Yes, Wyoming — population , in the census — would have equal say in the selection of the president with California — 37 million. And to win, a candidate must receive the support of an absolute majority of states. But states that have an even number of House members may deadlock. Minnesota, with its current delegation of four Democrats and four Republicans, would be a good candidate for this fate.
A deadlocked state cannot vote at all for a presidential candidate. But, to produce a winner, one candidate would still have to win 26 states, even though several states would presumably be deadlocked. If no presidential candidate can get to 26, there is no constitutional mechanism for producing a winner. The vice president whose selection in this scenario would be thrown into the Senate could serve indefinitely as acting president.
This has never happened, although it has come close. If we wait long enough, it will happen someday. When the Framers put that crazy structure, where the presidential election would be thrown from the Electoral College into the House for a one-state one-vote choice of the next president, they believed this would actually happen on a regular basis.
Is listening to a partisan hack like eric black in order to form your opinion on any important subject. Black fails to aknowledge that the US is not a democracy but rather a republic with democratically elected representatives. He fails to understand the simple concepts of the constitution and the history of the changes that have been made to it. Do you actually think that one person, one vote is part of that history?
If you need proof, just ck and see when the blacks and women gained the rights to vote. Black also fails to recognise the fact that the electoral college acts as a buffer against a few more populated states taking total control of the country and its governance as a result. Lastly,reading minnpost is akin to reading the dfl platform and talking points. Just feeding the sheep as usual. It is clear from everything Eric Black has written that he acknowledges that our system of government is, in fact, a republic. I think we all agree on these basic facts.
And if not, why not? As Eric Black has shown, the Electoral College represents us all haphazardly and inaccurately. I understand why liberals like Black and me reject an antiquated governing structure that fails to represent us consistently and accurately, as a truly republican institution should.
10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem | MinnPost
What I do not understand, and what you have failed to explain to me, is why a conservative should want to defend it. I know that this is a really old post but I would firstly like to point out that I completely agree with Eric; especially on the point about states taking control. Also I would like to point out that I generally vote conservative, In an electoral system where winner-takes-all it is definitely more possible for particular states to gain more influence than others. How can we take an important piece like this and make it mainstream, then organize people around debating ways to solve it?
The great points here lead directly to the zero-sum game we have today, which is causing the rancor and acrimony in America. We are made to feel that we MUST win because we will not be represented otherwise. The shortcomings of the Electoral College are examples of how this happens. Gore won Florida. But they also did a full statewide recount, and looked at the over votes. Furthermore Bush supporters got late arriving absentee military votes counted in select districts, if all those votes has been counted statewide Gore would have won.
Gore got the votes but lost the recount because he failed to get a full statewide recount of all ballots and an application of the same standards to all late arriving absentee military ballots. Both sides must be adversely affected within a reasonable time period. Could happen this year if Romney ekes out a narrow popular vote edge while Obama hangs onto Ohio for the E. Of leftists in the urban areas, of course Eric and his ilk are going to dislike the college… More the reason to protect it.
Whenever somebody makes a good case against the Electoral College — and Eric Black has done an excellent job here — somebody else not always a conservative, by the way is bound to dredge up the old canard that the Electoral College is worth keeping because it gives well-deserved extra support to rural Americans. Even if one happens to agree that over-representing rural people and under-representing urban and suburban ones is somehow always the right thing to do and I do not agree with that , this much-used defense of the Electoral College still fails because of a complete lack of evidence that this peculiar institution does, in fact, generally favor rural voters over urban ones.
I chose the year because this is the latest year for which I could find urban versus rural population data. If we consider only percentages, there seems to be something to the argument that the Electoral College favors rural citizens over urban ones. In the same year, only But what happens when we compare the rural population of Wyoming with that of California in raw numbers?
California had 1,, rural residents in Wyoming had only , That means that the vote of a rural citizen in Wyoming is worth more than 10 times the vote of a rural citizen of California. Is that fair?
The census counted 59,, rural citizens in the year Consequently, immigration may lead to greater self-investment in education. In the late s, during one of the greatest immigration waves in U. In fact, cities with high rates of immigration gain wealth faster and increase their respective per capita incomes more quickly than cities with few immigrants. Ironically, cities with the most immigrants—New York, Hous-ton, Los Angeles—are the least anti-immigrant. Immigrants created jobs, increased productivity, and did jobs that Americans did not want.
