by too clearly defining the differences betweeen Northern and Southern states, to the point where both parties logically became enemies? Could the evil of slavery have been removed eventually, without war?
57.37% voted in 2008 per Wiki. The highest rate since 1968.
North Carolina. 74% of North Carolina’s registered African American voters turned out, as opposed to 69% of North Carolinians in general, with Obama carrying 100% (with rounding) of African American females and African Americans age 18 to 29, according to exit polling.
Sheesh, any post with Bush in it gets all the lib attention but I put up a post about Mark Warner, a good Dem contender and no one cares. You guys can’t run an Anti-Bush platform if he isn’t there. Who do you guys want in 2008? WITHOUT KNOCKING BUSH. And why do you think they will be good?
The extension of democracy, the unification of the nation, and disputes between the President and Congress over the use of power have often been important National Issues. For the period of the Civil War and Reconstruction, explain two examples for each to show that these issues were present.
He only needs to pick 2 of the 13 swing states to win the election. He has 5 different pathways to 270. The Republicans have far difficult road map to 270. They would have to hold all of the southern states and take back Virginia, North Carolina, and Ohio to even have an outside chance of reaching 270. The Republicans have zero margin of error, because the 2 biggest states California and New York are solid blue states and they carry more electoral votes than any of the southern states.
Hahahaha, The United… DIVIDED?!? Forsaking our homeland? Would every ex-state keeps doing Democracy and Human Rigths?
Would the whole 50 countries achieve the same progress as when they’re bond as a nation?
I know, it’s nearly impossible… but let’s imagine what kind of North America-especially, and world-generally we would have then…
Anyway, (Hopefully) GOD (still) bless America!
At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?
In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, “If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree…”
In this, he was making the same argument that the Framers of Pennsylvania tried to make when writing their constitution in 1776. As Kevin Phillips notes in his masterpiece book “Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich,” a Sixteenth Article to the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights (that was only “narrowly defeated”) declared: “an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness of mankind, and, therefore, every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property.”
With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.
Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), “A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.” Smith said: “There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death”
The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina’s 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served “only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic” and promoting “contention and injustice.” Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast “tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic.”http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington…
Who do you think will win North Carolina in 2012?
what would Germany do next?
No. Xaphelle you have no idea what you are taking about. Anyone that tells you your vote doesn’t count and that the Electoral College actually votes for the President is a buffon that failed basic Government in Jr. High.
The electoral college has a very important place in American politics. Without it candidates for President would ignore smaller states and would only campaign (thus make promises to) larger states and cities.
The electoral college works like this:
When you go to elect the President of the United States you are actually voting for a group of electors. The number of electors per state equals the number of Congressman in that state. Larger states have more electors then smaller states.
With a few exceptions (North Carolina and Colorado), those electors are required by state law to elect the person that has the most votes in the state. So, let’s say the Democratic Candidate for president beats the Republican Candidate by 6 votes in Florida. The Democratic Candidate would get all of Florida’s votes. The candidate with the majority of electoral votes wins the election.
Now lets say that each of the states were extremely close and the candidates were a few thousand popular votes away from each other, but the candidate with the fewer votes took California and New York. They would most likely win the Presidental Election even though they lost the popular vote.
Now why do we have this system instead of a general popular vote? The most important reason is that currently Presidental candidates need to worry about more then getting the largest number of votes. They can’t just try to win LA, New York and Chicago. The candidates have to give time to the smaller states because you never know how each state will effect the election (i.e. Gore not winning his home state of Tennessee and thus losing the 2000 election). This means that candidates must campaign in smaller states (which is important to each state financially) and make sure that when they are in office they are fullfilling their campaign promises.
EDIT: X – You do know that the United States is a federal democracy right? We have states that make up this country and state rights are a VERY IMPORTANT part of the US Constitution. The Electoral College is another way the framers of the Constitution ensured that ALL of the states had a say in the running of this country.
By the way, not all small states are ‘backwater racists’. Smaller states are anything that is not New York, California, Texas or Florida.