politics | From The Hips

azspot:

Our current system for filling the highest office in the land is broken. The current Electoral College system of electing a president in separate state-by-state elections allows losers to win, creates opportunities for partisans to game the system, and leads to most voters’ preferences being essentially ignored.

But with a stroke of his pen, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick yesterday showed that change is possible. By signing the National Popular Vote plan into law, Gov. Patrick made Massachusetts the sixth state to commit to awarding all of its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The law will only go into effect when enough states have enacted identical legislation—i.e. when their total electoral votes add up to 270, the majority necessary to elect a president.

The National Popular Vote plan builds on states’ exclusive power to decide how to allocate their electoral votes. Rather than pushing for a federal change to abolish the Electoral College, the plan uses state power to make it obsolete, guaranteeing that the White House goes to the candidate who earns the most votes.

For many Americans, George Bush’s win in the 2000 presidential election—despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by more than a half million votes—is enough reason to back reform. But it’s not why the National Popular Vote plan passed the New York State Senate this summer by a vote of 52-7, with Republicans backing it 22-5 and Democrats 30-2. The current system is broken for just about everyone, election after election.

from Dick Cheney's Weather Machine

fleetfootedfox 6 Aug Tags politics 15 Notes

Comments (View)

Quote:

“Rick Perry (R, Gov of TX) announced six days ago his plan to cut the drop out rate.
Texans 18 years and under should not get drivers licenses without certifying school attendance or enrollment in home school, private school or GED courses. Apparently Perry didn’t know—or doesn’t care—that this has been Texas law since 1989, and he has been responsible for enforcing it since 2001.”

Bill White (D, Running for Texas Governor) on his Facebook page. (via hellamike) (via fuckyestexas)

from Fuck Yes Texas

Comments (View)

Photo: raincoaster: The Force is not long with this one: Links!

raincoaster:

The Force is not long with this one: Links!

from raincoaster

fleetfootedfox 24 Jun Tags obama politics star wars macros

Comments (View)

Photo: abloodymess: forminvoltron: i find this and the argument it’s trying to make hilarious. also totally enraging. oh i get it! um, so that’s fucked up. republicans think a woman’s political worth is in how attractive she is. It’s double sad that they think that makes them better than democrats.

abloodymess:

forminvoltron:

i find this and the argument it’s trying to make hilarious.

also totally enraging.

oh i get it!

um, so that’s fucked up. republicans think a woman’s political worth is in how attractive she is. It’s double sad that they think that makes them better than democrats.

High Resolution Version from A Bloody Mess

fleetfootedfox 15 Jun Tags politics

Comments (View)

Photo: upyourarchitecture: danathelaugh:baudelaireinbraille:albustumbledore:vintagesoulsneverdie:conor-ryan:imsuperman: brilliant.

upyourarchitecture:

danathelaugh:baudelaireinbraille:albustumbledore:vintagesoulsneverdie:conor-ryan:imsuperman:

brilliant.

from UP YOUR ARCHITECTURE

fleetfootedfox 18 Apr Tags obama politics gaming

Comments (View)

Quote:

“This is a corruption — a corruption of the very institution of our democracy.
And this corruption makes it harder for both Reagan Republicans and
Progressive Democrats to achieve the substantive ends that each seeks. For 20
out of the last 29 years, we’ve had conservative Republican Presidents. But
Reagan Republicans have yet to see the size of government shrink, or the tax
code simplified — because Congress has no interest in smaller government or
simpler taxes, since both would make it harder to raise campaign funds.
Likewise, despite the election of Barack Obama with a super-majority
Democratic Congress, Progressive Democrats have watched with disgust as
every substantive reform of this administration has been stymied by special
interests expert in preserving the status quo.”

Change Congress | After Citizens United: Lessig on a Constitutional Amendment

As much as the right loves to complain about “legislating from the bench”, it’s a legitimate fear, and we need to start amending constitutions rather than letting judges have their way.

fleetfootedfox 27 Jan Tags politics

Comments (View)

Link:

Obama to skip jury duty in Bridgeview - Chicago Breaking News

tissie:

mattpayton:

Start the fake outrage in 3…2…1.

bridgeview’s where i go when i get in car accidents.

Bleh. presidents being called for jury duty is non-news.

from boston marriage

fleetfootedfox 25 Jan Tags politics

Comments (View)

Quote:

“The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”

Justice JOHN PAUL STEVENS, in his dissent against the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of a key aspect of campaign finance law that prohibits corporations from paying for TV ads backing political candidates. The majority in the 5-4 decision said such laws curbed corporations’ free speech rights, which, you know, LOL.

Read the ruling here. Justice Stevens’s dissent begins on pg. 88.

(via inothernews)

(via onedropcolors)

I’m sure I’ll be getting an email from change congress about this shortly. bleh. The Corporations-as-people metaphor is so broken. But now it would be even harder to go about changing that, because they have even more influence.

from Onedropcolors

fleetfootedfox 21 Jan Tags politics legalize corporations

Comments (View)