Page created 20 Mar 2003 by pedro
URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/
We have a president who evokes powerful reactions from a large portion of the country. What do you think of him, and why? What do you think of the country's reaction to him? What about the 2000 election? Let's strive for actual discourse, as opposed to using sucks-rules arguments.
So, filosofer's post about Bush and Evangelical's approach to him made me want to create the entree, and I hope we can honestly talk about the whole issue, rather than just degrading into "bush sucks" statements. I don't say that because I particularly like the guy, but I get totally frustrated with conversations that start and end with an ad hominem against the man.In regards to what filosofer was saying, I think there is a large portion of Evangelicals who are wary, or unsupportive, or even angry with Bush, even though they would consider themselves "Evangelical Christians". I think that includes me and pretty much most of my Christian friends here at North Park. I think the problem is that there are different populations under the "Evangelical" umbrella, all the way from the Dr. James Dobson / Pat Robertson crowd to much more moderate populations. The more "right-wing" groups (which tend to be more fundamentalist) are much more blindly supportive of Bush, where I think the moderate and left (but still self identifying as Evangelical) can be completely unsupportive of him.
Would you consider the Sojourner's crowd to be Evangelical? How would you define that term?
One of the most interesting things about the GWBush topic is this idea that one man has the power to single handedly drive the West. I hear people saying things like "I can't believe what Bush is doing" and "George Bush won't take guff from Sadaam". The fact of the matter is, the executive office in the current day is so much less about the man as it is an administration. There is a whole system of checks and balances. I would doubt if George Bush is allowed to make a decision by himself about what kind of cereal he wants in the morning.I heard on the radio this morning a translated broadcast of Sadaam hussain informing the Iraqi people about what was going on after the first airstrike. He was saying "the Jr. Bush is insane" and "he has ignored your requests for peace". Can you imagine if we actually had an madman in office what would happen? The system would remove him. GB doesn't reject anything. Is he powerful? Yes. Can he constitutionally make big decisions? Yes. But when any decision is made he is surrounded by committees, experts and strategists- many of whom transend any administration (think Alan Greenspan).
I'm neither a Bush hater or a Bush lover. I do find it hard to digest when arguments over war are reduced to biography.
GWB doesn't scare me.His administration doesn't scare me.
A country that would create such a man and such an administration and put them in charge of a country as large and as powerful as this one scares me. I see this war and this govenrnment not as a problem, but as a symptom of our greed.
I don't see it as a symptom of greed as much as I see it as a symptom of our misconceptions about ourselves -- that we are free to act as we want.I also see the whole terrorism thing as partly -- not completely -- but partly a result of those misconceptions and our actions in other conflicts and situations in the world. I think a lot of what we're seeing is fallout from the non-nuclear cold war, really.
The flip side is, it really may be time for the world to remove Saddam. But we need to start letting some of the air out of our britches, because eventually someone will have to come and remove us from power.
"committees, experts and strategists"
or... spin-doctors, his dad's old buddies, and yes-men?
the truth lies somewhere between the two.
i posted this in my journal... but i think you should all take a look at the Presidential Prayer Team website. my mom does all the ghost-writing on pretty much every page on it. its very bizzare to know that a huge part of my family's income comes from a form of bush-cheerleading. (that being said, i still pray for the man.)
also, this book is a very, very interesting read... it walks a fine line between muckraking rag and scathingly honest biography... but is still a very good read.
lets try that again...
What was the story with him? Ths Soft Skull website doesn't really explain what happened.
He committed suicide.
This link always makes me laugh The Other White House.
As per my opinion of Bush... I feel he is the figurehead of an government that is drunk with power. Power that the American people were happy to grant to them post Sept. 11. It almost seems as though the public was just waiting for something like Sept. 11th to come along so that they could surrender their active role in govt without having to feel bad about it. Now they can think about other things, like tax breaks and patting their neighbors on the back with a clear conscience knowing that the govt is in someone else' hands.
I mentioned in my diary the other day, that it drives me crazy to hear Christians applauding Bush just because he professes Christianity and talks about prayer in national addresses. How a person leads a country (even in figure-head capacity) is directly related to his/her personal beliefs, and I haven't yet seen anything definitive on Bush's part that would help me make up my mind about whether or not he is a good leader nor have I seen anything that demonstrates to me that he is a man of great faith (by their works you will know them).