Democrats show carelessness with resolution on ‘religiously unaffiliated’
Ron Unz, an economist and Silicon Valley entrepreneur, concedes that job competition from foreigners may hurt native borns and lead to unemployment but he argues that this is true for all economic policies in American society. Overall, Unz and most free market economists conclude that foreign workers benefit Americans and the economy—and even those hurt temporarily—by lowering consumer costs, which raises productivity and, in turn, increases the number of jobs.
Immigrants do not merely perform menial jobs. The United States should not, therefore, make it difficult for talented people to come here, as it does now. Skilled people add significantly to gross domestic product GDP , whereas unskilled ones add less than 1 percent, according to George Borjas of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Although that debate came up again during the Clinton administration, Congress raised the number of H-1B visas for skilled workers several times. Skilled workers also play an important part in those new industries where the United States is the world leader—computers, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, information, and entertainment.
Making and Remaking America: Immigration into the United States
Thus, T. By contrast, smaller, innovative, and more flexi-ble firms have expanded and hired more staff. Indeed, firms such as Cypress cannot find enough qualified people. Cypress is not alone in its predicament. The eleven semiconductor companies that make up the Sematech chip consortium have thousands of open requisitions that they are unable to fill. Cypress itself is so short of skilled engineers that the company has started to move design centers abroad.
Critics such as Norman Matloff of the University of California at Davis accuse the high-tech industries of hiring foreigners to keep down the wages of native-born experts. But this is not so. Recruiting a person from overseas may itself be a costly and time-consuming undertaking when it involves relocating both the foreign expert and his or her family to the United States. Keeping out skilled newcomers may have the perverse effect of forcing U. Four of them are immigrants. In any case, because the U. Without them, there will not be enough young people to pay for the social benefits destined for an ever-growing army of elderly or help America remain competitive in high-tech industries.
His work centers on California; his wages derive from California; he communicates electronically with his California colleagues on personal as well as professional matters.
- Manners Stink: Starring Kennedy.
- Valse Erica - Piano Score (for C Melody Sax)?
- The Second Mrs Adams (Mills & Boon Vintage 90s Modern).
Indeed, he knows his California associates better than his Indian neighbors, but he is not an immigrant in the physical or legal sense. Although in many ways he resembles an immigrant to the United States with regards to both his economic function and his mind-set, he lives in a world where visas, quotas, and their like have ceased to count. From economic issues, we pass to questions of social concern.
- Financial Times Home.
- Antarctica! Learn About Antarctica and Enjoy Colorful Pictures - Look and Learn! (50+ Photos of Antarctica).
- Going, Gone (Gail McCarthy Mystery Book 11).
- Far Above Rubies (Angel of Mercy Series)?
- Animal Healing with Australian Bush Flower Essences.
Do immigrants contribute to U. Inner-city gangs have changed their ethnic composition, but so have the law-abiding segments of the population in the inner cities. According to Joe Cobb, an expert at the Heritage Foundation, the number of noncitizens in prison is about the same proportion as the number in the general population. Of the states with the largest proportion of alien prisoners in California, New York, Florida, Illinois , only New York had a greater share of aliens in jail than in the general population.
There is no reason to think that crime would necessarily diminish if immigration were stopped. Big-time crime has become globalized; some of the most formidable rackets in the United States are run from places such as Hong Kong or Lima or Mexico City. The bulk of immigrants are law-abiding, and more than 80 percent are employed; in fact some do remarkably well in meeting American family values.
Some 40 percent of immigrant households consist of four or more people, compared with 25 percent of native-born American ones. Immigrants are more likely to be married and less likely to be divorced or separated than native-born citizens.
Top Right Menu
A typical immigrant is less likely to have finished high school, but if he or she did receive higher education, he or she is twice as likely to have a doctorate. The immigrant is a little more likely to do paid work than a native-born but less likely to work for the government. Immigrants are, in fact, remarkably well attuned to the American tradition of self-help and enterprise.
They relish consumer goods; they have an even greater interest than native-born Americans in quality products and brand names. They like to keep up with modern lifestyles and fashions. The majority do not feel alienated from their work or popular culture. The immigrants like to make their own decisions without reference to what their neighbors prefer. Some restrictionists believe that immigrants should be specially selected so that the United States will attract and accept only winners.
Peter Brimelow, a journalist for Forbes Magazine , argues even further that the United States does not need any immigrants.
Related America, Arise! (2012 Election Edition)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved