Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Where Do You Want to Live: Red State or Blue State?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ConstitutionCowboy" data-source="post: 3436972" data-attributes="member: 745"><p>I've said it before and I'll say it again. The biggest problem is how the several state's legislatures have lost a senate and gained a second house of representatives. Republicanism has all but been destroyed by a single court case titled <em>Reynolds v. Simms. </em></p><p><em></em></p><p>In a true republic, each county would have one senator. Dividing the state according to the population as is what is required in a house of representatives ends up placing several sparsely populated counties into a single senatorial district, and the highly populated cities end up with multiple senators. The country folk - farmers, ranchers - don't have enough of a say in government.</p><p></p><p>With a senator from each county, you will have a good balance of power in state governance. Unless an act benefits both the cities and the rural areas, it won't pass. If the cities want to enact some special act(The MAPS projects for example), they can do it in their own area, support it with their own city taxes, and the rest of the state won't have to support anything that is only a benefit to those cities. </p><p></p><p>Woody</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ConstitutionCowboy, post: 3436972, member: 745"] I've said it before and I'll say it again. The biggest problem is how the several state's legislatures have lost a senate and gained a second house of representatives. Republicanism has all but been destroyed by a single court case titled [I]Reynolds v. Simms. [/I] In a true republic, each county would have one senator. Dividing the state according to the population as is what is required in a house of representatives ends up placing several sparsely populated counties into a single senatorial district, and the highly populated cities end up with multiple senators. The country folk - farmers, ranchers - don't have enough of a say in government. With a senator from each county, you will have a good balance of power in state governance. Unless an act benefits both the cities and the rural areas, it won't pass. If the cities want to enact some special act(The MAPS projects for example), they can do it in their own area, support it with their own city taxes, and the rest of the state won't have to support anything that is only a benefit to those cities. Woody [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Where Do You Want to Live: Red State or Blue State?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom