the first step of this process is to convince americans there is a problem

right now people like wowbagger are loving the hope and change taking place

well
the first step really is me becoming a general in the army and getting the loyalty of my troops

which is tough to do in our armed services

at least u got goals

Originally Posted by DrMeithos

Why?

Give me one good reason why a winner-takes-all system for states is better than apportioning the votes.

Mandatory museum school for all kids before kindergarten. kids need more dinosaurs

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Give me one good reason why a winner-takes-all system for states is better than apportioning the votes.

I asked you first

Originally Posted by DrMeithos

I asked you first

Okay, how about this: I cannot think of one good reason why a winner-takes-all-system statewide would be preferable to an apportioned one. There's no good reason why every state minority, no matter how large, should count as points for the other team.

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Okay, how about this: I cannot think of one good reason why a winner-takes-all-system statewide would be preferable to an apportioned one. There's no good reason why every state minority, no matter how large, should count as points for the other team.

Because the rural population of America would be disenfranchised. Politicians would only support urban areas and completely ignore the necessarily sparsely populated rural areas which are equally important for society to function. It's the same reason we have a senate w/ 2 members from each state to off set the population based congress.

Plus, what if there is a massive snow storm in the north-east around election day and only half of the population there is able to vote? You'd have a Republican prez no problem.

imo: the electoral college should be district based w/ 3 districts per state or something.

Originally Posted by DrMeithos

Because the rural population of America would be disenfranchised.

You are one person, and you get one vote. Giving special groups of people higher say based on where they live is disenfranchisement.

Originally Posted by DrMeithos

Politicians would only support urban areas and completely ignore the necessarily sparsely populated rural areas which are equally important for society to function. It's the same reason we have a senate w/ 2 members from each state to off set the population based congress.

So explain to me why Texans have to split one EV over 700k people, while Delaware, a 75% urban state, only has to split one over 300k?

The only state line that was drawn with the demographics of the people in mind was the one between VA/WV. It's horribly inefficient way to give favor to anyone; having a relatively large number of votes per person doesn't match up with rural areas. 88% of Nevada is urban, and they get more favor than average. 86% of Rhode Island is urban, and they get more favor than average. And DC, of course, is 100% urban, and they get the most proportional favor of all.

Let me clue you in on the areas that "politicians support". This is a map from the 2004 Bush-Kerry election, showing candidate visits and campaign money spent.


Notice a trend here? It's not urban or rural areas that they care about, it's battleground ones. States that are completely typical except for the happy coincidence that the number of liberals happen to match the number of conservatives, give or take 10%. Your rural midwestern and southern voters don't get much time in the spotlight, I'm afraid -- why would they? The winners are going to take all, and it doesn't matter even if every independent voter in South Dakota moves to vote for Kerry; Bush is taking the entire state's population's-worth of votes. Meanwhile, you can be damn sure that the auto industry and other rust-belt staples are going to be getting LOTS of attention every four years at least. Who would dare not bailout Ford when Michigan's swing votes are in play?

Rural conservatives in upstate NY, CA and WA are powerless. Liberal hispanic voters in south TX are powerless. Is this enfranchisement to you? You have no basis to assume a popular vote keep everyone out of the farmland; a farmer's vote would be worth just as much as a city-dweller's.

Originally Posted by DrMeithos

Plus, what if there is a massive snow storm in the north-east around election day and only half of the population there is able to vote? You'd have a Republican prez no problem.

Has that ever even been in danger of happening? If people decline to vote, so be it; but the electors shouldn't vote for them.

Originally Posted by DrMeithos

imo: the electoral college should be district based w/ 3 districts per state or something.

That's just dumb. There's absolutely no reason to give the midwest 2x the power as the west coast, or New England 5x the power as Texas.

Originally Posted by DrMeithos

Because the rural population of America would be disenfranchised. Politicians would only support urban areas and completely ignore the necessarily sparsely populated rural areas which are equally important for society to function. It's the same reason we have a senate w/ 2 members from each state to off set the population based congress.

