We're not multiple countries though, we're one nation. States have a lot of rights as it stands now, they're free to pretty much govern how they please. An efficient and effective central government makes it difficult for a state to abuse their power and the rights of the people.

Excellent. So what's the argument?

Man you just said what I've been getting at so much better than me.

The argument, my friend, is that a big central government is not what you should be concerned about. You should be concerned about an inefficient, corrupted government that doesn't act on the will of the people.

If you have 50 separate "countries" all having different rules, regulations, etc. and working independently from one another. It's much more easy for a corrupted state to impose their will on the American people and abuse their power. Divided we're weak but united we're strong and have a much louder voice.

Why do you think the European Union was created?

Why do you think the KKK was created?

Why do you think the KKK is so weak and mostly disregarded today?

Just because something is created for a reason that seems justified at the time by some, doesn't make it a universally 'good' idea forever.

What is happening now in the EU?

Good idea's continue until they require some changes/upgrades, and bad idea's are eventually tossed.

Rights trump efficiency, especially if the 'efficiency' starts to infringe heavily on those rights.

To initially bring the nation together, compromises needed to be made. You don't get rich and powerful by being a dick and bossing other people around. You get that way by being reasonable and making deals where it's mostly win win. In order to build the nation that exists today, the electoral college was necessary, along with many other things, and still is.

If some administration in the near future was able to do what was necessary to make the change to a strictly pop vote, you can be sure that it would not take all that long for certain states to start to exit. This could end up a major problem, because if all those states who leave, decide to join and create their own country, you can bet they won't exactly be all the friendly to the country who pushed them to leave in the first place. Not like they'll be aggressively hostile, but they sure aren't going to be easy to deal with, and so when it came to efficiency at that point, well, so much for that ideal.

A strictly pop vote will not work for the foreseeable future, because the portion of the pop that will always win that vote, has considerably different views than the rest of the nations voters. It's not like the pop vote would be a vast majority either. The fact that the Presidency has been very equal in terms of party over time, along with the House ending up the opposite mid term, is a good indicator that the system works pretty darn well. Not perfect, but much better than most.

I've always been perplexed by items like this.

You have a not for profit company issuing a statement about a political matter, when 501c3 companies are specifically exempt from engaging (directly or indirectly) in any political campaign activity (defined as supporting or opposing a candidate for public office). Failure to comply with this regulation is supposed to result in losing your not for profit status.

Isn't stating he should be removed from office doing exactly what the regulations say isn't allowed?

>Uses the KKK as an example to justify their stance

Yikes...

Any government, "big" or "small" can be corrupted

"Big government" isn't the problem here. It's the corrupted, inefficient system to which the government is apart of that's the issue.

So European countries all have inefficient and corrupt governments since they have big government? Oh wait, how come those countries are ranked better on corruption indexes - even up to taking the top spots? Could it be that the size of the government has no relation to how corrupt it is?