It's about voting, and the voting system.

Right now, you go vote for one person for each position available. This is problematic, because you end up "throwing away your vote" in favor of the "lesser of evils". Say there's a libertarian or progressive party dude you like on the ticket for whatever but the two major parties will get the most votes as usual. If you cast your vote for the "alternative" candidate, it's a vote taken away from the 'lesser of two evils' in the two major parties. This could lead to the "greater of two evils" winning, and you can't risk it, so perhaps you cast your vote where you might not otherwise prefer to do so.

IMO, that is a huge frickin problem.

The resolution is to rank/order the candidates deemed qualified.

I think it solves a LOT of problems, and allows the potential for a third or who knows how many parties to have a real chance in elections.

Sciam did a study on this in the last few years, and it was obvious from the article that this is the better way.

I really, really think this should be seriously considered, but believe the existing fucks would resist it to their last breath.

Comments?

EDIT:

I found relevant articles posted below, but thought I'd ammend the OP with them as they are highly relevant:

I found a link to the article, but only a snippet is visible, then they want money.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...90A83414B7F0123

"the fairest vote of all"

and here is a paper by one of the authors that can actually be read, though it looks boring as hell:

http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/d...a%20voting% 22

I see, there are points/candidate. If there are 3 candidates, top choice gets 3, second gets 2, last gets 1. Pretty simple.

Aren't you forgetting about all the shit that leads up to the voting process? I mean, in many elections, there are many people stumping for votes, but in the end, they have to drop out because no one votes for them ....no one gives a shit enough to even see them on the election ballot.

No, Wes, you've completely ignored the PRE-election processes. Take some time and study it thoroughly, then come back with your suggestions and comments.

Baron Max

Voting for a third-party candidate is not a wasted vote. Both Conferences of the Republocrat League pay very close attention to the growing strength of potential competitors for their power and make whatever concessions are necessary to keep them out of the mainstream.

In the 1920s the American Communist Party wasn't close to making an impact on national or state elections. But they had won a few seats on city councils and were being taken seriously by the press. The Demoblicans don't really care about the economy, wars, health care, education, or the people. All they care about is hanging onto their cozy little duopoly of power that changes hands regularly in a gentleman's agreement. So they took notice and began co-opting the Communists' positions. By the mid-1950s both major parties had completely adopted the 1929 Communist Party platform. It was Eisenhower, a Republican, who established the friggin' Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the golden spike in America's glorious new Socialist Nanny State Worker's Paradise.

The Green Party is now on the same track. It has no big national profile, but it's making inroads in local elections, particularly in the West. The city council of Arcata, California, the intellectual, cultural and political center of the water-rich northwestern region of the state with all those electoral votes, has a Green Party majority. The major parties are starting to take grudging notice of the environmental movement.

If enough people would vote for the Libertarians, who knows. The Democrats and Republicans might dig out and dust off their old copies of the Constitution and start abiding by a few of its provisions to keep us from siphoning off too many of their votes.

How would ranking work, precisely?

Let's say candidates A, B and C are running, A&B representing the two major parties and C as an independents.

10 people vote.
How would they vote for the people?
C, if not C, then B?

Why would "if not C" occur, and how?

I guess what I'm asking is, you already vote for one guy, how could you possibly vote for another one? What circumstances would lead to your vote going to your second or third choice candidates?

no you order them. you say, okay a, b and c are running, you put them in order of preference. not exactly sure how the weighting works out, but they had the math about that all worked out in the article I read. I just don't remember what it was called.

thus, if you actually prefer c, but a over b, you could say:

1) c
2) a
3) b

Oh. Weights and math.
Hrm. I'd like to see how they do it.

Since the two party system benefits the two parties that control the system, I don't see voting reform happening anytime soon.

I found a link to the article, but only a snippet is visible, then they want money.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000637A4-DDB5-101E-990A83414B7F0123

"the fairest vote of all"

and here is a paper by one of the authors that can actually be read, though it looks boring as hell:

http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/dasgupta/MajRuVot.pdf#search=%22Partha%20Dasgupta%20voting% 22

I see, there are points/candidate. If there are 3 candidates, top choice gets 3, second gets 2, last gets 1. Pretty simple.

that is nonsense. you would get an alliance between one of the two main parties and the third party, so that you would end up with 2 republican or democratic parties, just under different names. the third party would just swing the direction that gave it the most money.

think about it, this shit is already happening. some groups that would normally support republicans were giving money to Nader's campaign because they knew it would hurt Democrats more than Republicans. now imagine you implemented this system, you would switch it up, now democrats would give money to Nader because people would rank Nader-Dem-Rep, and the green party would just become a subsidiary of the democratic party.

