FIRST LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR. I AM NOT NOW OR EVER HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTIES. THERE IS NO ROOM IN GOVERNING OUR NATION FOR POLITICS. Just two of the many reasons I CAN NOT vote for Kamala Harris. Aside from never getting a direct answer regarding her plans for OUR future. She speaks nonsensically I know preschoolers who are able to communicate better. One of President Biden’s first orders to VP Harris was to oversee the illegal immigrant invasion. We still have seen no action. Except to place Trump ideas in effect, like many other things. {I can only expect the same thing). NO POSITIVE ACTION, for another 4 years if she is elected. We know she is incapable of thinking on her feet, and has to be fed what to say. Just like a puppet. So, do we know who will be pulling her strings if elected? MAYBE some subversive group (?), A quote from the woman; herself regarding GUNS and the Privacy of your home. Yes, Kamala Harris did make a statement about authorities checking how guns are stored in homes. This remark dates back to 2007 when she was the District Attorney in San Francisco. During a news conference about new legislation aimed at enforcing safe storage of guns, she said, “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs” To me this is a corner cutter for a means of doing an “UNREASONABLE SEARCH”. A means to enter YOUR HOME and make up any reason they want, to SEIZE YOUR PERSONAL SELF DEFENSE equipment, Not to mention any thing else they might not like. Now let us look at another thing Ms. Harris seems so proud to stand up for..MISINFORMATION Yes, Kamala Harris has addressed the issue of misinformation on several occasions. In her speeches, she has emphasized the dangers of misinformation and the importance of combating it to protect democracy and public health. For example, during her campaign and tenure as Vice President, she has spoken about. Now let us look at another thing Ms. Harris seems so proud to stand up for..MISINFORMATION. the need for accurate information, especially in the context of elections and public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. Misinformation can undermine trust in institutions and spread false narratives that can have serious consequences. Harris has advocated for greater efforts to ensure that people have access to reliable and truthful information. We live in a world of misinformation, especially from politics. Example of misinformation,(simplified). Simple sentence: “I don’t like chocolate milk” Simple enough? Of course the politicians AS WELL AS MEDIA,(depending on what they want to push). Let’s omit the word, (one word), “DON”T”. Now it looks like I said, “I like chocolate milk”. Or omit the word CHOCOLATE. Now it appears “I don’t like milk”. If you omit the word milk, Now it appears that “I don’t like chocolate”. To sum up: WHO would make the judgement of what is misinformation? THE GOVERNMENT !!!! Now if this is the type of RULER you want vote for the potential Tzarini. (My word), for a female Tzar. Or maybe Marxist, as she apparently grew up in a household of Marxist. I have NO idea what to expect from Ms Harris. I really expect the END of our Freedoms as we know them. She appears to want to take away at least two or three of our Constitutional Rights. Today 2 or 3 by the end of her term we may be living under Russia’s PUTIN, or Hitler. Now lets look at the Trump side. What can I say? I don’t agree with everything he says. I don’t always agree with things he does. BUT, he does say what he thinks, SO I know what I am getting. I think a lot of things he says is in jest, just to make a point. Mark Twain was very good doing this. Post Views: 26
Category: Conspiracy
The Death of Pat Tillman: A Hero’s Tragic and Controversial End
Pat Tillman was a man of immense courage, both on the football field and the battlefield. Known for his selflessness, Tillman walked away from a successful NFL career to serve in the U.S. Army following the attacks on September 11, 2001. His decision shocked the sports world, as he turned down millions to follow a higher calling. Tragically, Tillman’s life was cut short in 2004 while serving in Afghanistan. What followed his death was a series of misreports and accusations of a military cover-up, sparking one of the most controversial military cases in modern U.S. history. Pat Tillman’s Path from NFL Star to Army Ranger Tillman was a rising star in the NFL, playing safety for the Arizona Cardinals. He was known for his relentless work ethic and fierce determination. In 2002, after completing the NFL season, Tillman made a life-altering decision. Deeply affected by the events of 9/11, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, leaving behind his NFL career to serve his country. Tillman joined the elite Army Rangers and served tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. His decision to enlist in the military at the height of his career earned him admiration from fans, players, and the American public. He became a symbol of sacrifice and service. However, his journey took a tragic turn on April 22, 2004, when he was killed in a firefight while on patrol in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. Initial Reports and the Tragic Friendly Fire Incident When news of Pat Tillman’s death first broke, it was reported that he had died heroically in a firefight with enemy forces. The U.S. military initially described his death as the result of an ambush by Taliban insurgents. Tillman’s story became a rallying cry for patriotism, and his sacrifice was celebrated nationwide. However, within