I just don't get it. The Dems really need to explain to the voters that the reason that this congress hasn't been able to make any major changes is STILL the fault of Republicans! The public has been misled into thinking that the Dems are now in control, and this is just not true. We've never had a solid 60 vote, on any issue, it seems.
Usually, in previous sessions of Congress, there would always be a few reps from the other side that would vote for a bill, regardless of party. Nowadays, that is not a reality. Every Republican will block every bill they can this session. They vote in a block, now, without exception. So, if there is any Democrat that has any reservations about any bill, there is no chance of it passing.
And over, and over, that has been the case. Dems need to explain that in order to get good legislation passed, there needs to be a surplus of Democratic votes, not just barely 60. If more Democrats, not less, were elected in the fall, it would be much easier to get the good bills passed. This session has been plagued with errant Dems. First there was Liebermann, blocking something, then Ben Nelson, then Blanche Lincoln...if we had say, 65 Dems in the Senate, then those pesky nay-saying right-leaning democrats wouldn't be able to stop bills from getting passed.
Republicans are still blocking legislation, and I don't think the voters realize that, many times, it hasn't been the Dems fault. If people are dissatisfied with Congress, they need to understand who is keeping Congress from passing good bills.
Also, WAKE UP, Dems. The Republicans have pulled the same nasty trick on the last three major bills that have been "passed."
They select one of their number to PRETEND that, with just a few small changes, they will be on board to vote for a bill. The Dems then bend over backward, removing ALL the teeth from the bill, and then the lone Republican changes his/her mind, and decides not to vote for it after all. Why don't the Dems put the provisions back in that they took out for that lone deceitful Republican before passing it? They just continue on, and end up passing watered down, crappy versions of the bills over and over again. Can't they back up ever? Can't they put the good stuff back in the bill again?
And how come Bush managed to get ALL kinds of bad bills passed without the magic 60? Why does Obama have to adhere to this policy when the Bush administration never did?
I'm starting to think that EVERYONE in Congress is on the dole. And we are getting the exact bills that the corporations ordered Congress to pass. The Dems like having Republicans blocking parts of bills for them, so the Dems can look like they care, and it's just not their fault, when in truth, neither party wants what's good for the American people, they just all want to keep the money flowing into their coffers, so they have enough money to buy the ads that help them keep their jobs, come next election.
Every bill has to be considered in terms of the next election, and where it fits into the Presidential schedule, and things that NEED to be addressed often aren't, because it just doesn't fit into the needs of the congress or President's reelection plans. How is that serving the people?
After thinking it all through, it seems to me that the major thing needed is Election Reform, however, how is that ever going to happen, when we are asking the reps to vote against their own best interest?
One would have to be truly altruistic to vote to improve our election process, and there are only a handful of reps in either house of congress that are in that mindset!
We should 1) Eliminate the electoral college 2) do major campaign finance reform 3) have a MUCH SHORTER run-up to the election.
And is it REALLY election time again, so soon? I have to say, I was really not ready for "Election 2010" to be the daily news story...didn't we just go through Election 2008, so very recently? I'm not ready for this again, so soon! Who but the pundits really is?
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. It would no longer matter who won a state. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The current winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states ensures 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.
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 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). 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 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, 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
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2208145434#
That sounds good to me, Toto, thanks for that information!
ReplyDelete