End around the electoral college

Presently, a 3/4 vote by the states is required to do away with the electoral college. Not gonna happen, right?

Well, as explained by Mo Rocca on L'OD tonight, there's an "end around" that would guarantee the candidate receiving the most popular votes wins the presidency.

Here's how it works. First, states have to enact the National Popular Vote Bill. Then, all of a state's electoral votes will be awarded to the winner of the popular vote. For instance, in 2000, Gore won the popular vote. As a result, states that had enacted the bill would award all of their electoral votes to Gore.

Here's how it differs. OH went for Bush in 2000. However, had OH enacted the bill, their electoral votes would have gone to Gore, winner of the popular vote.

As of now, 9 states representing 132 electoral votes -- that's 49% of the 270 needed -- have enacted the bill.

In 12 other states, the bill has passed either one (10) or both houses (2). These 21 states (that's 42% of 50) account for 243 electoral votes.

TX or FL alone would put it over the top. PA AND, say, CT would, as well.

As you can see, it *IS* possible that about 50% or so of the states can change the electoral process.

Sign the petition!
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

time to start a petition, FB page, etc..

I used to think MSNBC was objective...

...in so much as you used to see stories like this, even from Rachel!

*Mr. President: Bailout Wall Street but not Main Street?

*The President is furthering Bush Adm programs like wiretapping and he's kicking the Gitmo can down the road.

I listen to Ed Schultz every day. About a year and a half ago, Ed was beating the daylights out of Obama, so much so that his listeners were calling in and saying you're (Ed) going to cost the President any chance of re-election. I watch MSNBC every day. For about a year and a half now, MSNBC has lost its objectivity; prime time has become the Obama Re-Election Committee.

The only objective voice I hear in the media today is Norman Goldman.

Needless to say, I look forward to the return of objectivity to MSNBC post-election.

:fingers crossed:

Because Dems are looking at the shiny coin: voter suppression

Howard Dean took this on in 2008. The fact that no other Dems jumped on board or that the media didn't pick it up is beside the point.

You kind of typify what (I believe) is wrong with our party. You've used a RW talking point against yourself: "The Dems will cry foul if we (Rs) win." So what do you do? Like a good Dem, you're afraid to cry foul because the Republicans will say, "I told you so!"

Dems let Rs paint themselves into a lose-lose corner.

I hate this about our Party.

kick!!!!!!!!!

Superb!

+1

Do you recall any outliers in your presidential voting history, including primaries?

I've voted for every Democratic nominee in the general election beginning with Walter Mondale in 1984, the year I turned 18. But the first vote I ever cast was in the 1984 Democratic primary. I didn't like Mondale and I thought Jesse Jackson was kind of cool at the time. I was just an 18 y/o white kid from the Bay Area that didn't know a thing about Jackson but didn't like Mondale. I cast my first ever vote for Jesse Jackson. Of course, I voted for Mondale in the general election.

It still makes me chuckle today.

Bill Maher: Bush's first comments on 9/11

After setting up the Republican panelists (Boris Epshteyn and John Fund) -- both absolutely frothing at the mouth and still perpetuating the Obama Benghazi Myth -- Maher quotes Bush's comments immediately following 9/11.

Bush: "apparent act of terror"
Maher (sarcasm): One plane, maybe not, but two planes....?

Bush: we'll hunt down the "folks" who did this
Maher: folks? really?


Matt Taibbi was awesome! He spoke about his article in RS, Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital, just thrashing Romney and Leverage (*=Debt*) Buy Out scheme. Dipshit 1 & 2 went after him, but really had nothing, and immediately changed the topic to "Obama increased the debt by 65%."


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

Help get the word out (more poor messaging)

I was listening to the Ed Schultz Show (radio) last week and a guy calls in, says he makes $255,000, and won't vote for Obama because his taxes are going to go up about $8000 if Obama gets re-elected. He calculated that by taxing *all* of his gross income at 39% versus taxing *all* of his gross income at 36%. A soft ball, right? Ed's going to hit this one out of the park? Right?



The guy -- who I initially assumed was a Republican tool when he threw out the $255,000 number -- then asked something reasonable (paraphrasing), "I'm confused, is it *all* of my income or just the amount over $250,000? If it's the latter, then that's not a big deal at all." Ed farted around and then told the guy to suck it up. What an opportunity lost! I called his show but couldn't get through, so I emailed and tweeted him.

Fortunately, someone calls in and *almost* explains it correctly. He explained that the 3% only applies to the $5000 over $250K. Ed says, "That's what I understand." So this caller says that the guy will only pay an extra $150 in taxes (3% of $5000).

Hopefully, every single one of you reading this have already noted that this explanation misses the mark, too.

What I was hoping to hear Ed say was something like this:
Dude! Your taxes won't go up at all! Surely your taxable income is well under $250,000. Right?! Heck! You can make $270,000 and probably not be affected! First, the tax rates aren't applied to your gross income, they are applied to your *taxable* income (AGI). Second, the tax rates are *marginal* rates. So, the 39% tax rate will be applied to just taxable income above $250K. In other words, if you make $270,000 but have $25,000 in deductions, your taxes won't go up at all!