"Who Loves Ya Baby?"

by: siweni

Tue Nov 13, 2012 at 17:06:22 PM EST

You can be sure that over the ensuing weeks, months and years, leading up to the 2016 Presidential Elections, the GOP political pundits and strategist will be agonizing over the root causes of what went so terribly wrong with their presidential campaign. I can save them a lot of time and effort by citing a tag line from a TV show from the early 1970's.

More after the jump.

Aftermath

by: siweni

Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 23:30:09 PM EST

The election results are in and for the winners the glass is half full and for the losers it is half empty. Fortunately as Americans we are all looking at a glass which remains un-shattered.

More after the jump.

An illegitimate Congress? You betcha

by: Bruce Ticker

Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 19:27:56 PM EST

The Republican leadership is asking its members to make a silly vote. — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, April 1, 2011

Even more, blame the rules of the game that enable the Congress we have.

More after the jump.

American Vision - Prologue

by: Bruce Ticker

Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 20:40:20 PM EST

Bruce Ticker has written a new book American Vision. He has given us permission to publish this work as a weekly series. Here is the prologue.

Even on a day when almost nothing happens, the course of American history can be set for more than two centuries.

One such day was July 17, 1787. The birth of the Connecticut Compromise is customarily dated to July 16, 1787, when the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia approved a fresh but flawed legislative system, as part of a broader package of provisions for the budding Constitution.

Prior to 10 a.m. on the 17th, delegates from the most populous states to the Convention gathered at what is now Philadelphia's Independence Hall to assess the convention's vote from the day before.

The Connecticut Compromise created a split form of government: Each member of the House of Representatives would represent the same number of Americans, on a proportionate basis, and each state would be represented by the same number of senators regardless of population.

More after the jump.

Agreement Among States to Elect President by National Popular Vote

by: Publisher

Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 22:52:52 PM EST

It is true that the electoral college has its problems, but the Republican backed scheme would make matters worse. Anyone truly concerned about the electoral college should consider the National Popular Vote Compact below and urge your legislators to support it.

Post a comment below and we will enter you into a drawing to receive a free copy of Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote.

The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbiaand 8 states (VT, MD, WA, IL, NJ, MA, CA, HI) shown in green on the map. They total 132 electoral votes bringing us almost halfway towards the 270 necessary to activate the National Popular Vote.

Eleven more states (shown in purple) have passed NPV bills in at least one chamber of their legislature. For example, recently the Republican-controlled New York Senate passed NPV in a 47-13 vote. Republicans supported the bill 21-11 while Democrats supported it 26-2. Across the country, NPV has been endorsed by 2,124 state legislators.

The shortcomings of the current system stem from the 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).

The winner-take-all rule has permitted a candidate to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide in 4 of our 56 elections - 1 in 14 times.  A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected Kerry despite Bush's nationwide lead of 3,000,000.

Another shortcoming of the winner-take-all rule is that presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the concerns of voters in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind.  In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign visits and ad money in the November general election campaign in just six closely divided "battleground" states — with 98% going to 15 states.  This makes two thirds of the states mere spectators. (The maps on the left show a similar situation during the final five weeks of the 2004 Bush-Kerry election. Each purple hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice-presidential candidate and each dollar sign represents $1,000,000 spent on TV advertising.)

The winner-take-all rule treats voters supporting the candidate who comes in second place in a particular state as if they supported the candidate that they voted against.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the states exclusive control over the manner of awarding their electoral votes:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...."

Under the National Popular Vote bill, 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).  The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes - that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

The bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every vote will matter in every state in every presidential election.

The bill has been endorsed by New York Times, Sacramento Bee, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Los Angeles Times, Common Cause, FairVote, LWVUS, and NAACP.

As seen in this state polls are extremely favorable. Supports ranges from a "low" of 67% in Arizona to a high of 83% in Tennessee. On this map, shades of blue represent the highest support and 50/50 support would be represented in purple.

The movement for the National Popular Vote is bipartisan: The national advisory board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R-UT), Birch Bayh (D-IN), and David Durenberger (R-MN) as well as former congressmen John Anderson (R-IL, I), John Buchanan (R-AL), Tom Campbell (R-CA), and Tom Downey (D-NY). Former Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Governors Bob Edgar (R-IL) and Chet Culver (D-IA) are champions.

This Spring, Pennsylvania House Bill 1270 was introduced by Rep. Tom C. Creighton (R-Lancaster County) and Senate Bill 1116 was introduced by Senators Alloway, Argall, Boscola, Erickson, Fontana, Leach, Mensch, Solobay, Vance and Waugh. These bills have not yet be acted upon action by the State Government Committees.

Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote.

Pennsylvania poll results follow the jump.

To support National Popular Vote efforts, donate money, contact your state legislator and get involved.

President's Reported Willingness to Cut Social Security Benefits a Danger to Seniors

by: abg5e

Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 22:42:08 PM EDT

--by Sharon Bender

B'nai B'rith International is deeply disappointed by a White House willingness, as reported by The Washington Post among other news organizations, to include cuts to Social Security benefits in addition to potentially devastating cuts to Medicare and other programs in deficit reduction efforts. Social Security does not contribute to the federal deficit-by law, it simply cannot. Social Security benefits come from payroll contributions. By law, it's a self-funding program which cannot touch general revenue or, therefore, drive the deficit up. Including it in these deficit talks could make an already disturbing set of options even worse.

Social Security is a vital, irreplaceable safety net for seniors and people with disabilities. Benefits are already slim, with the average beneficiary receiving just $13,000 a year. By reducing the already badly calculated and insufficient cost of living adjustment (COLA), the program would be less effective even for current beneficiaries. And the damage would be compounded annually, hurting future retirees and the very elderly even more.

"That these rumored COLA cuts would be piled on top of expected changes to Medicare that could shift costs to seniors is especially worrisome," Allan J. Jacobs, B'nai B'rith International President said. "Eventually middle class retirees could find their most reliable income stream consumed by their rising health care costs."

More after the jump.

Remarks by the President on the Status of Efforts to Find a Balanced Approach to Deficit Reduction

by: abg5e

Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 22:22:22 PM EDT

1:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  I'm going to make a very brief statement.

    I just completed a meeting with all the congressional leaders from both chambers, from both parties, and I have to say that I thought it was a very constructive meeting.  People were frank.  We discussed the various options available to us.  Everybody reconfirmed the importance of completing our work and raising the debt limit ceiling so that the full faith and credit of the United States of America is not impaired.

    What we decided was that staffs, as well as leadership, will be working during the weekend, and that I will reconvene congressional leaders here on Sunday with the expectation that, at that point, the parties will at least know where each other's bottom lines are and will hopefully be in a position to then start engaging in the hard bargaining that's necessary to get a deal done.

More after the jump.