Plus, what if there is a massive snow storm in the north-east around election day and only half of the population there is able to vote? You'd have a Republican prez no problem.

imo: the electoral college should be district based w/ 3 districts per state or something.

the electoral college should be eliminated. under a straight popular vote rural voters still have as much of an impact as urban voters. under the electoral system rural voters in states with large urban populations are completely disenfranchised. CA splits 60/40 a lot of the time, but that 40% or rural voters have absolutely no voice in CA. with 55 electors that's a lot of disenfranchised voters. under a system of direct popular election those republican voters in CA would actually have a say in who gets elected.

in the 2008 presidential election mccain got 4.6 million votes in CA. under the electoral college system those votes didn't count for anything in the election for president. that's more than the combined population of wyoming, vermont, north dakota, alaska, south dakota, and delaware.

assigning out electoral college votes proportionately is a little better, but that should only happen if it happens in all states at the same time...otherwise it's simply not fair under the current system.

and I'd only be in favor of keeping the electoral college if the number of votes per state was set so each vote represented the same number of people...which means they'd have to give CA more votes because the baseline would be set by the state with the lowest population (wyoming - 3 votes for 560,000 people).

You still mad about 2000 bro? This is such small potatoes.

Your solution has just as many faults as the current one. Weather is a huge factor that needs to be accounted for. The MSM said the only reason Scott Brown got elected was from bad weather in MA.

How about a hypothetical: Sarah Palin is 15 points down in a nationwide poll the day before the election. On election day the north east is hit by 15 inches of snow (which is realistic), only 20% of voters show up at the polls. Sarah Palin is president b/c you still mad about 2000

Originally Posted by Goshin

America is ****ed. We're a hollow shell of the greatness instilled in us by our forefathers decades and centuries past. This ship needs turning around, the the 545 captains and chief admiral can't get the job done, and never will be. We need a new solution. One captain, one admiral. One surrounded by advisors. We need a benevolant Dictator. We need me.

Here are my course corrections:

politics -
2 terms. 6 year senate, 4 year house. 12 and 8 total. Campaigns last 2 months. It's all public money, you get no private cash. The only ads you get are mandated ads, say 5 tv spots on the major networks. It's the price the networks have to pay for being broadcast in America, tough ****. You want more face time, hold debates with your opposition.
No more winner takes all. Equal representation based on voter percentages.
To be ABLE to compete, applicants must first take a test proving they are competent.
Lobbyists are no longer granted the statuses they have. They are experts in knowledge only. no bribes, no trips with officials to soften them up. If people are caught circumventing this law, they are crippled with an injury that is permanent, and noticable. If they continue on this path, they are shot.
We need industry experts to help form policy. We don't need their corruption.
MORE POLITICS:
The reason politicians back in the day only worked 4 months a year, was because they had farms and businesses to attend to. They were a politician for 2 terms at most generally. This has changed, and the work load should also change. This is now a full time job, you're in session most of the year.
And, no bull**** riders that have nothing to do with the pending legislation attached to said pending legislation. Create a new bill for that. If it isn't strong enough to pass, merge 5 riders together and pass that.
STOP ****ING AMERICA, POLITICIANS

education
Firstly, school for everyone will be year long through elementary, and maybe middle school (8th grade). Studies have shown the poorer house hould children suffer significant set backs over the period when school is out, this will help children feel worth and that they are smart and ****. Will lend itself to less drop out rates, and hopefully begin balancing education between the classes that exist in America.

Religion will be barred from influencing science texts and any other class that does not need to focus on this subject.

Teaching to the test does not work and breeds complacency, as well as leads to disinterest in learning. Lets go back to what elites did in the 17th century. Have kids read articles, books, whatever. Not once, but a few times. Then have them keep a journal about what they think on the subject. Have discussions based on their thoughts. The teacher is there as a facilitator. This helps children learn critical thinking and insight. Honestly, they dont need to read Shakespeare if they don't want to. But if they know how to read, interpret, and broaden their knowledge enjoyably, they might stumble across and love the classics when they are ready.
Finance classes in high school are a must. Maybe 9th grade just to catch the kids that do drop out, which will hopefully be lower. Sex ed focuses on condom usage and other birth control methods. Teenagers have sex.
PE to become mandatory again. 1 hour of running around outside, having fun and learning that not everyone will win at everything. Get your feelings hurt and strive to improve yourself, or get picked last forever.
If you're a kid and not in school, and we come across you during the day, there is punishment. Crippling is a no, apparently. Repeat offenders are publicly humiliated in a stockyard outside the school

food

Get rid of the ridiculous amounts of sugar and sodium in our foods. That **** is not needed. Food tastes AWESOME by itself. Perhaps we can go back to having bakeries and mills local to population centers, as bread now days compared to bread 100 years ago is nutritionally bankrupt.

