The Blue Board

They buy land from willing sellers and turn them into public lands. The goal is to continue to get more public ("wild") spaces in the state. They are not funded by taxpayers.

I know, just responding to the "it shouldn't be this difficult" part of your post. That's all.

Why would anyone vote against that? Great proposal, IMO.

Some people (thankfully very few) see no need to protect the wild. It's nothing but prime real estate to them.

Personally, I'd like to hold a new Constitutional Convention to add some new amendments and discuss some changes we can make to the federal government as a whole. The electoral college would be just one of many things that need to be discussed.

Indeed

I just had the scariest thought. Eight years of Al Gore in the White House.

We'd be a utopia by now.

Do you mind clarifying this?

The money being used to potentially fund this program along with various others ( as of the last vote) was to raid the state trust fund which held about a billion from bonus payments for off shore oil leases.

No one knew how to best spend the money so they put it in trust for our future and planned to use the interest to pay off various debts (which we did). The plan was to use 90% of the interest to provide Alabama with much needed sustainable revenue and rainy day funds for education and something else.

There was a vote about a month ago in which Alabamans voted to open this trust up to pay for prisons and other things. At about 1/3 of the trusts value. The vote tomorrow is to take another 10% out of the trust for forever wild which is a nice program however not a Program in which a state like Alabama with many needs should spend its limited resources.

What will end up happening is that this billion dollar fund will be wasted programs that are not sustainable and we will look back In 30 years and realize we wasted a billion dollars. I have more info if you are still curious.

Stop leeching off of our big city tits IMO. Voter welfare

Nebraska.

And it would be great if all states did that. IMO it would solve the problems with both the popular vote and the electoral college. Small states would still be important, and people who live in states that lean heavy one way or the other, their votes would matter. For instance BLF's vote for Obama today might actually mean something in Alabama.

It is always nice to find some common ground with someone on the other end of the political spectrum. I did 5 submarine patrols when I was active duty and now am in Afghanistan as a member of the guard. I get infuriated with those who say it is too hard to vote or don't bother for X reason.

As for the OP, one giant HELL NO. People forget that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy (not a pure one). If it were not for the EC, the campaigns and thus the presidents wouldn't give 2 rat's rears about small states and rural areas. They would focus on population centers in order to max their chances of topping the popular vote. While we are at it, we should ammend the constitution to repeal the 17th amendment (the direct election of Senators). Senators were originally elected by their respective state legislature. We need to strengthen the rights of states and push most gov't programs down to the local level. What is good for a rancher in Montana is not likely the best idea for a an architect in NYC.