or since a state is in your backyard, change the way things are running. it's much more viable.
That too. The stupid interstate commerce clause fucking ruins everything.or since a state is in your backyard, change the way things are running. it's much more viable.
Well, if the Repubs didn't block anything and everything that even might potentially be suggested by a Dem...i think legalized marijuana and gay marriage are both perfect examples of why states should be in charge and not the fed. a few sates made the change, now more and more are... meanwhile the fed is goddamn locked up, good luck getting anything done there.
unless you're wanting them to take away more of your freedoms or something.
Well, if the Repubs didn't block anything and everything that even might potentially be suggested by a Dem...
Oh I get it. My point was that it's pretty clear that we, as a nation, want weed and gays to marry. I'm pretty sure the Obama administration would be willing to give us both. I would welcome more state autonomy as well though.it's pretty clear people are different, why not let states set whats best for the majority of their own instead of forcing one law on everyone across the nation? so people in texas want different things then NY? our nation is set up to allow that... the fed gov just disagree's with that very simple idea.
Oh I get it. My point was that it's pretty clear that we, as a nation, want weed and gays to marry. I'm pretty sure the Obama administration would be willing to give us both. I would welcome more state autonomy as well though.
as long as we have a FPTP system we will be stuck with two nearly identical parties. gerrymandering is a big part of the problem but fixing that won't make the small states matter.Right now only a couple states 'matter'. The EC has nothing to do with that though. I think as more and more states outlaw gerrymandering, things should start to get better.
the states get things wrong a lot more often than they get them righta weak fed and strong state government would fix most of these problems.
fed simply has too much power over our lives, and they're to far removed for any of us to control it. most decisions should be state by state.
then all states would matter, at least to themselves.
You could say that about any level of government. At the end of the day, if people don't like how the state is running - move.
I hope you realize that gay marriage is getting traction primarily from FEDERAL judges overruling state laws and in some cases the very constitutions of those statesyou're right, the nation does want it, but if you let each state decide it becomes a non issue. passing a law a fed level is like doing a project in one giant swoop, doing it at a state level is like breaking it up into 50 parts and going at it.
guess which one is more successful?
you also have to remember, the nations favor didn't turn towards legalized pot until cali had med marijuana, then other states slowly followed suit. same with gay marriage, 10 years ago it had zero support but it got few in a few states and the nations attitude has slowly changed over.
that isn't an option for some people and even if it was why take it? why should the people of one state get fucked over when there are better ways to do things
Hold on. In your example, the only way that formula can work is 'IF' the other two people exactly split the remaining 66% of the votes. Not all that likely. I don't hear you campaigning against the Electoral College too.
We have 3 main parties and the party that won the most seats each elction had the following percentages of the vote.
1974 - 39.25%
1979 - 43.87% Conservative
1983 - 42.44% Conservative
1987 - 42.23% Conservative
1991 - 41.93% Conservative
1997 - 43.21% Labour
2001 - 40.7% Labour
2005 - 35.19% Labour
2010 - 36.05% Conservative, 28,99% Labour, 23.03% Lib/Dem, 11.93% Other
The 'Other' will grow at our next election (UKIP). No-one knows at whose expense so might be closer to a 4 way tie.
Not once has the centre party been anything other than 3rd in the polls.