taxes
Our tax law books are stupidly huge. Abolish that bull**** and make a flat tax coupled with a luxury tax in addition to, as well as certain exemptions for basic necessities of life. Loop holes should get demolished this way. Estate tax for everyone. Trust funds don't give you a permanent tax haven.

sterilization
Children are sterilized with a drug that needs to be created and tested around age 10. Doctor will administer during routine exam. If this does not work due to people circumventing or not going to doctor, we can figure something else out, maybe at birth. Anyway, once the child passes a test showing they comprehend basic parenting skills, life skills, and money management, they are given the 'cure' and can have kids. After 2, must apply for a permit for more children, barring financial consideration. This should limit or abolish abortions and that debate, and children ruining their lives because they didn't know better. Also welfare should decrease substantially, and might even be used for it's intended purpose!

energy
Wind energy is semi stupid. Ocean energy is crazy awesome. We would begin using more ocean current capturing technologies. Nuclear power would be the mainstay on land. Coal would be unsubsidized and used until the existing plants are too old to work. Funding for a Polywell fusion reactor would begin, with the intiail 200 million needed for a proving reactor after tests that are being worked on right now show promising data (sometime in 2011 or 2012). If this works, all coal plants will be converted (easily) to polywell fusion plants. energy crisis diverted. Otherwise, nuclear, ocean, solar. Wind in limited means. Upgrade the power grid.

transportation
A few things fall into this. More buses, bicycles, walking. Urban centers to become dense. Halt all new production on suburbs and giant sprawling cities. existing boundaries are it. Build up, not out. Businesses on the ground, condos in the sky, spaced with parks in the structure with open windows and soil/grass. Begin work on closed loop systems to allow these parks to remain efficient. Hydro farms on any levels would also exist, allowing cities to have fresh produce at a price and convenience unmatched in today's world. This dense population will then be able to walk to most places they need to go, take the buses if needed a bit more, or bikes/cars for longer distances still. No additional highway spending to suburbs. They dug their own hole.

subsidies
Corn and oil/gas/coal and other ag, are all out. No more. Corn is found in every thing we eat, and it is nutritionally bankrupt. Make it dumb to plant, farmers will move into better crops and our health will improve. Biofuels made from organic materials that actually have a high % of return will be used as well, such as the best crop for the job, sugar cane (and hence why Brazil's biofuel sector actually works)

Immigration
Amnesty for all illegals right now. Rework the immigration laws so less people attempt getting in illegally. They're going to do it anyway, might as well tax them and keep records on them, make them citizens and have them utilized by the economy.

military
America is done being world police. We move out of Osaka, Germany, South Korea, the Phillipines. We pay for use of other people's zones for refueling if need be. But if some rogue nation starts being stupid, we're out. They cant hit us with rockets. Let their neighbors man up. Tired of being damned if we do, damned if we don't. Russia might invade Germany!!!!
You're the 3rd biggest economy, deal with it. This drops our funding for defense by a metric **** ton, allowing us to pay off our giant **** ass debt, or start to anyway. Cuts to social programs will help as well (since welfare is not needed now that you can't oops have babies accidentally or for money).
This area will need more refining of course

Apparently we need to ban women from the military, or make them the same as male troopers. Same bunks, same showers, Starship troopers.
Of course, coupled with the fact that I strongly believe in mandatory service for all Americans from 18-20, not sure same bunk/shower would work. So a ban on women might have to go into affect.
But mandatory service right after high school. Not for a conscript army (they suck), but to increase health in Americans, and instill discipline. There would still be those that sign up, they will be combat units. The 'conscripts' here will be base units, non combat roles generally. Because again, they suck.

space
We have researched plans into nuclear rockets, but pussies who don't know what they are talking about scream and cry and hinder progress. Nuclear Lightbulb Spaceships capable of lifting 1000 tons to Low Earth Orbit, single stage rocket, reusable, get to Mars in 30 days (maybe less i cant remember)
Actually begin to get off this planet and do **** in the final frontier.
The closed loop systems in our high rises can be utilized in our space fairing endeavors.
Telescopes in L2 with big ass mirror arrays to begin searching for life, for real in neighboring star systems. If space companies need additional funding for send projects into space, or if said projects once vetted and approved need funding, fund these. There is no reason to cripple science into this area when we spend billions on CORN.