weeks of his death, disturbing details began to surface that challenged the initial reports. It was revealed that Tillman had not been killed by enemy fire but by “friendly fire”—a devastating revelation that sent shockwaves through his family and the public. The term “friendly fire” refers to a situation in which soldiers are accidentally shot by their own forces, and this was the grim reality of Tillman’s final moments. Tillman had been accidentally shot by fellow U.S. soldiers in the confusion of battle, when his platoon was split during an engagement with enemy forces. In the chaos, Tillman was struck by three bullets to the head, fired from a fellow soldier’s rifle. The soldiers involved were reportedly unaware of their mistake until it was too late. The Cover-Up and Misreporting The controversy surrounding Pat Tillman’s death stems not only from the friendly fire incident itself but also from how the U.S. military handled the situation. For weeks, the military continued to promote the narrative that Tillman had been killed by enemy forces, even as evidence of friendly fire became clear to those on the ground. This led to accusations that the military had deliberately concealed the truth in order to preserve Tillman’s image as a war hero. Tillman’s family was devastated when they learned the truth about how he had died. They became outspoken critics of the military’s handling of his death, accusing the government of using Pat’s death as a propaganda tool to rally public support for the war. The family felt that the initial misreporting of his death was not merely an error but part of a calculated cover-up to hide the uncomfortable reality of friendly fire. The Official Investigation The controversy surrounding Tillman’s death eventually led to multiple investigations by the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, and Congress. The Army conducted a formal inquiry into the incident, which confirmed that Tillman’s death was indeed the result of friendly fire. The report also noted that there had been a failure to report the details of the incident accurately and promptly. However, the investigation into whether there was an intentional cover-up remained contentious. Testimonies from soldiers who were with Tillman during the firefight revealed that the military had been aware early on that Tillman was likely killed by friendly fire. Yet, despite this knowledge, it took weeks for the truth to be disclosed to Tillman’s family and the public. Congressional hearings were held in 2007, during which military officials were questioned about the delayed and misleading reports. Army officials admitted that the initial account of Tillman’s death was wrong but denied any deliberate attempt to cover up the truth. The hearings left many questions unanswered, and the Tillman family continued to believe that there had been an effort to mislead them and the public. Lingering Controversies and Theories Despite the official investigations, controversy still surrounds the handling of Pat Tillman’s death. The central question remains: Was the initial misreporting a result of confusion and poor communication, or was it a deliberate attempt to manipulate the story of Tillman’s death for political purposes? The Role of Leadership: – Some critics argue that military leadership, particularly at higher levels, may have intentionally delayed the truth about Tillman’s death to avoid public relations fallout. At the time of his death, Tillman had become a national symbol, and revealing that he had died by friendly fire might have undermined his legacy and damaged morale among U.S. forces and the American public. Political Motivations: – There is also speculation that Tillman’s death was manipulated to serve as a patriotic rallying point during a period when public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was wavering. Tillman’s death, as initially reported, was seen as a heroic sacrifice, and some believe this narrative was maintained for political purposes. The Question of Accountability: – While investigations confirmed friendly fire as the cause of death, many believe that those responsible for the delay in revealing the truth have not been held accountable. The Tillman family, in particular, has sought greater transparency and justice in the handling of Pat’s case. Conclusion: A Complex and Tragic Story Pat Tillman’s death is a story of both heroism and heartbreak. His… Continue reading The Death of Pat Tillman: A Hero’s Tragic and Controversial End
**The Disappearance of Rae Carruth: A Story of Murder, Betrayal, and Redemption**
Rae Carruth was once a rising star in the NFL. As a wide receiver for the Carolina Panthers, he had the talent, fame, and fortune that most young athletes dream of. But in 1999, Carruth’s life took a shocking and sinister turn when he was implicated in the murder of his pregnant girlfriend, Cherica Adams. The case became one of the most notorious in sports history, involving a chilling plot, a desperate escape, and a tragic outcome. Although Carruth was eventually convicted and served 18 years in prison, the case continues to haunt those involved and remains a cautionary tale about the dark side of fame and personal choices. Rae Carruth’s NFL Career and Relationship with Cherica Adams Rae Carruth was drafted in the first round by the Carolina Panthers in 1997 after a standout college career at the University of Colorado. His speed and playmaking ability quickly made him a key part of the Panthers’ offense, and he was considered one of the league’s promising young talents. However, off the field, Carruth’s