Judging by the frenetically ascending “Cost of War in Iraq” clock on MyruralAmerica.com, I think it’s safe to say the website is slightly to the left of center. Does it matter? I reckon themthereruralvoters are willing to cast their ballot for whomever will provide the biggest trough. To discern this distinction, Myruralamerica republishes advice from The Iowa Corn Growers Association. “It is not our job to tell you who you should vote for or what party you should follow,” said Gary Edwards, the ICGA Prez. “But it is our duty to stand up to promote the interests of Iowa corn growers, Iowa consumers, and their future.” Yes sirree Bob. I bet you know where they stand on the “environment” (The ICGA supports the continuation of the 45 cent per gallon blenders’ credit for ethanol, the 54 cent per gallon ethanol import tariff, the federal Renewable Fuels Standard, and other tax incentives for ethanol (such as E85) that will reduce prices at the pump for consumers) and crop subsidies ( the ICGA supports a safety net for farmers that is based on revenue and not price, which supports production and market demand. ICGA policy supports farm policy that is trade compliant and supports strong conservation programs that protect our environment. ICGA also supports a crop insurance program at rate levels sufficient to induce crop insurance and designed to avoid the need for disaster assistance). So, which presidential candidate gets the official nod?
Current Presidential positions include:
Farm Policy
* McCain*: Opposes agricultural subsidies and has stated he would have vetoed the 2008 Farm Bill. Supports trade compliance.
* Obama*: Pledges to support a strong safety net for farmers. Supports crop revenue insurance program and voted for the 2008 Farm Bill. Pledges to support a permanent mechanism to encourage wide use of crop insurance.
Energy
* McCain*: Opposes tariffs and price supports for ethanol. Signed a letter urging the EPA to exercise its authority to waive the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). His presidential platform calls for an end to the RFS.
* Obama*: Pledges to continue the 45 cent blenders’ tax credit and maintain the 54 cent tariff on ethanol. Pledges to increase the RFS to 60 million gallons by 2030. Pledges to support maximum funding for the Department of Energy’s alternative fuels program, with a focus on E85.
I’m afraid you’re gonna have to connect the dots yourself. Should be too much trouble.
Money for votes.
This map, along with these presidential pledges, is the best argument yet for getting rid of the Electoral College system.
Can we put that on Deathwatch?
I second the comment directly above from no_slushbox
Politicians, economics, and engineering don’t often converge. Herbert Hoover was a mining engineer, and we saw how well that worked out for the country. E85 was and is a political ploy to court the farm belt. It’s bad for the environment, bad for cars, and a waste of energy in the overall picture.
The Electoral College is designed to empower states rather than voting blocs like cities, in a similar way that the Senate empowers states in a way that the House of Representatives does not.
This way, widespread popular support for policies or candidates will enjoy a majority in the Electoral College anyway.
Reverting to straight popular vote means that candidates will never visit small towns or even whole states, and it opens up the effectiveness of voter fraud. In todays’s system, a voter fraud effort in one city should theoretically be neutralized by the legimate voting elsewhere in the state.
It’s a good system that should be left intact.
gslippy:
Right now there are entire states that aren’t visited by the presidential candidates, but they are the most important states in the country; states like New York, California, Illinois and Texas. Since those states have solid political affiliations they get screwed, while the presidential candidates have to waste their time pandering to people in under populated states that hardly matter at all to the future of the country.
The Electoral College system encourages special interest issues in swing states to take precedence over the national interest. For example:
-Stupid trade sanctions on Cuba, while we trade with trade with China and Vietnam, because of the outspoken whiny mobsters and other criminals that were kicked out of Cuba and now live in the swing state of Florida and have a chip on their shoulders.
-Horrible agricultural subsidy policies, such as E85 subsidization and the high sugar tariffs that force everything to be flavored by disgusting corn syrup. And that is only the beginning of the problem with agricultural subsidies.
-The Detroit bailout, putting the nation on the hook for failed industries in Michigan and Ohio because they are swing states.
The funny thing is that the biggest welfare queens are the southeastern and western states that usually vote Republican. Democratic states like New York, Illinois and California have to pay way more in Federal taxes then they get back in Federal government spending, while the much less productive people in the southeastern and western states suck off the government teat:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
If we go to a popular vote the small states will still have overrepresentation in the Senate, but at least presidential elections will be focused on what is best for the country, instead of swing state special interest pandering.
By the way, using a popular vote, instead of giving all of the Electoral College votes to the winner on a state by state basis, will make the margin of victory in presidential elections much larger, making voter fraud having an influence on the election much less likely.