PRISON
We have all these gigantic arenas pre-built in America. It really is silly to only use them for a few things.
Let me take you back to a simpler time, 2000 years ago.
We can have our stupidly large prison population begin a series of gladiatorial events, to the death if need be. using traditional weapons from the iron era, and suitable armors and defenses. Broadcast on tv, arenas seat a lot of people. winner gets a reduced sentence or something. All prisoners not participating in the games will be tasked with learning a trade in prison. You go to classes where they teach you to do ****, build **** (the wire). When you are freed, there is no stigma. You do not disclose you went to prison. If you being repeat offending, the punishments ramp up, to 3 *strikes* and you are put in the games, regardless of your means or desire.

drugs
Decriminalize all drugs. legalize weed. Portugal has done this and seen extremely great results in the areas of addiction treatment and consul, and decreased ODs and diseases that are spread. This will also drop the prison population

Israel
Pull all funding from this first world nation. We can trade with them like normal people. They don't get more than our human space flight in AID anymore. This should help quell those in the middle east, and maybe make Israel act rationally and not be a ****ing dumb ass bully bull**** state


I will surround myself with advisers who pass tests relating specifically to what they are advising me on. No friends or family will be hired just because they are that. If they have new ideas, different ideas, that seem to work better than my general beginnings, I will not be inflexible and will use the best path possible in forging a new, stronger America.

Thank you.

Dear goshin,
Ah, ye vermin de cuckolds o me hard!

You really thought this through. Good work!

I have posted on this issue on many occasions in various threads.
I've mainly focused on the political and financial sectors.

You'll do fine in life me boy.

Btw, It takes GUTS to do roofing work! (This I know I know personally)

Originally Posted by DrMeithos

You still mad about 2000 bro? This is such small potatoes.

Your solution has just as many faults as the current one. Weather is a huge factor that needs to be accounted for. The MSM said the only reason Scott Brown got elected was from bad weather in MA.

How about a hypothetical: Sarah Palin is 15 points down in a nationwide poll the day before the election. On election day the north east is hit by 15 inches of snow (which is realistic), only 20% of voters show up at the polls. Sarah Palin is president b/c you still mad about 2000

Has there ever been anything even close to only a 20% turnout? And even then, Sarah Palin would need far more help than that, I'm afraid.

People don't just refrain from voting because of inclement weather. Believe it or not, far more people just decide not to vote, for reasons that range from laziness to principle. I don't see how you could think it's a good idea to have electors cast their vote for them, and in the direction of whatever the majority in their state voted. It's an archaic relic of the times when we didn't think the people should vote for presidents at all.

I meant 20% of the people who would have otherwise voted. If that's 1/5th of New York... that's millions of votes not cast that would be 85% Democrat. Do you really want the threat of a stupid weather storm deciding the outcome of a presidential election?

Originally Posted by DrMeithos

I meant 20% of the people who would have otherwise voted. If that's 1/5th of New York... that's millions of votes not cast that would be 85% Democrat.

Has that ever happened, even once?

A stupid weather storm could decide the election either way -- what would happen if there were hurricane danger in south Florida? In all likelihood every one of Florida's 25 votes would be swung in towards the conservative north Floridians. If it were a popular vote, then you'd merely have fewer south Floridian ballots tallied up, but it the winner-takes all system, a slim majority means that ALL representatives for the entire state are switching and going the other way.

Have you already forgotten that a stupid ballot can decide an entire election under our system?

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Has that ever happened, even once?

In the Scott Brown special election, it snowed like 3 inches and was really cold, so we should stay with a system that gives a voter in Wyoming 3 times the voting power as a voter in Massachusetts.

Probably. I sure as **** am not going to devote that much time into research for talking about the electoral college which I don't really care about either way. I see the advantages/disadvantages of each system.

A hurricane hitting only south florida on election day? You're reaching. BlueSox got it right. It was just kinda chilly and 3 in of snow, and that was enough for democrats to call for a revote in the Scott Brown election. Weather affects each side equally. If only 20% of voters show up to the polls on a given day, then that's 20% of conservatives, 20% of liberals (or pretty damn close).

“I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. … You are a den of vipers and thieves.”

—Andrew Jackson, 1834, on closing the Second Bank of the United States;

The Two Coming American Revolutions. | Don't Tread On Me

Originally Posted by NightTrain

“I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. … You are a den of vipers and thieves.”

—Andrew Jackson, 1834, on closing the Second Bank of the United States;

The Two Coming American Revolutions. | Don't Tread On Me

Interesting post.

Originally Posted by Dweasel

Dear goshin,
Btw, It takes GUTS to do roofing work! (This I know I know personally)

According to tehvul, you don't know the first thing about working.