The one benefit of the electoral college is that it provides for better representation with lower populated states. If it was just straight winner across all states, NY and California could basically swing the entire election, and render lesser populated states irrelevant.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. The real differences (beyond the rhetoric) between the parties is negligible, outside of some hot button areas. They're owned by virtually the same special interests, and their actions belie their campaign messages. I find it interesting that spending goes up w/ Republican presidents/congress. That speaks volumes.
Well, the electoral college made sense in situations like that existing in the American Colonies in the 18th century. Roads were few, communication was poor and each widely separated community had its own special politics. The electoral college had the effect of making many dozens of small political factions disappear and not allow local issues to affect the policies of the mainstream candidates and elect a president with widespread perceived support. At the time there were several major parties--Whigs, Federalists, Republicans, Loyalists, etc.--and a broad spectrum from right to left. But now there are only two very polarized parties leaving a vacuum in the middle that is prime for the emergence of a third party, but the electoral college inhibits smaller parties from gaining any votes. I think the parlimentary system used by Europe has too many differences from ours to compare. Many of these differences contribute to their coalition-centered way of doing government. Not all of it is bad, either. I really left out a major point in the "shorten the campaign" issue. We should move all primary election to the same day. This business where the winners of New Hampshire and Iowa determine the candidates so early that the primary elections in Louisiana and many other states do not have any effect in selecting a party candidate, is bullchit. My republican favorite, McCain and my democratic favorite, Clark, were both out of the race before I got a chance to vote in our primary. This forced many people to support candidates, Bush and Kerry, in the main election that were far from their ideals.
It really doesn't, bigger states still have more electors, therefore more influence. In any case, the president isn't supposed to be elected by the states to do things in that state's best interests. The president is supposed to be elected by the people for the purpose of doing what is in the best interests of the country. Each citizens vote is equal and all should be counted, not averaged out in the electoral college. States rights are intended to maintained in the Congress, which has two branches for the very reason you mention above. In the Senate, each state is represented equally. In the House, each state is represented proportionally by population. It is important for the President too be above state politics and do what is best for the whole country, even if it costs him votes in Texas and California. Elimination of the electoral college would contribute to this improvement.
The war on drugs is a lost cause. And.....it's expensive, much to the detriment of solving larger problems. But, it's a huge industry that feeds another huge industry (prisons) and will be very difficult to dismantle. But that's not my big issue. The thing about my government that frustrates me as much as anything is the damned tax system. I have a college education and since then 31 years in an honest occupation. I didn't graduate with honors. I'm a solid 2.5 guy. But I'm not stupid (well, one of my neighbors thinks I am). I just paid a guy $600 to do my taxes because I couldn't figure them. That's wrong. One shouldn't have to be a practicing CPA or other tax expert to be able to read and reasonably interpret the tax laws, instructions, exceptions, etc. The average high school graduate should be able to do his own taxes. The system's f'ed up like a snake in a lawnmower and I wish somebody had the nads to fix it. :angry:
The thing is goldengirlfan, if taxes were easier - then it seems it would be easier for people who pay thousands of dollars to have their taxes done would get around alot of the taxes. I agree that paying $600 to have your taxes done is ridiculous, but simplifying the tax laws just doesn't seem like something that's going to happen. I think that as demand & supply both increase, new products even better than TaxPro and such will come out that will make doing taxes easier.
GGF, your personal description is hilarious... On the tax issue, I've found turbotax.com to be remarkably good at doing the taxes, even with some fairly unique income and deduction factors. All for $20!
Turbotax came along right about the time that I grew frustrated with the 1040 form and instruction book and about 20 informational booklets that were all hard to understand. Now Turbotax walks me right through the tax process, does all the math, treats me like a dumb-ass and asks me every question it needs and won't let me go past a point where I failed to answer something. Then it prints out a filled-out 1040 copy for my records and files electroncically. I've used it for ten years now. All for $39 bucks each year. I have to give it a hearty recommendation.
Thanks for the suggestions fellas. Maybe next year I'll try one of those. But today is today and I'm about to walk across the Capitol lawn to my chariot and head up the interstate cussin' the f'ing IRS. I may even stop off and pick up some cold adult beverages to make cussin' 'em more fun. And if I get to drinkin', I can cuss the gubment good.....I don't figure I'd operate that TurboDogTax thing very well with an increased hops level. :hihi:
See, now you're making me jealous! Maybe stop and take a leak at a certain facility in Austin while you're there!