life was marked by personal struggles and questionable decisions. In 1999, Carruth was in a relationship with Cherica Adams, a 24-year-old woman who became pregnant with his child. Although their relationship was rocky, Adams decided to keep the baby, hoping Carruth would embrace fatherhood. Tragically, Carruth had other plans, and instead of supporting Adams, he orchestrated a plot to end both her life and that of their unborn child. The Plot to Kill Cherica Adams On the night of November 16, 1999, Cherica Adams was driving her car in Charlotte, North Carolina, after going to the movies with Carruth. Suddenly, another car pulled alongside hers, and its occupants opened fire, hitting Adams four times. Miraculously, despite her injuries, Adams was able to call 911 and provide a crucial piece of evidence: she identified Carruth as being involved in the attack. According to her statement, Carruth had been driving in front of her and suddenly stopped, forcing her to slow down. As she did so, the gunmen pulled up beside her and fired. Adams’ description of the events, along with Carruth’s suspicious behavior following the shooting, led police to believe that he had orchestrated the murder. Carruth fled the scene but did not take Adams to the hospital, a decision that further raised suspicions. Cherica Adams was rushed to the hospital, where doctors were able to save her baby, but she slipped into a coma and died a month later on December 14, 1999. The baby, named Chancellor Lee Adams, was born prematurely and suffered permanent brain damage due to a lack of oxygen during the attack. Carruth’s Capture and Trial After Cherica Adams’ death, Rae Carruth became the prime suspect in her murder. Investigators discovered that Carruth had hired Van Brett Watkins, a nightclub manager and known criminal, to carry out the killing. The motive appeared to be Carruth’s unwillingness to pay child support and his desire to avoid the responsibilities of fatherhood. As the investigation intensified, Carruth was indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit murder, shooting into an occupied vehicle, and using an instrument to destroy an unborn child. Instead of turning himself in, Carruth fled. He was later found hiding in the trunk of a car in Tennessee, over 500 miles from Charlotte, in what appeared to be a desperate attempt to escape justice. In 2001, Carruth stood trial for the murder of Cherica Adams. The prosecution presented damning evidence, including Cherica’s 911 call and the testimony of Van Brett Watkins, who confessed to being hired by Carruth to carry out the murder. Despite the overwhelming evidence, Carruth maintained his innocence, claiming that while he was present during the shooting, he did not orchestrate it. In the end, the jury found Carruth guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, but he was acquitted of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to 18 to 24 years in prison, avoiding the death penalty. Carruth’s Time in Prison and Release Rae Carruth served 18 years of his sentence at the Sampson Correctional Institution in North Carolina. During his time in prison, Carruth largely stayed out of the spotlight, though he did make headlines on occasion with statements expressing remorse for his role in Cherica Adams’ death. However, his apologies were met with skepticism by many, including Cherica’s family, who questioned his sincerity. Carruth was released from prison on October 22, 2018. Upon his release, he expressed a desire to reunite with his son, Chancellor, who had been raised by Cherica’s mother, Saundra Adams. Chancellor, who lives with cerebral palsy due to the trauma of his birth, became the heart of the story, a living symbol of the tragedy and resilience that emerged from such a dark chapter. Lingering Questions and Redemption While Rae Carruth’s legal case is considered solved—he was convicted and served his sentence—questions about his true motivations and his psychological state at the time of the crime linger. Many have wondered how someone with so much talent and potential could orchestrate such a heinous act. Some speculate that Carruth’s inability to handle the pressures of fame, fatherhood, and finances led him down a dark path, though that does not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. Since his release, Carruth has remained mostly out of the public eye, and any attempts at redemption have been overshadowed by the gravity of his crime. Cherica’s mother, Saundra Adams, has been a beacon of grace throughout the ordeal, raising Chancellor with love and devotion, even after losing her daughter in such a brutal way. She has forgiven Carruth but remains protective of Chancellor’s well-being. Carruth’s release marks the end of one chapter in this tragic story, but the emotional scars left behind remain. For many, the case of Rae Carruth is a reminder of how personal choices can lead to devastating consequences, no matter one’s fame or fortune. Conclusion: A Case of Betrayal and Lost Potential Rae Carruth’s story is one of immense potential, wasted talent, and a life… Continue reading **The Disappearance of Rae Carruth: A Story of Murder, Betrayal, and Redemption**
Lifetime Bans in Baseball: A Closer Look at the Scandals that Shook the Sport