Aren't you forgetting about all the shit that leads up to the voting process? I mean, in many elections, there are many people stumping for votes, but in the end, they have to drop out because no one votes for them ....no one gives a shit enough to even see them on the election ballot.

No, Wes, you've completely ignored the PRE-election processes. Take some time and study it thoroughly, then come back with your suggestions and comments.

Baron Max

You're right baron, but please, I beg of you... read the section of the paper that talks about "majority rule vs. rank order voting".

that is nonsense. you would get an alliance between one of the two main parties and the third party, so that you would end up with 2 republican or democratic parties, just under different names. the third party would just swing the direction that gave it the most money.

think about it, this shit is already happening. some groups that would normally support republicans were giving money to Nader's campaign because they knew it would hurt Democrats more than Republicans. now imagine you implemented this system, you would switch it up, now democrats would give money to Nader because people would rank Nader-Dem-Rep, and the green party would just become a subsidiary of the democratic party.

I fail to see the problem with voters getting to vote for the candidates they actually want to represent them, rather than choosing the not so shitty candidate as opposed to the shittier candidate..

that is nonsense. you would get an alliance between one of the two main parties and the third party, so that you would end up with 2 republican or democratic parties, just under different names. the third party would just swing the direction that gave it the most money.

think about it, this shit is already happening. some groups that would normally support republicans were giving money to Nader's campaign because they knew it would hurt Democrats more than Republicans. now imagine you implemented this system, you would switch it up, now democrats would give money to Nader because people would rank Nader-Dem-Rep, and the green party would just become a subsidiary of the democratic party.

Dude, read the thing with an open mind and get back to this please.

I fail to see the problem with voters getting to vote for the candidates they actually want to represent them, rather than choosing the not so shitty candidate as opposed to the shittier candidate..
you don't think it would just lead to one of the major parties subsidizing the other parties so that they will pull punches and throw votes to whoever give them the most money? that seems pretty obvious to me, as it is already happening.


Dude, read the thing with an open mind and get back to this please
the evidence of this method's validity has already been tested. the green party can pull votes away from democrats, so republicans funnel money to them. with this new method, it would just be giving votes instead of taking them away. however, it would be a much more widespread problem because more people would be inclined to vote for the other parties because they could always fall back to the lesser of two evils.

I hate to be a pessimist, but I see no reason to believe politicians would not buy/sell votes to/from each other.

why don't we just give people the right to vote for legislation? give democracy back to the people. allow people to vote online, under extremely secure conditions, and have their votes count as 1 thousandth or millionth of a senator's vote (for example)

you don't think it would just lead to one of the major parties subsidizing the other parties so that they will pull punches and throw votes to whoever give them the most money? that seems pretty obvious to me, as it is already happening.

Except that this makes it so voting for a third party is actually worthwhile. Giving money to the Greens works against the Democrats because of the way the system is set up. If you change the system, now voting for the greens isn't actually throwing away your vote.

you don't think it would just lead to one of the major parties subsidizing the other parties so that they will pull punches and throw votes to whoever give them the most money? that seems pretty obvious to me, as it is already happening.


the evidence of this method's validity has already been tested. the green party can pull votes away from democrats, so republicans funnel money to them. with this new method, it would just be giving votes instead of taking them away. however, it would be a much more widespread problem because more people would be inclined to vote for the other parties because they could always fall back to the lesser of two evils.

I hate to be a pessimist, but I see no reason to believe politicians would not buy/sell votes to/from each other.

why don't we just give people the right to vote for legislation? give democracy back to the people. allow people to vote online, under extremely secure conditions, and have their votes count as 1 thousandth or millionth of a senator's vote (for example)

You hate to be yourself eh?

and no, I don't want the tyranny of the majority, thank you very much.

I think that the ranking system would convolute the efforts to hedge votes so much that it would be damned hard to buy votes at all, and perhaps not possible. You aren't even seriously considering anything. You're just venting it seems.

maybe not the greens, but there will always be parties that have too small of a share of the population to take the election, but would be able to buy/sell votes nonetheless.

if you limit the number of candidates to 3, then you solve that problem, but what happens if you have right, left and middle parties and the middle shifts either way? you will get either a left or right party with supreme control because some people vote party line no matter how moderate or extreme the party is.

maybe not the greens, but there will always be parties that have too small of a share of the population to take the election, but would be able to buy/sell votes nonetheless.

if you limit the number of candidates to 3, then you solve that problem, but what happens if you have right, left and middle parties and the middle shifts either way? you will get either a left or right party with supreme control because some people vote party line no matter how moderate or extreme the party is.