1. The United States of America wes founded with the concept of a separation of church and state. All of this prayer in school debate, and the Pledge debate, and gw asking God to bless America ever time he opens his mouth is just wrong. I cringe every time I see something about this subject. I don't care if you have religion. I don't care which religion you have. I don't care if you have none. What I care about is the freedom to choose that, and to not have another person's choice foisted upon you without your consent.2. I think that we have the technology to have popular vote, and that we should. Having an electoral college certainly made sense 200 years ago, when you actually had to send people off to cast their votes in Washington, and that trip could take many days, or even weeks. However, we've made amazing advancements in trasportation and technology, and we should employ them to become a real democracy.
3. Congress has not signed a declaration of war. Most other countries think the US is nutty for attacking a country that has not attacked us. We're blowing our international relationships, and making our public image even worse than it already is. Is Iraq's leader crazy? Perhaps, but do we remove every single crazy dictator we come across? I don't think so. Why don't other countries "disarm" us? I'm sure we have by far the worst arsenal around. Why don't other countries pluck off our crazy leader?
4. I want to know the real reasons why we're attacking Iraq, but I know that I never will.
I may have deleted someone's post...
Declaration of war: Yeah... it bothers me how that doesn't really matter any more. Although there have been acts made over the last 11 years that regarded Saddam, and I'm not sure what they say regarding the legality of our current actions. But in general I think the whole throwing away of the Declaration of war thing is BS.I support the concept of the electoral college, because I feel that a strictly popular election does not distribute the vote across popular and geographic lines. If there wasn't an electoral college, the cities, which are by and large more left-leaning than rural areas, would essentially control the elections, and I think it is more important to try and have a cross-section of public opinion, weighted by geography. As much as I may not be crazy about how close things came in 2000 (assuming that there wasn't any "foul play" [ahem]) is a testament to why the electoral college is important -- because a huge chunk of the country (in holistic terms) did not want Gore in office, but they would not have a chance against the urban areas, which overwhelmingly voted for him.
Likewise, states like Alaska, which a huge geographically and resource wise, but have small populations, might as well not even go to the polls. Those states are given "more votes than they deserve" because of the electoral system, and I think that respects the rights and "independence" of states that are important parts of the union, even though they do not have large cities.
Furthermore, it is an issue of state's rights as to how those electoral votes are divided -- there are states which do divide them -- I think maybe NH and Nebraska? according to the proportional popular vote in that state. However, a state like Illinois would never do that, because that would mean that some of it's electoral votes would go for Republican candidates, since the majority of the state (geographically) votes conservatively -- it's only Cook and Lake counties that consistently vote Democratic -- and the leadership in Chicago and Springfield wouldn't be interested in equalizing that disparity.
So if people are that concerned about the electoral college, they could make great steps in their own states towards making the system more "fair" without forcing a constitutional amendment.
Church and State: I think that our governmental leaders should be able to express themselves honestly. If Bush was an atheist, I wouldn't expect him to make statements about prayer just to make theists happy. If we had an Islamic senator or something (ha), I would appreciate his or her earnest statements about faith, because we elect normal people into office and expect that who they truly are will affect their leadership. I obviously don't think that the state should saction or foist religion on people who don't want it, but (and maybe this is my bias because I am religious) I don't think a leader talking about prayer is forcing anyone to do anything.
I do really hate the way that religion, especially "Conservative Christianity" is turned into this totaly carrot for right-wing voters here. It's shameful and disgusting. I agree with what Amy said about not yet seeing any "proof" of Bush's great faith.
I understand the point you make about not beating up on the rural states, however, I think the senate more than covers that. I think the presidential election whould be one person one vote with no weighting based on the population of the state you happen to live in.
I definitely understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I don't think the Senate "more than covers" it. In my mind, the Senate works the way it should -- everyone gets an equal crack, and the House is good, being more population-oriented. But the Presidency should be a balance between the two, because the office of the President is too powerful (as we see today) to be merely elected by popular vote. I could turn it around and say that I think a mere popular vote for the Presidency puts too much emphasis on population. Plus, there's only one president for everyone -- and I think that without the electoral college there would be a greater rift between the left and right, because the presidency would almost always be won by left-leaning politicians, since they would make urban areas happier. I see the college as yet another balance in the system.
The college ensures taht the president campaigns to everyone -- otherwise, he could campaign only to Chicago, LA, and New York, and not even bother with smaller states that were unlikely to vote for him/her, or build a platform that appeals strictly to the population centers, ignoring the rural (productive) areas that would under that system be incapable of swinging the vote.