IN MEMORY OF PETE ROSE (April 14, 1941-September 30, 2024) NOTE: The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is an independent, nonprofit educational institution. That being said it seems the MLB bans of any player is not binding!!! So why have players like Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson not been enshrined in the hall of fame. There records speak for their for them. (Anyone from the Baseball Hall of Fame care to respond). Now to our story. Though not an actual mystery, this article goes into detail about lifetime bans in Baseball and gives you a greater look into these bans and their outcomes. Baseball holds a special place in American culture, and with that comes a strong commitment to fair play and sportsmanship. When these values are compromised, Major League Baseball (MLB) does not hesitate to impose its harshest penalty—a lifetime ban. This punishment has been used sparingly throughout the history of the game but always for actions that threaten its integrity. Let’s take a deeper look into the most infamous lifetime bans in baseball history, the events leading to them, and their lasting impact. Pete Rose: The Gambling Scandal that Rocked Baseball Pete Rose, known as “Charlie Hustle,” is one of the most controversial figures in baseball. Over a 24-year career, he set the record for most hits (4,256), earning accolades and a reputation as one of the greatest players in history. However, Rose’s fall from grace came in 1989 when it was revealed that he had bet on baseball games, including those involving the Cincinnati Reds, a team he both played for and managed. (It is said he only bet FOR his team to win). An investigation led by MLB Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti concluded that Rose had placed bets on numerous baseball games from 1985 to 1987, including his own team’s games, though no evidence suggested he bet against the Reds. In a deal to avoid further legal action, Rose accepted a lifetime ban from baseball on August 24, 1989, without admitting to or denying the allegations. Rose’s ban barred him from managing, coaching, or holding any official role within MLB, and he became ineligible for induction into the Hall of Fame. Over the years, Rose has made several appeals for reinstatement, expressing remorse for his actions and eventually admitting in 2004 that he had bet on baseball. Despite his pleas, MLB has held firm, citing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the game. The impact of Rose’s ban continues to be debated. Many fans believe his on-field accomplishments should be enough to warrant Hall of Fame induction, while others argue that his gambling offenses tarnish his legacy irreparably. The Rose case serves as a stark reminder of baseball’s strict no-tolerance policy toward gambling. The Black Sox Scandal: A World Series Tainted by Greed In 1919, baseball was rocked by one of its greatest scandals when eight members of the Chicago White Sox were accused of conspiring with gamblers to throw the World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. The players involved, including legendary outfielder **Shoeless Joe Jackson**, accepted bribes from gamblers in exchange for underperforming in key moments of the series. The scandal came to light after rumors of the fix spread throughout the season, leading to an investigation. The eight players, known as the “Black Sox,” were indicted by a grand jury in 1920, though they were acquitted of criminal charges. However, MLB’s newly appointed Commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, was determined to restore the public’s faith in the game and permanently banned all eight players from baseball, regardless of the court’s decision. Shoeless Joe Jackson’s involvement remains a subject of controversy. Despite his incredible .375 batting average during the series and his claims of innocence, Jackson was still banned for life. Many believe Jackson was not fully complicit in the plot and was manipulated by his teammates and the gamblers. Still, Landis’ decision to ban him solidified Jackson’s exclusion from baseball history, including the Hall of Fame. The Black Sox Scandal is often seen as a turning point for MLB. It led to the establishment of the Commissioner’s Office, created to protect the integrity of the game. The scandal also fueled a more stringent approach to gambling and a zero-tolerance policy toward any behavior that could compromise the fairness of competition. Performance-Enhancing Drugs (PEDs): A Modern-Day Scourge The following bans I agree with 100%, and should be MLB Lifetime, because they were out and out CHEATING. While the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) became a major issue in baseball in the 1990s and 2000s, MLB’s policies regarding drug violations were initially less stringent. However, after repeated scandals involving high-profile players, the league adopted a tough stance that includes the possibility of lifetime bans for multiple offenses. The MLB’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program mandates increasing punishments for players caught using PEDs. A first offense results in an 80-game suspension, a second offense leads to a 162-game suspension (a full season), and a third offense results in a lifetime ban. Although no player has yet been banned after three offenses, the threat of permanent exclusion serves as a strong deterrent. Some of the most famous players involved in PED scandals include Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds. Rodriguez was suspended for the entire 2014 season due to his involvement in the Biogenesis scandal, but he narrowly avoided a lifetime ban. Bonds, though never banned, faced legal challenges and public scrutiny due to allegations of steroid use during his career. The legacy of PED use in baseball has left a cloud over an entire generation of players, some of whom would have been Hall of Fame candidates if not for their association with drugs. MLB’s aggressive anti-drug policies reflect its commitment to maintaining a level playing field, and while lifetime bans for PEDs are rare, the policy underscores the seriousness with which the league treats drug violations. Assault and Misconduct: Off-the-Field Actions with On-the-Field Consequences While gambling and PEDs are more common reasons… Continue reading Lifetime Bans in Baseball: A Closer Look at the Scandals that Shook the Sport