The current system limits the number of candidates to two, and we already have a party with supreme control.

I still fail to see how this new method could at all make matter worse.

don't get me wrong guys, I want our system to be better, but I feel it is my duty to try my hardest to find flaws in people's theories. to not entertain the other guy's argument and just say "quit being a pessimist" is no way to solve problems.

a good debate will always allow the better idea to win. I have poked holes in your idea, now you need to convince me that votes can't be bought/sold. if you can do that, then your idea wins.

don't get me wrong guys, I want our system to be better, but I feel it is my duty to try my hardest to find flaws in people's theories. to not entertain the other guy's argument and just say "quit being a pessimist" is no way to solve problems.

a good debate will always allow the better idea to win. I have poked holes in your idea, now you need to convince me that votes can't be bought/sold. if you can do that, then your idea wins.

How are votes being bought or sold?
Who's selling their votes?
If a majority ranks Green-Democrats, then the Greens will be in power, regardless of who funded them.

ok, lets run a little gandanken here:

lets say its a month before election day, democrats, republicans, and a third party each have 25% of the vote, leaving 25% to be split up among 10 smaller parties. each smaller party has 2.5%, and thus no chance to win outright, but can still effect the election if they bash/support one of the main parties.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^perfectly possible right?

this is what I see happening:

a smaller party (party X) can just take bids from the 3 main parties, and the one who pledges to give the most in campaign contributions will get the support of party X, and the others receive attack adds from party X. therefore, whichever main party gives the most money to the little X party can get an advantage by being #2 on the list of party X's voters.

do you guys not see this as a problem?

ok, lets run a little gandanken here:

lets say its a month before election day, democrats, republicans, and a third party each have 25% of the vote, leaving 25% to be split up among 10 smaller parties. each smaller party has 2.5%, and thus no chance to win outright, but can still effect the election if they bash/support one of the main parties.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^perfectly possible right?

In the rank-order system, no I don't think so. I don't think that's remotely the way you frame it. It's not such a clear cut thing. There is no "2.5%" in the way you seem to be framing it. It's "points" for one thing, and if the smaller party gets on the ballot and ranks last in all voting, they'd have (given three) 1/6 of all the points.

The thing is, they most likely won't have that.

Because most people would probably have ranks of their own.

Read the example vote she gives regarding the 2000 election.

You seem fixated on vote-buying, and further seem to fail to consider the ramifications of rank-order voting.

this is what I see happening:

a smaller party (party X) can just take bids from the 3 main parties, and the one who pledges to give the most in campaign contributions will get the support of party X, and the others receive attack adds from party X. therefore, whichever main party gives the most money to the little X party can get an advantage by being #2 on the list of party X's voters.

do you guys not see this as a problem?

No. That's because if 50% of voters split on the #1 ranked person, but ranked the other guy 2nd every time, the guy ranked second every time wins the election.

How are votes being bought or sold?
Who's selling their votes?
If a majority ranks Green-Democrats, then the Greens will be in power, regardless of who funded them.

Not necessarily true.

If the 51% voted green dems, but everyone voted someone else rank 2, the green dems lose.

*sigh*
I know my model is improbable, but it was just an assumed state of voter interest so that I could prove my point. let me tweak it so that you don't complain:

ok, lets run a little gedanken here:

lets say its a month before election day, democrats, republicans, and a third party each have 25% of the POINTS, ACCORDING TO SURVEYS, leaving 25% to be split up among SOME NUMBER of smaller parties. each smaller party has A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE POINTS, and thus no chance to win outright, but can still effect the election if they bash/support one of the main parties.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^perfectly possible right?

this is what I see happening:

a smaller party (party X) can just take bids from the 3 main parties, and the one who pledges to give the most in campaign contributions will get the support of party X, and the others receive attack adds from party X. therefore, whichever main party gives the most money to the little X party can get an advantage by being #2 on the list of party X's voters.

Hmm, so if I'm to understand this ...they want to make the whole election process even more complex than it is now?! And with so few Americans actually understanding it as it is, they want to make it even worse? Hmmm, we have a damned tough time voting between two parties, can you imagine the chaos if......???

