Huge visible mojo for Alex. I knew I could count on you for a well stated un-biased educational post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alex
But it doesn't work with the presidency. In the end you end up with just one president. So the idea that population trumps all is certainly reasonable. But think about how much complaint there was about Bush's perceived (and quite likely real) slights to the blue states that didn't vote for him. Will this be worse if the president is essentially elected by eight metropolitan areas (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Bay Area, Baltimore, ...). Such a president most closely beholden to the people who specifically elected him. What incentive is there to even pause for consideration when taking sides in a water rights conflict between Los Angeles and Arizona, or whether to propose energy legislation that is good for New York City but bad for the rural midwest, whether to instituted regulations that will force populous regions to subsidize the extension of telecommunications into all areas of the United States.
So, basically it comes down to the fact that I want our president to be forced to at least pause to think about issues from the national level and large regions that maybe don't support him or his party.
|
This helped me see the other side. I haven't changed my mind but I can see the other side now and I *get it*.