Is it time to eliminate states? Is it time to eliminate the Senate?

[Screech]

Originally Posted by werepossum

For one thing, we'd have a Europe dominated by either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, or possibly split between the two. I suspect that we'd have seen a situation analogous to England and Ireland, with one nation at best neutral if not actively helping the Nazis. Which nation would be up for grabs; the North had most of the ethnic Germans and Italians, but the Nazi ethic of Teutonic racial superiority would be more in line with the Confederacy's policy of white racial superiority. Even had both been recruitable to the allied cause, neither could have fully committed to the war; each would have needed to keep resources and troops available to counter the other.

As a general rule, if one maintains that absolutely nothing good would have resulted from the South winning its struggle for secession, one will never be far from right.

"What if the south had won" is a question I've always found interesting. I find the following a particularly interesting take:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory_Series

The long story short is that the USA ends up allied along the german side and the CSA with the entente/"normal" "allies".

On the original topic: uh, no.

[Pr0d1gy]

Originally Posted by jhu

I had to do a double take because I thought it was werepossum thread but reads like an Anarchist420 thread.

Is there really any difference? I can't tell where one brainwashed Republican's foot ends and another's mouth begins anymore.

[NTMBK]

Full disclosure: I'm British, and our political system is way more screwed than yours

What you really need to do is two things:

-abolish the electoral college
-create new states

A direct election of the President, instead of the shambles that is the EC system, would mean that presidential candidates would need to appeal to the WHOLE country instead of a few key battleground states. If it actually mattered that a Republican candidate could still get 40% of the vote in a "safe" Dem state (like say California), they would be more inclined to moderate their more extreme positions. At the moment the vote of a Texan Democrat, or a Hawaiian Republican, are totally worthless. Give every voter equal say in their president.

As for the Senate, it's become so unrepresentative that it's unreal. California, population 37 and a half million, has two Senators. Wyoming, population half a million, has two Senators. Why do people from Wyoming deserve seventy-times more representation in the Senate than Californians? Either combine the less populous states (results in less bureacratic overhead) or split up the more populous ones (which avoids people railing against loss of state identity). Senators would still fulfil a different role from congress- longer, staggered terms to encourage greater stability compared to congress.

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Zorkorist

Everyone hated George Bush. Republicans and Democrats. For the Republicans, he was a lessor evil, for the Democrats he was just plain evil.

But, the fact is people like Obama, are just advancing the Federal Government's stranglehold on the population. Spending like there is no tomorrow, and taxing.

It's not like Government services are some panacea... everyone complains about Government services.

Everyone except, the people that make their money off the Government tit. Lawyers, Insurance Companies, and now with ACA, Doctors, Nurses, and all the folks in the healthcare industry. The newest Government employees.

Party Members.

-John

Yes proud independent companies like Lockheed, Cisco, Microsoft, Boeing, Ford, Dell etc etc etc who have no dependence on Governments anywhere.

"Nobody goes there anymore, its too crowded"