Elise makes a good point when she asks why other countries don't "pluck off our crazy leader." As I've said before, I'm pretty sure I support ol' W. But what I find most troubling about this war is that we are the aggressor. The whole reason we're attacking Iraq is to disarm them, because they represent a threat to the rest of the world (for the record, I don't think there are "real" reasons hidden beneath the surface). But how do you maintain that we are not a threat to the rest of the world if we're the ones going in with massively superior armed forces to make some other nation act the way we want them to?Of course, if I am going to say that I support our president, I have to be able to answer this question myself. So here goes: Saddam Hussein has a very clear track record in this area. He is undoubtedly willing to use lethal force in order to get his way. It's not like the U.S. is just being disagreable; it's not as though we're invading France because we don't like their attitude. I thought President Bush made a compelling point on Monday when he explicitly said that we're not attacking because of the threat Iraq poses today, but because of the threat it will pose in two or five or ten more years. No reasonable person can doubt that he's right about this, even if you don't think that it merits a preemptive attack.
Here's a question that's worth discussing: Imagine that it's 2005, and President Bush decided not to go to war in 2003. Thousands of Americans are killed in terrorist attacks that would have been prevented by attacking Iraq in 2003. In this case, would avoiding war still have been the right choice (assuming that you think it is)?
The words "separation", "church", and "state" don't even appear in the first ammendment, so I think it's a bit of a stretch to state that our country was founded upon the concept. The constitutuion prohibits (1) the government establishing a national religion, and (2) "prohibiting the free excercise thereof" (something it does anyway). The first ammendment only stops the federal government from forcing its views upon religion, it says nothing about religion acting upon the government or upon society. It's "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion."
Congress has done everything in its power in the last 50 years to not have to make decisions about war, as taking an actual stance on something that important might jeopardize their reelection chances. They just want their committees to be in charge of placing blame on actions occuring during and after war, and will let the executive branch decide how, when, and where thankyouverymuch.
People have been surrendering their active role in government since well before Sept 11th. For some reason, the more government touches everyone's life in very intrusive, personal ways, the less people care. Sept 11 just serves as an excuse for not having to think about difficult problems, because isn't that what the government gets paid to do?
I really don't have strong views on the elecoral college one way or another, though if we are to use it, I do feel that more, if not all, states should split their electoral college votes to better represent their populations. However, it drives me absolutely crazy that every four years the news agencies have to give a civics lesson on how the president is elected, and that invariably people are outraged at how they don't directly elect the president, vow to change the system, do nothing, only to get pissed off again four years later after they've forgotten about it.
As per the entree topic and my opinion of George Bush, here goes: Almost every decision I see coming from the White House disapoints me in some way, and yet, I always seem to find myself thinking that what we see each day is just one stroke of some masterful political work being painted by George Bush and Karl Rove, and that about six months from now we'll look back in awe. I have no solid, factual basis for these feelings, like I said, I'm constantly dissappointed by Bush's decisions. I want to think he's an idiot, it'd be easier. But here's the thing, there's no way that the decisions coming from the White House and the arguments behind them, in the last nine months or so, are as strange and unrelated as they appear. There are very good reasons to remove Saddam from power, but the administration doesn't want to state them. They announced a willingness to go it alone on Iraq before ever asking other countries what they thought, yet they were still perfectly willing to go through the whole U.N. debacle. Nearly everything the administration says about Saddam's regime applies to the North Koreans, and the administration knows this (yes, even George W. Bush), yet seemingly no action has been taken on North Korea. This cannot be a mistake. The rhetoric of accelerating the tax cut has been deafening, and yet, has it happened? No. Will it need to happen after the war fears have been allayed and oil prices come back down? Maybe, dare I say probably, not. I can't predict the future. But I know we only see one hand of the government and I can't help but think that while it's distracting us with all of these bizarre decisions, the other hand has been awfully busy, and will appear around September to present Afghanistan peaceful and democratic, Iraq peaceful and democratic, Israel and Palestine well on their way to peace, North Korean with an IAEA inspection team on the ground, the economy off and roaring, with Bush ready to start running for reelection with an all-time high approval rating. I don't know why I feel this way. I can't explain it.
I'd vote for you.
oh yeah, I forgot to mention this... I won't try to give my whole take on religion and American politics, but here are a very small handful of comments:(1) What we are guaranteed as Americans is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I know that's somewhat trite, but it's true. It also has tremendous practical relevance, because there really is no Constitutional reason for the government to not fund religious activities and groups. The only Constitutional restriction on such funding is that it must not favor one group over another.
