Florida called for Obama, adding 29 electoral votes to bring his total to 332

[opinterph]

So who owns Grand Canyon?

Arizona defeats ballot measure contesting Grand Canyon ownership

[Kulindahr]

Presumably the US government could buy land from Oregonians and own it with similar rights to any other private property holder.

Anyway, if we're talking about things like forests, then if they are Oregonian, I fail to see why someone from urban Portland should have less of a say than you based only on proximity. Indeed for something that might be seen as the birthright of all Oregonians, one might say you are taking advantage of it in ways not easily accessible to an urbanite. Let them have their weekends.

I agree that private property is a different matter. I like the idea that people can do what they want on their own land, with two provisos. First, whatever they do to the air or water that leaves their property is equally my business, as well as perhaps what they do to the land itself that might last beyond a natural human lifespan. Second, that people have the opportunity to establish and settle near each other with compatible land uses in mind, so that if I desire a rural life and my neighbours do as well, we can both be assured that we will mutually preserve that way of life through the use of our land. This would prevent both me and my neighbour from building a high-rise, but I feel the intrusion is warranted if it is for the betterment of our coordinated purposes. Or if I desire a forested community and my neighbours (other property owners) do as well, we can see to it that the character of our community is maintained. A purchaser would not have the full use of their property if they could not cut down all the trees on their land, but I feel property owners should be able to agree at the community level whether to allow that or not.

We have stupid laws like farmers can't build housing for their workers without an very expensive permit system, land parcels in forested areas have to be at least 160 acres in size, people along certain roads have to have trees along the right of way, certain species have to be allowed to take over fields and farmers can't remove them, pastures that flood are considered wetlands so native species have to be allowed -- which ruins the pastures, and on and on. Counties aren't allowed to improve roads unless it meets not just engineering standards, but irrational environmental and even aesthetic ones.

As for your limitations, you're really arguing for what I am: local control. But the mere existence of national forests violates that, imposing an uncompensated burden -- call it an unfunded mandate on the state.

[Kulindahr]

So who owns Grand Canyon?

Unique natural monuments are a totally different matter, though natives who have lived there for generations should be an exception.

[Rolyo85]

You're kinda getting lost in your own argument.

[Kulindahr]

You're kinda getting lost in your own argument.

Not at all.

[JB3]

False equivalency.

More people voting for their president obviously equals more electoral votes. If anything smacks of communism in this forum, this opinion is close to it. Artificially equating unequal things does justice to nobody.

Neither does allowing a state like California to write legislation governing states like Montana or South Dakota.

- - - Updated - - -

You're kinda getting lost in your own argument.

At least he has one. *badum tish*

[Rolyo85]

I'd be more worried about Texas defining the country's textbooks... Anyway, my argument is that states aren't equal and they should not be treated equally. Should some of them have total dominance over the rest? Hell no, and I'd like to think there are mechanisms to deal with that. But should we also enforce fake uniformity? Absolutely not.

[JB3]

I'd be more worried about Texas defining the country's textbooks... Anyway, my argument is that states aren't equal and they should not be treated equally. Should some of them have total dominance over the rest? Hell no, and I'd like to think there are mechanisms to deal with that. But should we also enforce fake uniformity? Absolutely not.

So you'd have us ditch the senate and succumb to mob rule then?

[GiancarloC]

So you'd have us ditch the senate and succumb to mob rule then?

And where did he say that?

[skinIsIn]

Guys, please don't forget...part of the problem is most people fail to realize is that the House of Representatives was set at an arbritary, happenstance number of 435 seats! Some time in the early 20th century (debated in the 20's; inacted in the midst of the Depression) the congressmen representing agrarian, rural districts of various states, were able to halt indefinitely the growth cycle of Congress (~30-40 years,) stifling the "influence" of the rapidly urbanization of the US. We were saddled with "re-apportionment," basically causing diminished representation, over time. In Germany, Great Britain, Canada (and many other nations) have way more parliamentarian representation per person than Americans do in Congress. To have our true voices heard, a population of 280 million needs more proportional standing within the "so called" House of Representatives

BTW: Congressional terms are too short: they should be three years with a "three strikes you're out" term limit (max. 9 years) maybe with a staggered election cycle similar to the Senate...

What are your thoughts, gentleman?

[Rolyo85]

So you'd have us ditch the senate and succumb to mob rule then?

That's a very confusing statement that I can't even see how it could possibly relate to what I said...

[evanrick]

Republicans have a long history of destroying our representative government, they limited presidential terms to two because FDR was so successful and limited the number of people in congress.

Imagine if we had a real representative democracy that accounted for the 300+ million people that live in this country and a president who could serve for more than one and one third senate terms.

