Re: NAC Politics

On 7/7/05, The GZG Digest <owner-gzg-digest@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>
wrote:
> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:33:34 -0400
> From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
 
> At 10:51 AM -0500 7/6/05, Allan Goodall wrote:
> >
> >There are several "unwritten aspects" of U.S. law. The one that's
> >received the most notice, due to the outcome of the 2000 election, is
> >the election of the president.
> 
> The EC is hardly unwritten.

I didn't say it was unwritten. I said it was "unwritten". I was using
Hugh's original use of the term "unwritten" (which didn't really mean
unwritten, either).

I had a statement in my post at one point to say that these things
were not literally unwritten, that they were formally codified, but at
some point that statement was edited out.

> Personally, I think the State Senates should appoint the Congressional
Senators as part 
> of the tiered system of elected/representative officials.

That won't work well in a party system. It would mean that if you
voted for a Republican in the state it would likely translate to a
Republican appointment in Congress (also substitute Democrat for
Republican). This goes back to the emphasis of the local level of
government. You may not care much for a local candidate's party at the
federal level, but you might prefer the local candidate because he
works hard and has a good track record. Given how local matters are
less noticable due to overwhelming national news coverage, folks would
most likely see the Congressional senate seat as being more important
when voting for the state senate. As an example, I couldn't tell you
who my state senators are, but I can tell you the Congressional
senators. (I have an excuse, though; I'm a permanent resident alien,
not a citizen).

If the State Senates appointed the Congressional Senators, you'd see
parties become stronger, which in my opinion is not a good thing. I
would prefer to see the U.S. have greater diversity in Congress.

> >and an economic threat from
> >the E.U. or -- more likely -- China and India, and you have NAFTA
> >moving closer to a North American Union, modelled roughly on the E.U.
> 
> India is looking like it'll lean closer to the US/UK/Australia/Canada
than China.

I didn't mean to suggest that China and India were a threat as a
single bloc. I meant to suggest that both China and India,
independently, would be seen as economic threats. I probably should
have said "China or India", but I was thinking that both nations,
independently but at the same time, would be an economic threat to the
North American Union.

-- 
Allan Goodall		 http://www.hyperbear.com
agoodall@hyperbear.com
awgoodall@gmail.com