Baron Max

Hmm, so if I'm to understand this ...they want to make the whole election process even more complex than it is now?! And with so few Americans actually understanding it as it is, they want to make it even worse? Hmmm, we have a damned tough time voting between two parties, can you imagine the chaos if......???

Baron Max

Yeah man.

Choosing an order rather than choosing between people. That's freakin complicated.

*sigh*
I know my model is improbable, but it was just an assumed state of voter interest so that I could prove my point. let me tweak it so that you don't complain:

ok, lets run a little gedanken here:

lets say its a month before election day, democrats, republicans, and a third party each have 25% of the POINTS, ACCORDING TO SURVEYS, leaving 25% to be split up among SOME NUMBER of smaller parties. each smaller party has A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE POINTS, and thus no chance to win outright, but can still effect the election if they bash/support one of the main parties.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^perfectly possible right?

this is what I see happening:

a smaller party (party X) can just take bids from the 3 main parties, and the one who pledges to give the most in campaign contributions will get the support of party X, and the others receive attack adds from party X. therefore, whichever main party gives the most money to the little X party can get an advantage by being #2 on the list of party X's voters.

Read the study.

Corruption is possible in any scenario.

The thing is, regardless of who is corrupt, rank-order voting reflects what people want much more clearly than majority rule.

corruption in the current system is checked by the fact that there are two parties, and neither will give votes to the other. the system you propose has all of the same possibilities for corruption with an added ability to buy votes.

just imagine an extremely close presidential race, do you have any idea what campaigns would pay to have the support of the 10% points holder? it would be incredible.

there is also the added possibility for mass unrest when the 3rd place candidate wins because his name was alphabetically first and people didn't care who got the #2 spot but gave them points anyway. I think that is a huge problem. people hardly know what the number 1 and 2 parties stand for, if you have a 4 way race, people are just going to pick the 1 or maybe 2 they like, and just pick the last ones wily-nilly.

the whole idea requires and more educated and active public than there already is, and I don't think that will happen.

corruption in the current system is checked by the fact that there are two parties, and neither will give votes to the other.

Is it checked?

Wesmorris

I see your concern and the idea seems to produce a more realistic reproduction of the voting behaviour of the people. Or should I say that the voting behaviour is probably less dominated by the pitfalls of the voting system as is currently in place in the USA.

That said, I think you are quite right when you say that the existing fucks will have none of it.

the whole idea requires and more educated and active public than there already is, and I don't think that will happen.

Yeah, I wonder if Wes has thought of that issue ....with so few people voting, and with such lack of knowledge of national and world politics, what will be the affects on his "brave, new voting"?

Seriously, however ....do y'all really and truly think that "the people" know enough to actually have a say in national and world politics??? I mean, ain't that a bit scary to y'all??? Ain't it something like having the elementary kids in schools vote on how their schools are operated??

Baron Max

Can things get any worse dear Baron?

Is it checked?
perhaps not overall, but the vote buying is not as bad.

I think one major step that could be taken is to make candidates sign a sort of letter of intent, where there are some specific questions on which they must give a straight answer. like "given the ability to make gay marriage legal or illegal, which way would you vote" and breaking that contract would be an impeachable offense unless 2/3 of congress gave them permission. so when bush said "I will not support nation building" he could be impeached for his lie.

why don't we hold their feet to the fire?

why don't we hold their feet to the fire?

Because each and every person/citizen has his/her own agenda ....and no one on Earth could live up to those requirements.

People, humans, simply can't be permitted too much freedom ...they don't know how to control themselves or how to tolerate or to interact with others without demanding their own agendas. I.e., humans need to be lead around by the nose, or things really get all fucked up ...as it is now in many parts of the world that claim "freedoms" for its people.

Baron Max

Can things get any worse dear Baron?

Yes, people could be given or permitted more freedoms ...that would make it much worse!!

Baron Max

How about actually having two parties?

How about actually having two parties?

As a matter of fact, why do we have "parties" at all? Why don't we just select the right people for the job, without any concern for "party"? Do people actually vote for the "party", even if he's he worse man for the job? Naw, that can't be ...people really ain't that fuckin' stupid ......are they???

Baron Max

heh, yes they are that stupid, and the party structure is so they can pool resources. otherwise only super rich could run... like Ros Perot. (sp?)

wesmorris,

A few years ago, I posted what I thought would be a better election system. Here's a part of my post:

"Let's say your going to the polls to vote for the president of your country. There are twenty candidates running for office. Instead of voting for the candidate that you want, you would place the number 1 next to that candidate. You would then place a number 2 next to the candidate you would want, if choice 1 didn't win. You would continue numbering all the candidates, from one to twenty, until they are all numbered.

