With the November mid-terms coming up, I have been looking in to the options I have available to me. Living in west Texas, right now my representative is Ciro D. Rodriguez, he does have a "D" by his name, although you wouldn't know it from his website, I had to really dig to find out his political affiliation, you'd think he'd be proud of it and would place that information prominently on his site, nope, not there, at least not when and where I looked, I found that info on Wikipedia.
I used to not vote, I just didn't care, as long as those in power left me and mine alone (I'm not doing anything illegal, so they shouldn't poke their noses in my business) I didn't care who was in office, I figured that all of the elections were rigged anyhow, so what was the point?
Now my thoughts on voting have changed quite a bit, and even though I still feel like the elections are not completely honest, especially the presidential elections (why do we still use the electoral college anyhow?), I do feel like my vote counts on a local basis, and if I can help Ciro D. Rodriguez on his way, far far away this November, that's exactly what I intend to do. Hear that sucking sound Ciro? That's the sound of your political career going down the toilet, oh and I do wish you would volunteer to use Obama care for you and your family, remember the one that you so generously voted for and thought would be so wonderful for the rest of us? Did you even READ it?
I did a little checking and found out the Repub that will most likely replace Ciro is Canseco. That is who I will most likely vote for, I like what I read on his site, I'll be doing more research before the mid-term vote, I will be there, I will vote, democraps your days of running this country into the ground through socialistic means are numbered, I assure you that I will not be the only conservative running out to vote this November.
Now I have to find out who else and what else is going to be on the ballot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
fyi
ReplyDeleteBy 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could 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. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote would be counted for and assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
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. It does not 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, 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, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 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). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
You mean the candidates would actually have to WORK for their votes??? How novel... ;)
ReplyDeleteWretha