<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Free State In The House</title>
	<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/</link>
	<description>Like Kryptonite To Stupid</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:37:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: fd10801</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78522</link>
		<dc:creator>fd10801</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:17:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78522</guid>
		<description>No less a personage than James Madison had this to say about the "increased democracy" you seek: &lt;blockquote&gt;"[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal
security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been
as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."&lt;/blockquote&gt;
-- James Madison (Federalist No. 10, 23 November 1787)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No less a personage than James Madison had this to say about the &#8220;increased democracy&#8221; you seek:<br />
<blockquote>&#8220;[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and<br />
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal<br />
security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been<br />
as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8211; James Madison (Federalist No. 10, 23 November 1787)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VRWC drone</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78521</link>
		<dc:creator>VRWC drone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:47:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78521</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;I'd love for Republicans to say that they don't believe in paying America's workforce a fair wage (they believe it, but they don't say it)&lt;/i&gt;

Do you have anything other than your opinion to back up this claim?

&lt;i&gt;We had this fight at the turn of the century. We won. Moving on.&lt;/i&gt;

What's this "we" stuff?  Were you a proud member of the turn of the century labor movement, O-Dub?  Or are did John Edwards teach you how to channel dead labor leaders?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>I&#8217;d love for Republicans to say that they don&#8217;t believe in paying America&#8217;s workforce a fair wage (they believe it, but they don&#8217;t say it)</i></p>
<p>Do you have anything other than your opinion to back up this claim?</p>
<p><i>We had this fight at the turn of the century. We won. Moving on.</i></p>
<p>What&#8217;s this &#8220;we&#8221; stuff?  Were you a proud member of the turn of the century labor movement, O-Dub?  Or are did John Edwards teach you how to channel dead labor leaders?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wilbur</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78520</link>
		<dc:creator>Wilbur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78520</guid>
		<description>Oops, I pasted a sentence from another thread inadvertently.  My post was meant to be a response to this statement from Bruce's post:

&lt;i&gt;Maryland's influence would increase, not decrease. Right now, presidential candidates ignore it because it votes Democratic almost all the time. But combined with other choosing states AND splitting the electoral votes according to the proportion of votes, Maryland is more in play&lt;/i&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops, I pasted a sentence from another thread inadvertently.  My post was meant to be a response to this statement from Bruce&#8217;s post:</p>
<p><i>Maryland&#8217;s influence would increase, not decrease. Right now, presidential candidates ignore it because it votes Democratic almost all the time. But combined with other choosing states AND splitting the electoral votes according to the proportion of votes, Maryland is more in play</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wilbur</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78519</link>
		<dc:creator>Wilbur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:22:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78519</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Incidentally, on that list that you think indicates Gregory's "conservativeness", nearly all of the stories fall into the usual Media Matters' "he should have been less fair, and more liberal" category.&lt;/i&gt;

That won't be the way it works most of time.  Neither side could afford a fifty-state battle without putting themselves even further into the pockets of corporate and billionaire donors.

Republicans will end up concentrating their resources in the big states where they enjoy an advantage, and the same for democrats.  Currently that calculus favors the democrats, but someday some issue will come along, like maybe immigration, and the Republicans will ride it hard to get 70% majorities in CA, AZ, TX and FL and the rest of the country can go hang.  It will mean an increase in polarization and regionalism.  So stop farting around and put your energy in a real solution:  constitutional reform of the electoral system.  The founding fathers weren't idiots.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Incidentally, on that list that you think indicates Gregory&#8217;s &#8220;conservativeness&#8221;, nearly all of the stories fall into the usual Media Matters&#8217; &#8220;he should have been less fair, and more liberal&#8221; category.</i></p>
<p>That won&#8217;t be the way it works most of time.  Neither side could afford a fifty-state battle without putting themselves even further into the pockets of corporate and billionaire donors.</p>
<p>Republicans will end up concentrating their resources in the big states where they enjoy an advantage, and the same for democrats.  Currently that calculus favors the democrats, but someday some issue will come along, like maybe immigration, and the Republicans will ride it hard to get 70% majorities in CA, AZ, TX and FL and the rest of the country can go hang.  It will mean an increase in polarization and regionalism.  So stop farting around and put your energy in a real solution:  constitutional reform of the electoral system.  The founding fathers weren&#8217;t idiots.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oliver Willis</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78518</link>
		<dc:creator>Oliver Willis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:09:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78518</guid>
		<description>Actually the fair wage is what society - including the employer - thinks it is. We had this fight at the turn of the century. We won. Moving on.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually the fair wage is what society - including the employer - thinks it is. We had this fight at the turn of the century. We won. Moving on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78517</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78517</guid>
		<description>The National Popular Vote plan is absolutely constituitonal. Changing the Constitution is an "end-run" -- making it work to help the people of Maryland and all Americans who believe in one-person, one-vote is simply sensible.