[bankside]

Guys, please don't forget...part of the problem is most people fail to realize is that the House of Representatives was set at an arbritary, happenstance number of 435 seats! Some time in the early 20th century (debated in the 20's; inacted in the midst of the Depression) the congressmen representing agrarian, rural districts of various states, were able to halt indefinitely the growth cycle of Congress (~30-40 years,) stifling the "influence" of the rapidly urbanization of the US. We were saddled with "re-apportionment," basically causing diminished representation, over time. In Germany, Great Britain, Canada (and many other nations) have way more parliamentarian representation per person than Americans do in Congress. To have our true voices heard, a population of 280 million needs more proportional standing within the "so called" House of Representatives

BTW: Congressional terms are too short: they should be three years with a "three strikes you're out" term limit (max. 9 years) maybe with a staggered election cycle similar to the Senate...

What are your thoughts, gentleman?

The US is 9 times bigger than Canada. We'll have 338 Members of Parliament at the next election, compared to 435 Members of the House of Representatives in the States. Do you really want 3042 people elected to the HoR?

I like the quality of representation in Canada, but after a while, you need a limit. With thousands of representatives, it just becomes a little ridiculous, and having a "local" representative wouldn't matter because they'd just be drowned out in a sea of other politicians.

Also, our MPs are elected for 5 years with no term limits. That is definitely an improvement over your system with constant electioneering.

US elections go back to the people so frequently it seems ill-suited to the magnitude of the task we ask them to do. They need a track record to run on if our votes are going to have any meaning, and you just can't do that in 2 years.

[Kulindahr]

I'd be more worried about Texas defining the country's textbooks... Anyway, my argument is that states aren't equal and they should not be treated equally. Should some of them have total dominance over the rest? Hell no, and I'd like to think there are mechanisms to deal with that. But should we also enforce fake uniformity? Absolutely not.

Of course states are equal -- they're all states.

BTW, you're the one arguing for uniformity -- enforced by coercion of the tyranny of the majority.

[Kulindahr]

Guys, please don't forget...part of the problem is most people fail to realize is that the House of Representatives was set at an arbritary, happenstance number of 435 seats! Some time in the early 20th century (debated in the 20's; inacted in the midst of the Depression) the congressmen representing agrarian, rural districts of various states, were able to halt indefinitely the growth cycle of Congress (~30-40 years,) stifling the "influence" of the rapidly urbanization of the US. We were saddled with "re-apportionment," basically causing diminished representation, over time. In Germany, Great Britain, Canada (and many other nations) have way more parliamentarian representation per person than Americans do in Congress. To have our true voices heard, a population of 280 million needs more proportional standing within the "so called" House of Representatives

BTW: Congressional terms are too short: they should be three years with a "three strikes you're out" term limit (max. 9 years) maybe with a staggered election cycle similar to the Senate...

What are your thoughts, gentleman?

The size of the House should be doubled.

Representation should be proportional within each state delegation.

Terms are fine, just pass the "Private Sector Act" amending the Constitution to require time equal to or greater in the private sector before serving in Congress (and government-related activities don't count).

[Kulindahr]

The US is 9 times bigger than Canada. We'll have 338 Members of Parliament at the next election, compared to 435 Members of the House of Representatives in the States. Do you really want 3042 people elected to the HoR?

I like the quality of representation in Canada, but after a while, you need a limit. With thousands of representatives, it just becomes a little ridiculous, and having a "local" representative wouldn't matter because they'd just be drowned out in a sea of other politicians.

Also, our MPs are elected for 5 years with no term limits. That is definitely an improvement over your system with constant electioneering.

US elections go back to the people so frequently it seems ill-suited to the magnitude of the task we ask them to do. They need a track record to run on if our votes are going to have any meaning, and you just can't do that in 2 years.

What's ridiculous about a legislature with three thousand members? Better to have an actula local representative than, as is the case for most people now, no real representation at all.

[TX-Beau]

3000 members? Can you actually fit that many in the House chamber?

Seems to me that may be a bit much, I think that probably there is a tipping point where you actually get gridlock simply from the deafening noise of three thousand politicians.

My initial reaction is to shudder at the thought of a 3000 member House of representatives.

[rareboy]

^ It would look like the meeting of the Soviet House of representatives.

The problem with numbers so great is that quite literally, the only way to get anything done would be a dictatorship.

And God help the Us if there were suddenly 3000 politicians at the federal level being lobbied and paid off.

I'm not totally happy with the increase of the numbers of parliamentarians in the Canadian Federal government. Frankly, I don't think that it matters if one MP is representing 100,000 or 150,000 people.

[Rolyo85]

Of course states are equal -- they're all states.

BTW, you're the one arguing for uniformity -- enforced by coercion of the tyranny of the majority.

Yes, because all the big states share a similar goal.

Also, the tyranny of the majority is what any modern democracy is. The fact that gay marriage is still illegal in 32 states is the tyranny of the majority.

[TX-Beau]

We actually have the government structure we have (including the Electoral College) because our founding fathers had a (somewhat justified it turns out) fear of the "common man." and what people like OxyRush might do with them. If we went to a straight up proportional sytem, there is no guarantee that it won't be turned on us.

Personally I like the fact that there ARE checks on runaway legislation in our Gov. - and it's to be remembered that the history of Civil rights in the country is a judicial one, not a legislative one.

It may be tyranny of the majority that gay marriage is still illegal in so many places, but it wasn't tyranny of the majority that got it's constitutional ban on all gay marriage also.