What kinds of issues would some states have that Kansas wouldn't also have that would be of concern in a Presidential election?
We are having a debate on another thread about the Electoral College. The main argument FOR the college is so that the entire outcome isn’t determined by the most populated portions of the country. Let’s take California v Kansas. What would California voter’s issues be that I would think are not important, and vise versa? Issues that could be affected by a national presidential election, NOT a state congress, governor or senate election.
It seems to me that individual state issues need to be addressed at the state level. The president is in charge of the well being of the entire nation, not just one part of it (present company aside.) For the most part, I think the presidents,up to now, have done a very good job governing that way, too.
To be clear, I’m asking for concrete state issues that differ from states to states and that may be addressed at the presidential level. Historical examples are welcome.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
12 Answers
The population centers of California are along the coast, while the rural, farming centers are in the Central Valley. California has its own division of red counties vs blue counties, although the state is overall very blue.
So Kansans in general wiould have the same concerns as Central Valley Californians. But the coastal Californians generally feel the Department of Agriculture and the every five year Farm Bills are welfare payments for rich white people.
And, there are environmental regulations, for instance, where Kansans want diesel tractors for farm equipment to be pretty unregulated, while Californians want exhaust scrubbers on all diesel engines.
And that goes back to the President to decide @zenvelo. Our reps at the state level go fight like hell for the state’s interests. You can only pray that a president actually has everyone’s best interests in mind.
Something that comes to mind is JFK. Oh, you know he pissed a lot of people off with his civil right’s stance…but was his stance wrong just because there were people who said it was wrong?
I want scrubbers on the farm equipment, as well as regulations.
@Dutchess_III That is really for Congress to decide. The President can send preferences, but legislation is key.
I am sure you have already read this but if not, it’s a start to answering the question.
But Congress, reps, etc. can push for it, lobby for it, influence the president to decide in their favor.
No, I haven’t read it @josie. But just glancing at it proves my point. Kansas fucked up!
How about offshore drilling?
I think you are asking this question from a flawed premise. The Presidential election is not separate of focused differntly than the rest of the election. That’s why a party prefers to control both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch.
The President has specific responsibilities, but does not operate in a vacuum separate and apart from Congress.
Quite possibly flawed @zenvelo. I’m not expert in this stuff.
Is everyone in, say Tennessee on the same page when it comes to coal mining, or everyone in Alaska on the same page when it comes to off shore drilling? Is every farmer in Kansas against regulations on their farm machinery or against exhaust scrubbers? As for this Kansan, I’d agree with CA on that issue.
Response moderated (Spam)
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