(2) This wouldn't affect the President, but it's an oft' overlooked legal fact that the rules about church and state are for the Federal government. Unless there have been changes at the state level, there is no legal mandate for state governments to observe the distinction between church and state; indeed, many (most? all?) states were founded with official "state religions."
(3) Pedro's right that a politician who is also a religious believer should be allowed to profess his religion. I would go even further and say that he or she should be expected to allow his/her faith to affect public policy.
(4) Anyone who is even mildly interested in this issue should read Stephen Carter's short, outstanding book, God's Name in Vain. He's a law professor at Yale with a very good grasp of the relevant issues, and he's a good writer to boot.
Let me just say that I was apparently writing my last post at the same time as alaric was.
One of your arguments for the electoral college is that without it the candidates would all but ignore the rural areas. I disagree with this assumption. The electoral college already makes sure that areas of the country are ignored. Take for instance rural Illinois. Because of Cook County, Illinois is pretty much guaranteed to swing the way of a democrat. Without the electoral college, every single swing voter in rural Illinois is just as important as a swing voter in, say, Florida. So the electoral college leads to extreme focus on swing states and, I think, unfairly leaves a lot of people out of the process. I think it's also a wrong assumption that all large population centers lean to the left. Certainly the suburbs of Chicago are fairly conservative (Dennis Hastert anyone?) and cities in rocky mountain states lean to the right.
That eliminating the electoral college would eliminate swing states. Sure. It would just create swing cities instead. The electoral college mitigates the de facto authority of large communities.That being said, you're right. In Illinois, Chicago is the de facto authority and it, unfortunately, speaks for all of Illinois. I think that this is a state-level issue. It is completely within Illinois' bounds to change it's distribution of votes, and there may even be enough Republicans in Illinois to push through the change. If that happened, suddenly the voters in southern Illinois have a voice in the presidential elections along with the voters in Florida, and voters in Alaska get to keep their deserved (imho) handicap.
I would have to think about it more, but I believe I am in support of states distributing their electoral votes in proportion, but I am definitely not in favor of a strictly popular election. I also think though, that it is the state's right to determine how those votes are distributed and that it would be an unbalancing of power if the Federal government forced states to do so.
This post is mostly a rehash of an economics thesis that I read several weeks ago. My own understanding of currency markets isn't all that thorough, but the points that underpin this thesis pretty much jived with my meager understanding.[begin rehash of thesis]
Since 1945, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has quoted prices and sold crude oil internationally using U.S. dollars as the denominating currency. OPEC member nations have sold oil in exchange for payments made using U.S. dollars. This has had at least two significant impacts on the United States and its currency. It has meant that nations around the world have had to stock their treasuries with U.S. dollars in order to buy oil from oil exporting nations and it has meant that investment capital around the world has been dominated by large sums of U.S. currency, which is de facto only really good for investing back into the United States. The combined effect of these two phenomena has propped up both the domestic economy of the United States (through foreign investment of U.S. dollars, also aided by the perception that the United States is politically stable and therefore a safe place to invest) and the value of the U.S. dollar on the international currency market (through demand for U.S. dollars in order to buy oil). In short, because the U.S. dollar has been used almost exclusively as the currency of the international oil market for almost 60 years, it has become the single most recognized monetary tool in the world.
Oil is unique among commidities. It is something that all developed and developing nations need and only a few produce, and biggest suppliers of it are organized and collude to control its supply to the world. Strong ties to other commidities such as various foodstuffs, precious metals, or raw materials simply do not have the same effect on a currency because they are 1) something that anyone could produce, 2) luxury items, or 3) have no organization colluding to control the supply.
The United States Department of the Treasury has quietly leveraged its position as controller of the world's oil currency in such a way that all the conditions for a prosperous economy and valuable currency have been more or less constant for a long time. It has done so to such an extent that the value U.S. dollar is now less dependent on the strength of the U.S. domestic economy than it is on its position in world oil market.