First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. That will be the trajectory for National Popular Vote.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The National Popular Vote plan is absolutely constituitonal. Changing the Constitution is an &#8220;end-run&#8221; &#8212; making it work to help the people of Maryland and all Americans who believe in one-person, one-vote is simply sensible.</p>
<p>First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. That will be the trajectory for National Popular Vote.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78516</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:57:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78516</guid>
		<description>Maryland's influence would increase, not decrease.  Right now, presidential candidates ignore it because it votes Democratic almost all the time.  But combined with other choosing states AND splitting the electoral votes according to the proportion of votes, Maryland is more in play.  It becomes worth it for Republicans to sell hard to conservative swing Dems, because they don't have to get past the local 50% bar to avoid having their votes be meaningless.  Republicans may gain more than Dems, as they have a new reason to show up in this light-blue state.

It also makes turnout matter more.  A high turnout state will enjoy disproportinate weight over a low turnout state in the pool.  This will probably help Maryland with its high income, political junkies in the suburbs voting more often than some.

As far as its constitutionality, states are almost completely sovereign under the constitution over how they pick electors.  I don't think they can choose them by throwing dice, but they don't need an amendment, I don't think.  If I am wrong, cite the Article, section and subsection if you would be so kind.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maryland&#8217;s influence would increase, not decrease.  Right now, presidential candidates ignore it because it votes Democratic almost all the time.  But combined with other choosing states AND splitting the electoral votes according to the proportion of votes, Maryland is more in play.  It becomes worth it for Republicans to sell hard to conservative swing Dems, because they don&#8217;t have to get past the local 50% bar to avoid having their votes be meaningless.  Republicans may gain more than Dems, as they have a new reason to show up in this light-blue state.</p>
<p>It also makes turnout matter more.  A high turnout state will enjoy disproportinate weight over a low turnout state in the pool.  This will probably help Maryland with its high income, political junkies in the suburbs voting more often than some.</p>
<p>As far as its constitutionality, states are almost completely sovereign under the constitution over how they pick electors.  I don&#8217;t think they can choose them by throwing dice, but they don&#8217;t need an amendment, I don&#8217;t think.  If I am wrong, cite the Article, section and subsection if you would be so kind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rodiculous</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78515</link>
		<dc:creator>Rodiculous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:08:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78515</guid>
		<description>I hate to break it to you Mr. Carville, but Maryland is ignored NOW by presidential campaigns. So is every single small state except New Hampshire. Candidates go to the biggest swing states like Ohio and Florida and Pennsylvania. If every vote were equal, candidates would campaign across the country.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hate to break it to you Mr. Carville, but Maryland is ignored NOW by presidential campaigns. So is every single small state except New Hampshire. Candidates go to the biggest swing states like Ohio and Florida and Pennsylvania. If every vote were equal, candidates would campaign across the country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VRWC drone</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78514</link>
		<dc:creator>VRWC drone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:02:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78514</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Its great to maximize your profits, but pay your workers a fair amount&lt;/i&gt;

Is it fair to pay a guy working the counter at McDonalds' $11.30 an hour?  I'm sure he thinks so.  What about the manager who has to insure his business turns a profit?  Do you think he believes that $11.30 an hour is fair?

If it's so simple, OW, maybe you can define for us evil conservatives just what a "fair" wage is.  Realistically, it should be something that would be considered fair by both the employer and employee.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Its great to maximize your profits, but pay your workers a fair amount</i></p>
<p>Is it fair to pay a guy working the counter at McDonalds&#8217; $11.30 an hour?  I&#8217;m sure he thinks so.  What about the manager who has to insure his business turns a profit?  Do you think he believes that $11.30 an hour is fair?</p>
<p>If it&#8217;s so simple, OW, maybe you can define for us evil conservatives just what a &#8220;fair&#8221; wage is.  Realistically, it should be something that would be considered fair by both the employer and employee.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oliver</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78513</link>
		<dc:creator>Oliver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:05:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78513</guid>
		<description>Its great to maximize your profits, but pay your workers a fair amount. I'd love for Republicans to say that they don't believe in paying America's workforce a fair wage (they believe it, but they don't say it).
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its great to maximize your profits, but pay your workers a fair amount. I&#8217;d love for Republicans to say that they don&#8217;t believe in paying America&#8217;s workforce a fair wage (they believe it, but they don&#8217;t say it).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SaveFarris</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78512</link>
		<dc:creator>SaveFarris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:56:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78512</guid>
		<description>Can't have anyone maximizing profits now...

