Many people immigrate to the United States because they believe that it is better than their native country. In fact, many people believe that the United States id the best country in the world. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness; these are the self-evident truths that act as the backbone for the United States. There are few countries that have the luxury of living in a society in which they believe in inalienable rights and those rights are protected. This is one of the reasons that many people from other countries decide to make the large commute to the United States. This country is known as the land of opportunity, which I suppose is true, but it all depends on the person. Some may even consider the United States to be the best country in the world. Every nation has its own share of problems and the U.S is no exception. With that being said, I do not believe that the United States is the best country in the world because it does not fully exemplify what it represents which is equality for all and the power of the people.
Although America constantly includes the ideas from John Locke, who believed in rights and equality for all man, this country does not actually believe this to be true. An example would be the on going battle of homosexuality. Many same sex couples cannot reap legal benefits that a heterosexual couple would, through marriage. If America is supposed to be the land of equality, why is that those who are different are constantly being ridiculed and not given the same rights as everyone else? Personally, I do not see the harm in same sex marriage. A person has the right to love and marry whom ever they feel is best suited for them. Some have even pushed the issue of adding the restriction of homosexual marriage, into the Constitution. If this does occur, than it will only further represent how much this nation contradicts itself.
I personally believe that the most powerful force in any country is not the government, but its people. Citizens of a nation do not realize how powerful their voice can be as a whole. With this in mind, the government looks for ways to limit the rights of the common man, mainly through politics. For example, Americans do not directly elect the president. Each state has a certain amount of representatives; depending on how large the state is, to decide who they feel is the better candidate. This is the Electoral College System and it is a form of indirect democracy. This limits the voice and power of the people and no matter whom the representatives elect, they will never fully represent American citizens. The Electoral College also makes many of the elections appear to be more corrupt, considering that these representatives can and most likely do accept bribes from the candidates. If the people had direct democracy, I believe that this country would not be in the position that it is in now. Yes, Americans do have a pretty large voice, compared to other countries. But, as time progresses, it is beginning to subside.
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. Every vote would be counted for and directly 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 (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, 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. Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%. 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.
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 in closely divided battleground states: CO-- 68%, IA --75%, MI-- 73%, MO-- 70%, NH-- 69%, NV-- 72%, NM-- 76%, NC-- 74%, OH-- 70%, PA -- 78%, VA -- 74%, and WI -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE --75%, ME -- 77%, NE -- 74%, NH --69%, NV -- 72%, NM -- 76%, RI -- 74%, and VT -- 75%; in Southern and border states: AR --80%, KY -- 80%, MS --77%, MO -- 70%, NC -- 74%, and VA -- 74%; and in other states polled: CA -- 70%, CT -- 74% , MA -- 73%, MN – 75%, NY -- 79%, WA -- 77%, and WV- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR (6), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), ME (4), MI (17), NV (5), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), and OR (7), and both houses in CA (55), CO (9), HI (4), IL (21), NJ (15), MD (10), MA(12), RI (4), VT (3), and WA (11). The bill has been enacted by DC, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes -- 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com