In November of 2000, Iraq began quoting prices for oil in Euros, and accepting Euros as payment for Iraqi oil. Iraq's oil reserves represent approximately %10 of the entire world supply, but Iraq's production only %2 or %3. Iraq alone cannot sway the value of the U.S. dollar by switching its oil currency to Euros. It simply doesn't produce enough to make that big of a difference. However, if other OPEC member nations follow Iraq's lead, and switch their pricing and sale of oil from U.S. dollars to Euros, a much different scenario unfolds. As the need for Euros grows and the need for U.S. dollars shrinks, nations will begin to tap their U.S. currency reserves and their investments in U.S. markets in order to buy Euros in the international currency market. The result of foreign investment capital leaving U.S. markets, economic indexes in the U.S. will drop, prompting further divestment, particularly as other markets (such as the European Union) become more attractive to international investors. The need for Euros will cause the value of the Euro in the international currency market to rise, and as a result, many nations will have to dip further into their U.S. currency reserves in order to buy Euros. This will gradually flood the international currency market with U.S. dollars, slowly bleeding it of its value. In the end, the European Union will enjoy the global economic dominance that the United States has enjoyed for several decades.
The fall of U.S. economic hegemony will be followed shortly by a fall in U.S. political influence, and within a few decades by a fall in U.S. cultural influence. European socialist politics and cosmopolitan culture will take its place.
[end rehash of thesis]
Whether this scenario is true or not doesn't really matter. What matters is whether the Bush Administration thinks it's true, and what they're willing to do to prevent it. A "regime change" in Iraq, followed by switching Iraq's oil currency back to dollars, would certainly send a strong message to other OPEC nations. It would say "If you stop using dollars, you're next." However, OPEC could vote at any time to switch to Euros, and the United States would be powerless to stop it, since the United States lacks the means to control all of OPEC. Another approach, which I suspect Al Gore would have taken, is to seek parity between U.S dollars and Euros. With an exchange rate fixed at a one to one ratio, OPEC would most likely adopt a dual standard and accept either currency in exchange for oil. I don't think that the Bush Administration considers this sort of sharing of power an acceptable alternative, and so war it is. Most likely, it will alienate foreign investment, alienate OPEC, and result in the very thing that the Bush Administration is trying to prevent.
This is from MSNBC.com:The ABC-Washington Post poll found the president's job approval rating at 67 percent, up from pre-war polls that showed his approval level ranging from the mid 50s to about 60 percent.In addition, I heard on NPR last night that the Senate voted 99-0 in favor of the war resolution. Why is it that as soon as guns are fired, Amercians' affection for their leader skyrockets?
Do you was the simplest answer to your question?
...unless the answer is, "because people are idiots." I already knew that.
You've answered your own question by the simplest means...
Now, do I think all people are idiots? No. Generally, I assume everyone individually wants to make wise decisions and give morality a good shot. Unfortunately, a representative democracy means that we elect people to make our decisions for us- which seems like an okay idea cause what regular person has the time to follow all you would need to follow to make a wise decision- except, people don't actually like this policy and so they don't even vote for representatives (look at voting stats...) So, even though I think that individual human beings have good intentions, I also think that they're lazy and willing to let others think for them... Groups of people, as opposed to individuals, are generally moronic because there is a displaced sense of responsibility. And to think, we've been training in "groupthink" all of our lives....
Another reason why people support war-time presidents (this one really scares me) is because people like war. They like carnage. They like sensation. Why do children gather around fights on playgrounds? They like the animal inside...
blvdgirl's post stated one reason America's founders decided to use the electoral college. They reasoned that a much better president would be elected by a small group of people who had the time and knowledge to make a truly informed opinion. Also, as a sort of defense of the electoral college, I like to look at it this way: as Americans we are citizens of two distinct entities, (1) the state we live in, and (2) the larger country. The federal government thus has two sets of constituents: citizens and states. The extra two votes given in the electoral college are thus the state's vote. Kind of like, you got the majority of our citizen's votes, so the state casts our two extra votes for you. This way of thinking obviously jives better when states split their electoral votes, but my view is that that should be done anyway.
Should a hypothetically super motivated Californian population who (for some reason) all get up and vote be able to swing the electoral authority away from conscientious voters in another state with motivation problems?In other words, two states with equal population have the same voting power in the presidental election, regardless of how many people in their states actually vote. I see that as a feature, not a bug.
Much of the constitution and particularly the election and lawmaking system is designed to pit interest groups against each other and to limit the tyranny of those groups. The system as it stands helps to buffer that situation.
One could argue that if everyone in Kansas went and voted because they were that upset about something that all those votes should count, as opposed to say, if only 40% of Missourians in the same election voted because whatever made Kansas so mad didn't bother them as much. I think that for the good of the union and for distribution of electoral power it is important that such a system exists. Again, I think it's an important safeguard, not an anachronism or a flaw.