When the polls are closed this is how the votes would be counted:

All the "first choice" votes would be counted. All other numbers from 2 to 20 would be ignored. If after the "first choice" votes are counted, a candidate has the majority of the votes, he/she shall become president. If no candidate has the majority vote, then the candidate with the least amount of votes will be eliminated from the election. Everyone who placed the "eliminated candidate" as "first choice", will have their first choice eliminated and their "second choice" would then become their "first choice". All the "first choice" votes would be counted again. If a candidate has a majority, he/she shall be president. If no one gets the majority, another candidate would be eliminated and the votes would get shifted again. This whole process would repeat itself until a candidate gets the majority vote."

from : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6170

Note: That's back when my nick was Joeblow93132.

Seems to me that rank-order is a bit more efficient than that, in that you don't have to vote so many times.

Anyway,

I do think this is "an answer to america's two party BS". That of course, assume you think the two party system is BS - which is another discussion entirely.

wesmorris,

Seems to me that rank-order is a bit more efficient than that, in that you don't have to vote so many times.

You misunderstood the system I was suggesting. The person would only vote once, but instead of selecting a single candidate they would select numerous candidates in the order that they desire. It would be like having several run-off elections with only one vote.

Here's a radical idea, but I'll propose it since I hate party politics. Prohibit national political parties. All national political parties. Hooray! Now we have an aristocracy again.

Seriously though, I have some pretty extensive reforms that I'd make to the Federal Government if I could get my hands on the Constitution... I wouldn't even say calling them "reforms" does it justice. Think more of a complete restructuring of the Federal Government.

How about actually having two parties?

Exactly. The better even to have 4-5 real parties, let's say:

- Rich people's party : Republicrats
- Farmer's party
- Labor party
- Liberals
- Religious bullshit party (why not?)
- Greens
-etc.etc.

There is nothing wrong if a few of these make alliances with each other for power. After all that's how it works in real democracies.

Let's throw in a political IQ question:

What is the minimum % in the American presidential election system with what a candidate still can win the presidency???

Let's throw in a political IQ question:

What is the minimum % in the American presidential election system with what a candidate still can win the presidency???

I feel like I'm really missing something here — nonetheless, I'll answer anyway.

Assuming you're talking about a percentage of the popular vote (you don't specify a percentage of anything), I say zero percent, because electors are not obligated to cast their votes according to who wins the plurality of votes in their respective state. I believe this is how George Washington was elected each of his two runs for president.

Right now, you go vote for one person for each position available.
...
IMO, that is a huge frickin problem.
I think it's one of the biggest problems the country faces. Unfortunately only a scant portion of the population realizes how much this problem negatively affects them.

The resolution is to rank/order the candidates deemed qualified.
Agreed. I think the average standard of living would eventually be significantly improved if this resolution became reality nationwide.

I really, really think this should be seriously considered, but believe the existing fucks would resist it to their last breath.
Agreed. What ultimately leads to the downfall of the country will likely be this. I think the founding fathers made a mistake by not anticipating this problem. They created a system that has a fatal, practically irreversible flaw. (They still get kudos though for doing so much right.) If ever a democracy again rises from the ashes of the US, let's hope the people remember their history and fix this problem.

Althelwulf
I feel like I'm really missing something here — nonetheless, I'll answer anyway.

Assuming you're talking about a percentage of the popular vote (you don't specify a percentage of anything), I say zero percent, because electors are not obligated to cast their votes according to who wins the plurality of votes in their respective state. I believe this is how George Washington was elected each of his two runs for president.

There is no such thing as true democracy, the same way there is no such thing as pure water in nature(can only be found in labs), democracy is something more like aristocratic dictatorship. Lately John Kerry is in trouble over his speech. I think the poor guy really directed it at the president. But everybody wants an apology. If soldiers really had feelings, what are they doing killing other people in the first place. Strangely Hipocritical. Just wanted to put an input on this thread

Lately John Kerry is in trouble over his speech. I think the poor guy really directed it at the president.

Don't matter what you think, it's what he said! And he should be in trouble for it. Fuck Kerry!!

If soldiers really had feelings, what are they doing killing other people in the first place.

Different feelings, you idiot!

