(Uh...that's a NEWSPAPER for you red-staters; the newspaper OF RECORD), "Race to Alaska Before it Melts!"
Alaska's glaciers ARE MELTING! If you want to see them, GO NOW! But your children and grandchildren will never have the chance!!
STOP GLOBAL WARMING NOW!!!
It probably escapes you that most of us have had opinions about this stock for years. Apparently you weren't around, didn't read them, of if you did read them, didn't understand them. FNF, after all, is a long term play, and most of us don't feel obligated to repetitively state the same things over and over agin just to keep the latest poster up-to-date.
And, of course, if you want to hang around on this board, you need to put your thinking cap on as some pretty bright and well rounded people play in this leaque.
Can you please provide the link to the politics board? If so, then I am sure that your foot stomping tirade will cause all of us to shudder and run away in fear of another verbal thrashing from you.
I couldn't agree more. Yet, I wish that we had some means of galvanizing public opinion to clearly understand the drift into centralization, and the dangers it represents. The Founders understood it all too clearly. So much of the public, drifting ever deeper into entitlement and avoidance of risk, seems entirely disconnected from their thinking these days. Perhaps refresher courses in the writings of men such as Madison and Jefferson is in order.
"Why don't they just go to a house of representatives and forget their senate?"
NE has been a unicameral state and it has worked just fine for them. But that state is more homogeneous than most.
In other states with more diverse economies than NE, the upper houses used to act as a check and balance of rural vs metropolitan interests similar to the intent of the national system. I readily admit that with so much centralization of power in DC and so many unfunded mandates, today they more resemble the male breast or the human appendix in function. Holdovers from the past.
As the guy said, we have the worst form of government, except for every other form. But proof positive is that given the chance, at least half the world would migrate here.
I understand your point.
And we actually have no disagreement. This type of change is far too radical to transpire now, but will most likely evolve in another 50 to 100 years or so. At that point, the regional differences you talk about, which have already degraded substantially in the last 30 years, will be essentially non-existent
But tell me, since all current state senates are aligned proportionately, why do states have such senates if they don't work?
Why don't they just go to a house of representatives and forget their senate?
Similarly, one should not suppose that people in a different system would not have representation - which would not, of course, be the case. They would, it's just that we would find a better formula to balance that representation, and we would redefine areas of influence within the country to reflect changing realities.
In the real world, after all, people who have the gold make the rules, and the feds tax and spend $4.50 for each $1 tax and spent by the states.
At this juncture in our history, the federal government dominates almost every historically relevant component of what was once the exclusive right of states. State agency's - administratively, now are directly aligned with the federal government. And they have no choice, because federal "revenue sharing" now accounts for over $4 out of each $10 spent by a given state - and if they try to bypass Washingtons' administrative rules, the feds simply with-hold the money. As such, most state agency's and legislatures now write legislation based upon what the federal agency requirements are - in order to get the money. And then you have the non-revenue sharing items. Federal health care dictates most of the operations of the hospitals and clinics, Agriculture controls much of what farmers everywhere can plant, the price they'll get for their crops, and equally pays for what they do not plant. States are simply shells of what they once were. They have, as such, become federal administrative districts, but still bear the names they once had.
Do I like this?
Not at all. But I also know that reality supercedes what I would prefer.
Ironic, isn't it? We sit around and argue battles that were long ago lost, and, having lost the substance, hold onto the form.
As I said earlier, we don't even need a second level of government if it's based on just another proration of general population, by imperfect larger gerrymandered districts. We've got one of those already.
I don't think the interests of areas so vast as your example would represent anyone very well. Oregon is very different from CA; Maine from DE, ad infinitum, even though they are roughly in the same parts of the country.
Just as the "one worlders" are off track because their idea of government imperfectly represents local issues, I think there's still a place for what is essentially a states' rights vehicle in the Congress. Ditto, the electoral college. I suppose we may have to agree to disagree on that.
The reason for the two recent EU rejections may well have been a late recognition by 2 nations of the same concerns. i.e too many laws made by too many people from other states and not enough local power to control.
IMHO, as imperfect as our system is, the present setup of Congress is definitely aligned with with the second part of: majority rule but minority rights.
The observation deals with the fact that the states exist on paper, but not in fact. Because of that, the system we created no longer applies to what we have today. And no, many areas we now call states would not have a Senator. Nor should they. Rather, they should be grouped together into larger population areas which would then have a Senator.
Conversely, these huge, over-sized regions, such as NY or California, should be broken up into smaller regions. If you take your analogy out a little, you'd realize that the reason Hillary and Shumer are your Senators, is that the city over-whelms the upstate vote. What we now call NY would have six senators, not two, and people like Hillary and Shumer would have their power substantially reduced - not expanded. In turn, you'd actually have a couple of Republican Senators from this area. California would be the same way. Rather than two Senators representing 33 million, you'd have 11. However, if you look at the vote, 4 or 5, representing areas such as San Diego and Orange county, the Imperial Valley, etc, would be Republican.
The Senate, in turn, would operate just like they currently do in States. Bigger districts, broader interests, longer terms. A senator with 3 million people would take a different view from a representative with 600,000.
And the fact is that you are discriminated against because of this system. You have no representation in these large population zones in the Senate for people of differing views, and federal tax dollars don't remotedly flow proportionately, due to the fact that population centers subsidize areas of low population because of the Senate. In fact, the larger you let these Senatorial districts become, the greater the disparity.
As far as NYC or LA governing, that's not the case today in the house of representatives, nor with the President. After all, if you look at the votes in this country these days, you find that it's not related to states, as much as to specific voter blocs. Suburban, rural, etc would still vote Republican.
The problem is that we've allowed these Senatorial areas to become far too large in some areas - and they need to be broken up, not expanded further. As a result, government is getting increasingly remote. The whole system, in sum, needs to be reworked to confront the reality of what we are - not what we were 200 years ago.
After all,in the beginning, we had 26 senators representing a total of 3 million people. The average was about 110,000.