Lately, I've been thinking.
Why are the things the way they are? People always want change - like the grass will be greener on that other side. But will it really be greener? Someone today asked me, "Why not just get rid of the electoral college? Let's have popular vote." And to be really honest, I can't even fully answer that question. Why is there always a huge discrepancy between the "elite", the middle class, and the low-income class? To this day, the very same tensions still exist here in the United States - the struggle to gain financial stability and wealth in the superficial manner existing since colonial times.
Every argument, every subject that is called into question usually has to do about change. What's the best way to improve something or create something to improve a lifestyle. These are the challenges our generations face today in the 21st century. But how do we ever determine what's really best for the people, or our country? Nothing will ever benefit everyone, will it? There will be people who lose some, and people who win some. It's a never ending cycle. And yet, people still persist to create that utopia - to make the world a better place. I suppose it's really admirable that we, as a species, never give up.
Maybe we are a "key stone" species. Ha ha. Ha ha. That would be a Biology joke, seeing that I just took a Biology final yesterday.
About Me
- Ashtyn
- Ithaca, New York, United States
- In the state of California where 45% of registered voters are registered as Democrats and 20% of voters are registered as Independent, I tend to lean towards the Conservative side of things. I like logical arguments. I like to make a statement. I want to set trends, not follow them. I like politics. Enough said? I am currently a Government Major, French Minor, Law & Society Minor, in my freshman year at Cornell University. I am a member of Alpha Chi Omega sorority, President of the Junior Panhellenic Council, AXO Sisterhood Chair, and a member of the Roosevelt Insitute policy think tank.
1 comments:
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote) have come about without federal constitutional amendments, by state legislative action.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by over 1,885 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Post a Comment