The Death of Steve McNair: A Tragic and Controversial End
Steve McNair was a beloved figure in the world of football. Known for his grit, determination, and leadership on the field, McNair earned the respect of teammates, opponents, and fans alike. His career spanned 13 seasons in the NFL, where he became a star quarterback for the Tennessee Titans and led them to Super Bowl XXXIV. However, his life came to a shocking and tragic end in 2009 when he was found dead in what was ruled a murder-suicide, leaving many to wonder whether the full story was ever uncovered. Steve McNair’s NFL Legacy Before diving into the details of his untimely death, it’s essential to understand McNair’s legacy on the football field. Drafted by the Houston Oilers (later the Tennessee Titans) in 1995, McNair quickly established himself as one of the league’s most talented and tough quarterbacks. He was known for playing through injuries, his ability to stay calm under pressure, and his dual-threat capabilities as a passer and runner. McNair’s crowning achievement came during the 1999-2000 NFL season when he led the Titans to the Super Bowl, where they lost in a thrilling finish to the St. Louis Rams. He was named Co-MVP of the NFL in 2003 and left a lasting impact on the sport when he retired in 2007. Sadly, his life off the field would end in tragedy just two years later. The Shocking Events of July 4, 2009 On July 4, 2009, Steve McNair was found dead in a Nashville condominium he shared with his girlfriend, Sahel Kazemi. McNair had been shot four times—twice in the head and twice in the chest. Kazemi, who was lying nearby, was found with a single gunshot wound to her head, along with a pistol at her side. Nashville police quickly ruled the case a murder-suicide, concluding that Kazemi had shot McNair before turning the gun on herself. Investigators pointed to Kazemi’s deteriorating emotional state and financial difficulties as potential motives. In the days leading up to the murder, Kazemi had reportedly been distraught over McNair’s unwillingness to leave his wife, and she had been experiencing financial strain due to her car payments and other expenses. Friends and coworkers described her as feeling overwhelmed and increasingly agitated. The Official Investigation and Its Findings The official investigation into McNair’s death concluded that Kazemi acted alone. Text messages between McNair and Kazemi showed that their relationship had been strained in the weeks leading up to the murder. Additionally, Kazemi had purchased the gun two days before the incident, further pointing to premeditation. The investigation revealed that Kazemi had been under the influence of alcohol and drugs at the time of the murder-suicide. Toxicology reports showed that she had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol and had traces of marijuana in her system. These factors, combined with her emotional instability, led the police to close the case quickly, ruling it an open-and-shut murder-suicide. Lingering Doubts and Conspiracy Theories Despite the official findings, many questions surrounding McNair’s death remain unanswered. Some of McNair’s friends, family members, and fans have expressed doubts about the murder-suicide narrative. Several alternative theories have been floated over the years, keeping the case alive in the court of public opinion. The Role of Outside Parties One of the most persistent theories is that someone else may have been involved in McNair’s death. Some people speculate that a third party, possibly a jealous lover or even someone with a financial or personal grudge, may have orchestrated the murder. While there is no substantial evidence to support this theory, the idea that Kazemi acted entirely alone has been questioned by those close to McNair. Kazemi’s Mental State Though the official investigation highlighted Kazemi’s emotional and financial struggles, some argue that there wasn’t enough evidence to suggest she would take such drastic action. Those who knew her described her as overwhelmed, but not necessarily violent or suicidal. This has led to speculation that perhaps there was more going on behind the scenes that has yet to be uncovered. The Lack of a Clear Motive While Kazemi’s emotional distress was cited as the primary motive, some believe the reasons given were not strong enough to explain the violent nature of the crime. McNair’s friends have pointed out that he was financially supporting Kazemi, making it less likely that financial issues alone would drive her to commit murder-suicide. Why the Case Remains Controversial The swift closing of the investigation, combined with lingering doubts about the circumstances of the crime, has led some to question whether the case was fully and thoroughly examined. Given McNair’s status as a public figure, the handling of the case has been scrutinized by the media and fans alike. For many, the idea that Kazemi—who was 20 years old at the time and had no history of violence—could have acted alone in such a brutal crime seems difficult to believe. The narrative that McNair was killed in a crime of passion by a young woman in a tumultuous