our government.
>John, you continuously refer to states instead of people. I would argue that
>the question of whether the United States is vs. the United States are was
>settled rather decisively about 136 years ago.
Well, as a conservative and an econoimst, I am a true believer in the
principle of federalism. Federalism is a way of harnessing the benefits
of free markets in public governance, and thus, I believe that federalism
should be promoted wherever possible.
>The question I'm raising is
>whether giving voters in low population states more votes for president is
>fair and good for the country. It is a fact that a voter in Montana has the
>equivalent of 5 votes for president compared to 1 vote for a Texan. Is this
>right?
Actually, there is a deeper question - should we have direct election of
the Executive, or election of the Executive by a representative constituent
assmebly. The vast majority of people, both here and in Europe, seem to
have no problem with disproportionate geographic weighting in constituent
assemblies, where federalism is necessary. I personally don't mind the
balance we have struck by giving the popular vote a particularly large
degree of influence in the constituent assembly of the Electoral College.
As I have argued previously, I actually advocate a stronger electoral
college, as a means of campaign finance reform.
>We can see the negative impact of this in how Western states are heavily
>subsidized by the Federal government, with handouts like below cost grazing
>and water, while inner cities get next to nothing.
Next to nothing? Just a wee bit of an exxageration, eh?
I would argue that there are a lot of reasons why the agricultural sector
is disproporionately coddled by governments world wide than the Electoral
College.
JDG
_______________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