I'd love for Democratics to make that the party motto.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can&#8217;t have anyone maximizing profits now&#8230;</p>
<p>I&#8217;d love for Democratics to make that the party motto.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oliver</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78511</link>
		<dc:creator>Oliver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78511</guid>
		<description>The free market, left to its own designs, maximizes profit and minimizes wages. That's why we have laws to police it.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The free market, left to its own designs, maximizes profit and minimizes wages. That&#8217;s why we have laws to police it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: midderpidge</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78510</link>
		<dc:creator>midderpidge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78510</guid>
		<description>So, Oliver you want to base your State's electoral votes on what the majority of the nation votes rather than what the majority of your state votes.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, Oliver you want to base your State&#8217;s electoral votes on what the majority of the nation votes rather than what the majority of your state votes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78509</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:39:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78509</guid>
		<description>It amazes me that such intelligent people could slobber over such STUPID bills.

First of all, National Popular Vote bill will not withstand constitutional muster (hell, supporters of this thing even admit that its an attempt to do an end-around the Constitution) so that is nothing but a stunt.

The Living Wage Bill is perfect - if you want to drive up costs for state projects, which in turn will force the state to raise taxes which in turn will drive business from the state, prevent more from coming in and basically making things worse. Doesn't any liberal these days believe in the values of a free market?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It amazes me that such intelligent people could slobber over such STUPID bills.</p>
<p>First of all, National Popular Vote bill will not withstand constitutional muster (hell, supporters of this thing even admit that its an attempt to do an end-around the Constitution) so that is nothing but a stunt.</p>
<p>The Living Wage Bill is perfect - if you want to drive up costs for state projects, which in turn will force the state to raise taxes which in turn will drive business from the state, prevent more from coming in and basically making things worse. Doesn&#8217;t any liberal these days believe in the values of a free market?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wilbur</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78508</link>
		<dc:creator>Wilbur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:38:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78508</guid>
		<description>I agree (partially) with my wingnut colleagues here.  The electoral system needs to be reformed so that small states don't have a greater representation in the electoral college than their population warrants (as is now the case).

The solution is not for states like Maryland to give up their own votes to a possibly-skewed national majority.  The solution is a constitutional convention - something we may be able to get in the not-too-distant future when Dems control both the legislature and the executive and a 2/3 majority of the state houses.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree (partially) with my wingnut colleagues here.  The electoral system needs to be reformed so that small states don&#8217;t have a greater representation in the electoral college than their population warrants (as is now the case).</p>
<p>The solution is not for states like Maryland to give up their own votes to a possibly-skewed national majority.  The solution is a constitutional convention - something we may be able to get in the not-too-distant future when Dems control both the legislature and the executive and a 2/3 majority of the state houses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fd10801</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78507</link>
		<dc:creator>fd10801</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78507</guid>
		<description>This is a STUNT. It would require a Constitutional Amendment, which I am sure the State of Maryland does not wish to debate.

Surely, there is nothing "progressive" about handing over control of the nation to states with populous urban areas, and ignoring the smaller, less populated states.

The ["Living Wage"] legislation would require that at least $11.30 an hour be paid for work on state contracts in Montgomery, Prince George's, Howard, Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties and in Baltimore..."

Has anyone in the Maryland Legislature given a moment's thought to the effect that would have on Maryland's economy?

See &lt;a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Bastiat&lt;/a&gt; for details
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a STUNT. It would require a Constitutional Amendment, which I am sure the State of Maryland does not wish to debate.</p>
<p>Surely, there is nothing &#8220;progressive&#8221; about handing over control of the nation to states with populous urban areas, and ignoring the smaller, less populated states.</p>
<p>The [&#8221;Living Wage&#8221;] legislation would require that at least $11.30 an hour be paid for work on state contracts in Montgomery, Prince George&#8217;s, Howard, Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties and in Baltimore&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Has anyone in the Maryland Legislature given a moment&#8217;s thought to the effect that would have on Maryland&#8217;s economy?</p>
<p>See <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html" rel="nofollow">Bastiat</a> for details</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hedley</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78506</link>
		<dc:creator>Hedley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2007/04/10/free-state-in-the-house/#comment-78506</guid>
		<description>There would be no reason for Maryland to even hold an election if it agreed to this.  The whole point of the electoral college is so as not to marginalize smaller states like Maryland. If all the small states were willing to give up their say in the national election in favor of the "national popular vote" then you might as well only hold the election in California, Texas, Florida and New York becaue no other state will really matter.  Oh wait, maybe that is what you want.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There would be no reason for Maryland to even hold an election if it agreed to this.  The whole point of the electoral college is so as not to marginalize smaller states like Maryland. If all the small states were willing to give up their say in the national election in favor of the &#8220;national popular vote&#8221; then you might as well only hold the election in California, Texas, Florida and New York becaue no other state will really matter.  Oh wait, maybe that is what you want.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