relationship continues to be accepted by law enforcement, but alternative theories about his death have not completely faded from public discourse. Conclusion: A Tragic and Mysterious End Steve McNair’s death shocked the NFL world and left an indelible mark on his fans and loved ones. Though the official investigation concluded that it was a murder-suicide carried out by Sahel Kazemi, doubts about the full truth remain. For those who followed McNair’s storied football career, his sudden and tragic end still feels unresolved. Regardless of the speculation, McNair’s legacy as one of the NFL’s toughest quarterbacks and a revered figure in the Tennessee Titans’ history remains untarnished. His death, while deeply tragic, has opened a broader conversation about the personal struggles many athletes face once the spotlight fades, and the need for mental health awareness both in and outside of sports. Post Views: 46
Electoral College: Protector of Small Populous States RIGHT TO VOTE
It has been brought to my attention, some states are taking steps to eliminate the ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE”. Apparently the people trying to eliminate the Electoral College, either missed that day in school, or was asleep when the subject was being taught. You see the Electoral College was put in the constitution to protect smaller states from being RULED by the whims of the larger populated states. It is a safe stop; which is more necessary now than at the time of its placement in the constitution. Before you begin reading the main body of this post, I ask you to keep in mind these numbers. (Although the Electoral College isn’t perfect please consider these numbers). Then tell me who completely controls the “POPULAR VOTE”. California: 38,889,700 people. Texas: 30,978,754 people. Florida: 22,975,931 people. New York 19,467,232 people. Pennsylvania 12,951275 people. I am using numbers available for April, 2024. The total population of just these 5 states, (according to my calculator), 335,893,238 that is almost 336 MILLION PEOPLE. Now as for the other 45 states (again according to my calculator), 206,982,776 almost 207 MILLION PEOPLE. My point being with 5 states having 129 MILLION MORE PEOPLE THAN THE remaining 45 states. These 5 states have more than enough people to elect whoever they want not necessarily who is best for the entire country. This conundrum (to ME). Do I want a president I do not want or even have a say in? The Electoral College is a mechanism established by the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 1. It was intended as a compromise between those who advocated for the election of the president through a vote in Congress and those who believed it should be decided by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors in total, which represent the 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and three additional electors from the District of Columbia. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive at least 270 electoral votes. This system is not based on equal representation of individuals, but rather on equal representation of states. Now let’s consider your hypothetical scenario where just five most populated states control a presidential election. These states are California (55 Electoral Votes), Texas (38), Florida (29), New York (29), and Pennsylvania (20) as per the 2020 allocations. This adds up to just 171 electoral votes – still far short from the required majority of 270. Therefore, even though these states might have large populations, they alone cannot decide an election through popular vote due to our current electoral college system. However, if we were to shift to a direct democracy model or use only popular vote to determine elections, theoretically these states with high populations could indeed dominate national elections. This could lead to political imbalance and neglecting interests of less populous areas which often have unique socio-economic and environmental issues that require specific policy attention. If this were the case, citizens from less-populated states might feel that their votes don’t carry enough weight or their voice is not heard adequately in deciding national leadership. This could lead to certain degree of voter disillusionment or lower voter turnout among them because they may see their role as insignificant next to larger populace areas. This concern forms one of key arguments behind maintaining our Electoral College – it ensures all parts of country can have recognizable say in choosing our national leader irrespective of their population size. Furthermore, the electoral college system forces presidential candidates to seek support from a wider geographic base, instead of just focusing on densely populated urban areas. It maintains the balance of influence among states and encourages candidates to understand and respond to diverse needs of different states. So despite criticisms, many argue that maintaining the electoral college is an important tool in preserving our federal system and ensuring that all parts of the country have an equitable say in national elections. In conclusion: What am i missing? After all I am sure these lawmakers have a much better education than I do. OR, are they ??? What is their motive for taking away the voters rights, as IT IS possible that the votes cast by these 45 states are just a matter of going through the motions, allowing the residents to feel their votes count. Thank you. Artie Fischal P.S. Please feel free to leave me comments those who agree and those who don’t agree. Maybe I’ll learn something. Post Views: 134
