It has been brought to my attention, some states are taking steps to eliminate the ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE”. Apparently the people trying to eliminate the Electoral College, either missed that day in school, or was asleep when the subject was being taught. You see the Electoral College was put in the constitution to protect smaller states from being RULED by the whims of the larger populated states. It is a safe stop; which is more necessary now than at the time of its placement in the constitution. Before you begin reading the main body of this post, I ask you to keep in mind these numbers. (Although the Electoral College isn’t perfect please consider these numbers). Then tell me who completely controls the “POPULAR VOTE”. California: 38,889,700 people. Texas: 30,978,754 people. Florida: 22,975,931 people. New York 19,467,232 people. Pennsylvania 12,951275 people. I am using numbers available for April, 2024. The total population of just these 5 states, (according to my calculator), 335,893,238 that is almost 336 MILLION PEOPLE. Now as for the other 45 states (again according to my calculator), 206,982,776 almost 207 MILLION PEOPLE. My point being with 5 states having 129 MILLION MORE PEOPLE THAN THE remaining 45 states. These 5 states have more than enough people to elect whoever they want not necessarily who is best for the entire country. This conundrum (to ME). Do I want a president I do not want or even have a say in? The Electoral College is a mechanism established by the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 1. It was intended as a compromise between those who advocated for the election of the president through a vote in Congress and those who believed it should be decided by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors in total, which represent the 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and three additional electors from the District of Columbia. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive at least 270 electoral votes. This system is not based on equal representation of individuals, but rather on equal representation of states. Now let’s consider your hypothetical scenario where just five most populated states control a presidential election. These states are California (55 Electoral Votes), Texas (38), Florida (29), New York (29), and Pennsylvania (20) as per the 2020 allocations. This adds up to just 171 electoral votes – still far short from the required majority of 270. Therefore, even though these states might have large populations, they alone cannot decide an election through popular vote due to our current electoral college system. However, if we were to shift to a direct democracy model or use only popular vote to determine elections, theoretically these states with high populations could indeed dominate national elections. This could lead to political imbalance and neglecting interests of less populous areas which often have unique socio-economic and environmental issues that require specific policy attention. If this were the case, citizens from less-populated states might feel that their votes don’t carry enough weight or their voice is not heard adequately in deciding national leadership. This could lead to certain degree of voter disillusionment or lower voter turnout among them because they may see their role as insignificant next to larger populace areas. This concern forms one of key arguments behind maintaining our Electoral College – it ensures all parts of country can have recognizable say in choosing our national leader irrespective of their population size. Furthermore, the electoral college system forces presidential candidates to seek support from a wider geographic base, instead of just focusing on densely populated urban areas. It maintains the balance of influence among states and encourages candidates to understand and respond to diverse needs of different states. So despite criticisms, many argue that maintaining the electoral college is an important tool in preserving our federal system and ensuring that all parts of the country have an equitable say in national elections. In conclusion: What am i missing? After all I am sure these lawmakers have a much better education than I do. OR, are they ??? What is their motive for taking away the voters rights, as IT IS possible that the votes cast by these 45 states are just a matter of going through the motions, allowing the residents to feel their votes count. Thank you. Artie Fischal P.S. Please feel free to leave me comments those who agree and those who don’t agree. Maybe I’ll learn something. Views: 166
Tag: Voters
Wisconsin Vs Unions Legal Vs Moral
Many of us have been watching the unfolding saga pitting GOVERNMENT AGAINST UNION. While the outcome is a loss for Unions/Working People. My question is: Where do you draw the line at LEGAL and Moral Ethics. Some of the people’s representatives left the State as a way of fighting for the rights of workers. Others stayed behind and plotted a sneaky way to push their agenda forward. My questions is who took the more ethical way to fight. We cannot deny the dissenters brought the government’s UNION ASSASSINATION PLOT, to light. Was there any other avenues for them to take. I don’t know of any, but there may have been. We know there was plenty of input from the residents against the passage of this bill. If you haven’t been keeping up on the situation. The Governor and 18 Republicans were acting in the best interest of Big Business. (Few small businesses deal with unions). To get this bit of business passed those 18 Republicans (One Republican dissented); conspired to strip out any item that would force them to have the required quorum of 20 members to pass the bill. Thus allowing them to pass it with only 18 of the 33 total voting members. I’m sure the vote was probably LEGAL. But was it MORALl? Did they show the ETHICS expected by the people of the state. I have always loved the state of WISCONSIN, But if the actions of the Governor and the Republicans, is a reflection of the people’s ETHICS then I am so very glad to not be a WISCONSIN CITIZEN. Where do you draw the line between Moral ethics and legalit? This a Question Wisconsin Voters must ask themselves when they visit the voting booth again. That Is How I See It. Views: 151
Illinois to raise Taxes
Illinois has a state sales tax rate of 6.25%. Now Governor Pat Quinn is elated to have had his lame duck law-makers pass a new income tax law. Although I despise the two party system which gives power to people with their own money making agendas. I must state according to the report this hike was passed without one Republican vote for. I must mention the voters in all but 3 counties were against tax hikes. Retroactive to January 1, 2011, Individual taxpayers will face an 67% increase in personal income tax. Business will face a 46% rise. This according to the governor will give $250 million a year to schools. However had they passed a $.98 Cigarette tax increase, schools would have gotten $300 million a year. The money raised was originally earmarked to reduce property taxes. But in the final draft this was dropped. NO property relief. I am sure you smokers will disagree with me here, but I feel if you can afford a nonessential like cigarettes, you can surely well afford a tax on cigarettes. I classify any nonessential a luxury. I suppose the economy and unemployment rate is healthier in ILLINOIS than any other state. Why else would they even consider a non logical move like this. Seems to me more people will have to leave the state, being unable to afford the tax hike. Business can you afford to stay in ILLINOIS. I suppose the Governor knows his State better than I. If you can’t cut spending raise income. Can the individual taxpayer do that? NO. Can business do it? YES! they just raise their prices, which also generates more sales tax money for the state, an covers the tax raise. Thus the business tax raise, is passed on to consumers making their total 113% raise in income tax. Without spending cuts and only raise taxes. Will the Governor bankrupt the state. Or will the tax base be forced to leave the state/ That Is How I See It Views: 115