Baron Max

Fuck Kerry!!
But it's a-okay to kill toddlers in Iraq for profit, huh?

But it's a-okay to kill toddlers in Iraq for profit, huh?

Must be .....the Muslim terrrorist seem to be doing it every fuckin' day!

They've also done it in Russia and in the Phillippines and in Israel and in Pakistan, too. So, yeah, it must be okay, huh?

Baron Max

Must be .....the Muslim terrrorist seem to be doing it every fuckin' day!

They've also done it in Russia and in the Phillippines and in Israel and in Pakistan, too. So, yeah, it must be okay, huh?

Baron Max

I'd like to say somehting. Maybe add Sudan to that list.

Must be .....the Muslim terrrorist seem to be doing it every fuckin' day!
Sure, some US soldiers are Muslims.

"If soldiers really had feelings, what are they doing killing other people in the first place."

Oh I don't know... could be uh... trying not to die? Perhaps defending people that might be about to die?

Crazy talk, I know.

Oh, and irrelevant to the thread.

You know that reply still doesn't change anything. Besides who are the people about to die? Is it the 300,000 people that saddam allegedly murdered with no real proof? or is it the Americans who have experienced relative peace than many war torn countries for the last 50 years. Some people think that the retaliation American troops face in Iraq are actual terrorists..Try not to be fuckin stupid(not you)...there is no way you will march into another man's country and not expect some retaliation. Besides, a dictator is the least of America's problems, millions of people are suffering and dying in Dafur, Burma, Ethiopia, just to name a few. You can never completely stop the carnage all over the world, you can do it at your own will and choosing but you can never stop it, just like its impossible to stop the war on terror. More American troops have died than the number of people that did not survive 911, that in many courts is indirect murder(there is a legal word for it but I can't remember). Besides are you going to tell me that if Bush tells the troops to throw themselves into fire they will obey? Soldiers are nothing but tools.

Your statement was refuted and instead of owning up to it or demonstrating falseness, you meander along on a mislead, angst-ridden rant. I see little point in indulging you.

It would be nice if you'd actually contemplate the subject of the thread and comment on it.

Don't you think a lot of people have better things to do than deliberate over an apology? Besides you never refuted any notion, your motion was to bring a new idea to the table but you failed to see that it still did not change the fact that the people who supposedly have feelings are also killing other people in what is probably an unreasoble unecessary war. Maybe its because America has never experieced any real war, a lot of people think war is a game or some sort of joke. Maybe you'd care about the feelings of a person that detonates a bomb on your sister's face, tearing it to pieces, blood everywhere, her brains on the kitchen floor, thats a nightmare to me. We sent this people to Iraq, a place thats probably little less of an ambush, most of them 17-20 years old, only for us to now start crying crocodile tears. Just what we need, softening our already war fatigued troops with all these concerns. Soldiers are not the only low I.Q school drop- outs; Successful musicians, Restaurant owners, and Sport athlets are often in the same bracket. Shouldn't we be apologizing for them too? Besides, many high ranked military officials are very successful.

You want to fix elections and have them mean something? Simple: Take 80% of the Federal Taxes and give them back to the States. The remaining 20% can go to the Military and all the lesser needs of government. With that enormous amount of income each local and state election will be important and people will actually care. No more pork barrel politics. My Cali dollars are not going to some stupid park in New York. 3rd and 4th Parties will become extremely important since the Federal Level Congressional current 2 Party Crap will become worthless since they no longer control all the money.
States Rights. Just how it was meant to be.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05db06co.xls

Look at California's payout to the IRS in 2005: $265,783,657,000
California's State Budget in 2005: Aprox $90 Billion

Take our 80% of $265.7 Billion....$212.56 Billion...
Which Gives California a 2005 Budget of $292.56 BILLION. A slight increase to say the least. Thats $212 BILLION in additional funding that we the PEOPLE of California get to decide what to spend on because its OUR MONEY.

States rights...its the only way it will work.

Just thought I would add that while the thought of California voters having control of that much money is extremely Scary (maybe we would buy Mexico...), its just as frightfull as some retard like Kerry or Hillary becoming president.

, we have a damned tough time voting between two parties, can you imagine the chaos if......???


Maybe because there is no real difference between them. But according to your logic, the best way would be to have a dictator or king, thus ALL the voting process could be eliminated, because chosing is such a hard work...

All those European countries with (for God's sake!!) 4-8 parties, voters must be using an 8 ball to decide whom to vote for... :)