v'ܩ 200th Post Celebration at Geek Politics
Home > Uncategorized > 200th Post Celebration at Geek Politics

200th Post Celebration at Geek Politics

March 4th, 2010

We recently passed the milestone of 200 posts here at Geek Politics so I thought I’d take a quick look back at some of our most popular posts and share them with anyone who may have missed them along the way. Here are just a few of the things we’ve covered:

Fair Tax Pros and Cons

Overall I think the pros significantly outweigh the cons for the fair tax. I think the idea of taxing consumption instead of production makes a lot of sense, and taxing illegal activities and illegal immigrants sounds great to me. However, nothing here can solve the real problem that we have. The thing that needs changed is the out of control spending habits of our government. Until that is curbed, how we pay taxes isn’t the big issue.

Government Stimulus Package

This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

Reasons to Legalize Marijuana

A study by Jeffery Miron, a professor at Harvard, said that legalizing marijuana would save the government $7.7 billion a year. Second, legalized marijuana would bring in a large amount of tax revenue. Miron estimated that it would bring in $6.2 billion if it were taxed at the rates of alcohol and tobacco.

Top 40 Reasons to Support Gun Control, NOT!

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

Assault Weapons Ban

I wanted to finish this series with a discussion on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The sad truth of this legislation that Obama administration would like to make permanent is that it doesn’t do anything. This legislation does nothing at all, it did nothing the last time it was enacted except serve as a way for politicians to look tough on guns.

Conservative Books, lots of them. Go and read them all, then report back to me.

Illegal Immigrant Problems

The problem is that illegal immigrants are taking from society without giving anything in return. Health care, education, and other areas of public service. Illegals aren’t paying for these things, yet they are receiving them. The thing is, we either have to stop them from coming in the first place, or we have to find a way to have them contribute. Otherwise, our systems are going to go bankrupt due to the people who are taking from it but not contributing to it.

Electoral College Pros and Cons

1. Pro: It allows small states and small town America to have a say in the the election. The candidates go to every corner of the battleground states and many people get the opportunity to meet and question them. I am originally from a small town and I think that this is one of the major benefits of the electoral college.

If you like politics and enjoyed any of these articles you should subscribe to our RSS feed to get free updates.

Author: Derek Clark Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. mvymvy
    March 5th, 2010 at 12:28 | #1

    RE: Electoral College

    The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states, much less small states and small towns. Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states. New Hampshire was the only smallest state among them. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
    Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

    Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

    Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

    In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

    The National Popular Vote bill would 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. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

    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 Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

    The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,707 state legislators (in 48 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 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. 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

  2. March 5th, 2010 at 13:25 | #2

    The problem with a straight popular vote is the possibility of a recount. do you remember the nightmare that was florida in 2000? I like the idea of doing an electoral college by district thing that nebraska and maine do. This brings a lot more of the country into play yet avoids the scary possibility of a national recount.