I'm weighing in a little late on this, but I have some very strong opinions when it comes to our electoral process and I wanted to air them. One thing that consistently pisses me off is that the majority of Americans think that we live in a democracy. As most of you are aware, WE DO NOT. We live in a republic. Stepping back to the Greeks for a moment, I think that true democracy (one person, [or in their case, one man], one vote) is only practical at a local level, such as the Greek city-states. But we're talking about thousands or even tens of thousands or people who were voting, not millions. Further, being a citizen in my mind carries a responsibility to be informed about the decisions you are making. The cult of personality (especially evident with the last two Presidents) has eliminated the issues for many voters and become a popularity contest.But to return to the point, I think the electoral college is an important safeguard, and pedro and blvd and alaric made good points, that the electoral college is designed to elect people to vote their conscience (but who usually vote the way the people in their state did. As a side note, I think there has been at least once and perhaps twice where a President has been elceted by the electoral college and didn't reflect the people's choice at all (But I'm not 100% sure of my facts) And keep in mind that some of the most despised presidents in office ended up contributing a lot in the scope of history. Now I'm not saying anything about Bush, but it's interesting to note.
Regarding splitting the votes, I think state's rights are an extremely important issue, i mean, that's why we fought in 1861, so the state's distirbution of electoral votes is, and should be, their business.
It was basically mob-rule. Look at what happened to Socrates, after all. Keep in mind though, they had the truest form of democracy ever. There was no precedent and no lawyers; everyone had to represent himself (they did have sophists who would come up with an argument for someone for a fee, the person would then memorize it and present it himself).
Anyone could accuse you of doing anything wrong. It didn't have to be against the law. You would then have to go defend yourself in front a jury. There was no statute to guide the jury, they would vote based on how your argument moved them.
Decisions were made by a town meeting. If someone wanted to make something happen, he'd get up and give a speech about it. The group present would then vote on it.
All in all it was very dog eat dog, and the most eloquent ruled. Libertarians would have loved it.
As far as the electors go. It's illegal often for the electors to vote against the people's will. I don't think that is too much of a issue. The advantage of the college to me is the districting effect.
I've seen mathematical proofs that a person's vote is more powerful (more likely to swing an election) if they vote in districts. Basically, you're more likely to swing your district because there's fewer voters in your district than in the entire pool, and your district is more likely to swing the election than a single voter would, so the math works out that your vote is more powerful if you vote in districts.
The other big thing is that districts divide up voting blocks, making them less powerful. Take two voting blocks in American politics, The Cuban-American block is incredibly powerful because it's concentrated in Florida. No presidential candidate can be soft on Cuba because the Cuban-American block can take Florida away from them. That block is an abrogation, though, and will break up as people move out of Florida. (and as second and third generation who were born in the US and are less likely to vote with the block take over).
Another example would be the anti-abortion block. Because it's distributed pretty evenly, it has little power even though it's huge. The democrats, therefore, can safely ignore it while the Republicans can count on it as a solid support base while only throwing it token victories.
The problem I have with the electoral college is that the number of electors was not allowed to grow with the population. Since tiny states are guaranteed at least 3 electors, a disparity has developed between the relative power of votes in different states. Last I checked, the difference between the most powerful vote (in Wyoming, iirc) to the least powerful (in California) was right around 4:1. So it takes four Californians to reach the voting power of one Wyomingite. I think a little disparity should exist to make sure Wyoming still matters at all, but 4:1 is absurd.
As far as having electors elected by the representative districts (with the two electors as winner spoils, I guess). That'd be a good idea, but right now people in populous states are discriminated against enough. If they made the districts sub-state, then the votes in the metro regions would count for even less. I think the problem of disparity needs to be solved before smaller districts are instituted.
There are two ways I see to fix it. One would be to make the number of electors equal the number of representatives, which would remove the two elector bonus for small states and make the minimum number be one. That would require a constitutional amendment. The other possibility would be to increase the number of electors (which would require the number of representatives to grow too and lead to nightmarish redistricting battles). I'm in favor of the first solution but thing the second solution would be easier to pass.
Also, Pedro, the constitution states that the representation by representatives must be proportional to the population on the sub-state level. So the Republicans in Illinois could not give rural areas very small districts without running afoul of the constitution.
Anyhow, I'm tired of writing, so I'm going to post this without proof-reading it and probably regret doing that later.
Nice thoughts, jordanb.
I found this informative.