Just a reminder.

Hi Ben,

I believe you are only taking it as far as the inauguration. You have to think about what would happen once the President is sworn in. Ultimately, someone goes back to collect on all those campaign promises.

In part we have to recognize the reality of state sovergnty and understand that it is in our interest to align the mandate to the state with the mandate given by that state to the office of President. The governor may belong to a different party due to a number of different local issues, but when it comes to the key concerns raised during the presidential election the population has given a clear and simultaneous mandate to both governments.

Doing it on the basis of a popular vote, can get you a president with good public support and virtually zero political support. That could weaken the office considerably. At least the way we have it now the president knows that he can count on the support of the key governors. That is probably the key power behind the executive office. It is not the raw support that counts but the ability to ralley and organize that support.

n2s
 
Thanks N2S - yes I was only thinking about the election part, not the post-election part.

Interesting stuff - I think I understand the main issues at play now.

Don't think I have anything more of use to say for my part, most of this being a bit beyond my ken.

cheers again,
--Ben
 
You stay up late, Beoram! I gotta go to bed already!

I think with your Rhode Island analogy we are pretty much saying the same thing here, i.e. giving the little guy a bit more of a say in things than he might otherwise have. Maybe a even a minor attempt at a decentralization of power from DC and the major cities back out to the hinterlands.

States' rights has been a contentious issue in the US in the past, and still is for some of us right-wing crazies out here in the heat...:o

In any case, I really am going to bed now--catching the first flight out of Phoenix in just a few hours.

-Dave

Man, it has got to be later than hell where you are right now...or did you actually just get up in the morning? :eek:
 
Originally posted by Dave K
I think with your Rhode Island analogy we are pretty much saying the same thing here, i.e. giving the little guy a bit more of a say in things than he might otherwise have. Maybe a even a minor attempt at a decentralization of power from DC and the major cities back out to the hinterlands.
Click to expand...

I think most of us are agreeing that the 'little guy' should have more of a say - it's just figuring out how that works best (not that anyone is going to listen to any of us, so it's pureely academic). I always feel ambivalent about decentralisation. On the one hand, I think government always falls apart the larger one tries to make it, i.e. government is best on the local level (in theory, in practice local government doesn't seem very good to me). I was talking to Yvsa about this - I actually like the 'tribal' model, which seems to be common both to Germanic tribes and Amerindian (ndn) tribes, which works on the basis of small groups or bands of people, responsible to a lord or a chief (who is equally responsible for them, as he [or she] can be removed), with loose federation of nearby tribes. I don't know how this works in 'modern society' (my suspicion is that 'modern society' simply doesn't work very well). On the other hand, I think there are important socialist measures which civilised countries should take when they are fiscally feasible - the ones I'm concerned with are (1) universal health care and (2) universal education [including uni., college, tech./trade school, &c.].


Man, it has got to be later than hell where you are right now...or did you actually just get up in the morning? :eek:
Click to expand...

I'm on east coast time [GMT -5.00], so it is late. My insomnia again, and I'm waiting for some domain name registration stuff from Denmark too.

cheers,
--Ben
 
Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said the best government is no government. And I think JFK said in a group of top governmental officials, "there hasn't been so much talent in this room since Thomas Jefferson sat here."

My kind of folks.
 
Originally posted by Bill Martino
Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said the best government is no government. And I think JFK said in a group of top governmental officials, "there hasn't been so much talent in this room since Thomas Jefferson sat here."

My kind of folks.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, in connexion with the 'no government is the best government' quote - Jefferson was actually a scholar of Anglo-Saxon [Old English] and was reasonably well-versed in Anglo-Saxon history and law (his uni., the Uni. of Virginia, still has a strong Anglo-Saxon studies force). The relevance is this is that I'm thinking back to the Germanic tribal forms of government - I wonder if there's a connexion? Yvsa was also telling me that the founding fathers of the USA were interested in the workings of the loose federatino of the Iroquios nation (another tribal organisation)...

it's late, so I'm sure I'm not being clear - but perhaps someone can see my general idea..

--B.
 
I don't know enought to comment, Beo, but I do know that Thomas Jefferson is high on my hero list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top