tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post353272554447935986..comments2024-02-26T11:57:59.502-06:00Comments on Schultz's Take: And the Winner Is....Predicting the 2012 Presidential ElectionProfDSchultzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14428175737629801650noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-56650713293383211102013-03-11T00:55:44.212-05:002013-03-11T00:55:44.212-05:00Such an interesting post! There are some people wh...Such an interesting post! There are some people who are looking for the best financial planner and I heard that the <a href="http://www.davincifinancialdesigns.com/about-us/advisor-bios/patrick-burgess/" rel="nofollow">cfp columbia sc</a> is one of the best company where you can trust your investments.<br />teresa bowenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534290439844564640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-37625388507356131442012-09-22T16:39:31.364-05:002012-09-22T16:39:31.364-05:00If Big Money could not be concentrated in one or t...If Big Money could not be concentrated in one or two critical winner-take-all states, Big Money would at least have to spend a lot more. For example, in 2000 GWB got 201 electoral votes (he needed 270 to win). In a virtual tie, as was the case in Florida, at least 10 of the state's electoral votes should have been awarded to Gore. The "investment" could be focused on one state. If the "investment" had to be made in many states, the cost would be multiples of buying an election in just one or two states.<br /><br />We would be a much better, more prosperous country had GWB's brother, the Republican party charged with the vote count, and the Supreme Court, with five partisan judges, not stolen the election from the rightful winner of a fair count in Florida, or--better--the winner of the popular count (Gore beat Bush by one-half million votes).<br /><br />It is in our national interest, however, to allow as little private money into elections. Senators and Congressmen on Capitol Hill must spend at least half their time not representing your interests and mine, but raising money for the next election and the Party.<br /><br />The election season goes on and one for an intolerable length of time.<br /><br />We must decide that we the people will finance elections, and that the candidate will play by our rules: say, 90 days to choose a candidate and campaign--all primaries, caucuses, etc., must be held during those three months; fact-checked campaign statements with fines imposed for attempts to deceive the public; non-partisan election committees; free time on radio and TV, and free space in newspapers and magazines.<br /><br />If we decide that our problem is Big Business in government and not government in Big Business, then we need to get Big Business out of government. As long as Big Business can "contribute" all it wants to candidates who will reward their supporters, we will see no end to the growth of the plutocratic corporatocracy that now pulls the strings of its puppets in government--especially those forced to sign an oath to a corporatist lobbyist like Grover Norquist.<br />laerciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09559232538448931204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-21750789168661622492012-09-22T16:19:41.823-05:002012-09-22T16:19:41.823-05:0090% of Romney's support consists of whites. Fe...90% of Romney's support consists of whites. Few of these people really want more of their tax dollars subsidizing companies that send American jobs abroad. Few want the privatization of Social Security or the end of Medicare as we know it in exchange for vouchers with which we take our changes every year on the market, where insurance companies--exempt from anti-trust--laws, charge what the market will bear.<br /><br />Whites will not vote for Romney; they are voting anti-Obama, their decision made not from the head but from the gut.<br /><br />If whites, like other Americans, voted their best interests, Romney would be buried in the greatest landslide in American history.laerciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09559232538448931204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-69557458280244688542012-09-22T16:17:40.832-05:002012-09-22T16:17:40.832-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.laerciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09559232538448931204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-39563909722423300042012-09-22T16:10:58.952-05:002012-09-22T16:10:58.952-05:00The electee should be accountable to the voter.
...The electee should be accountable to the voter. <br /><br />In a critical, winner-take-all state, no one opposing voters is represented; worse is that just enough tinkering to ensure that all the states' votes in a close election are awarded to the candidate with a handful of votes certified by a commission dominated by one party or the other tips the election in favor of a candidate who, in effect, steals the election.<br /><br />By focusing on a deliberate miscount of the vote in one or two states (Bush in Florida in 2000, for example), the entire election can be decided by a small, monied, influential cabal.<br />laerciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09559232538448931204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-22513202790583788482012-08-06T11:46:37.364-05:002012-08-06T11:46:37.364-05:00My question is: would these proposed changes help ...My question is: would these proposed changes help reduce the influence of big money in national campaigns?Judy D. Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00122405001674453035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-55169653222664771452012-07-28T14:57:07.168-05:002012-07-28T14:57:07.168-05:00On June 7, 2011, the Republican-controlled New Yor...On June 7, 2011, the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 47–13 margin, with Republicans favoring the bill by 21–11. Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party favored the bill 17–7. <br /><br />Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: "I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome. <br />It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.<br /> <br />National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."<br /><br />Former Tennessee U.S. Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Fred Thompson(R), former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.<br /><br />National Popular Vote's National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), and David Durenberger (R–MN) and former congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), and Tom Campbell (R–CA).<br /><br />Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other. <br /><br />Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."totohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12247335901450384827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-83584923942466404742012-07-28T06:53:26.155-05:002012-07-28T06:53:26.155-05:00The Republicans will never allow this idea to beco...The Republicans will never allow this idea to become law....They need to divide and conquer in order to win.RonLietzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15424656768234820992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-71468526547008961932012-07-27T13:45:36.780-05:002012-07-27T13:45:36.780-05:00Presidential elections don't have to be this w...Presidential elections don't have to be this way.<br /><br />The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).<br /><br />Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states, like Minnesota, that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the primaries.<br /> <br />When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.<br /> <br />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. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.<br /> <br />A survey of Minnesota voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.<br />Support was 84% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 68% among others.<br />By age, support was 74% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.<br />By gender, support was 83% among women and 67% among men.<br /><br />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). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.<br /><br />The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.<br /><br />NationalPopularVote <br />Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInctotohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12247335901450384827noreply@blogger.com