history
| rowid | id | prompt_id | text | generated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0059830c | 0 | Cars. Cars have been around since they became famous in the 1900s, when Henry Ford created and built the first ModelT. Cars have played a major role in our every day lives since then. But now, people are starting to question if limiting car usage would be a good thing. To me, limiting the use of cars might be a good thing to do. In like matter of this, article, "In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars," by Elizabeth Rosenthal states, how automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middle class families from either Shanghai or Chicago tend to make their homes. Experts say how this is a huge impediment to current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States. Cars are the main reason for the greenhouse gas emissions because of a lot of people driving them around all the time getting where they need to go. Article, "Paris bans driving due to smog," by Robert Duffer says, how Paris, after days of nearrecord pollution, enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. It also says, how on Monday, motorist with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or be fined a 22euro fine 31. The same order would be applied to oddnumbered plates the following day. Cars are the reason for polluting entire cities like Paris. This shows how bad cars can be because, of all the pollution that they can cause to an entire city. Likewise, in the article, "Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota," by Andrew Selsky says, how programs that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Columbians hiked, biked, skated, or took the bus to work during a carfree day, leaving streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams. It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the Day Without Cars in the capital city of 7 million. People like the idea of having carfree … | 0 |
| 2 | 005db917 | 0 | Transportation is a large necessity in most countries worldwide. With no doubt, cars, buses, and other means of transportation make going from place to place easier and faster. However there's always a negative pollution. Although mobile transportation are a huge part of daily lives, we are endangering the Earth with harmful greenhouse gases, which could be suppressed. A small suburb community in Germany called Vauban, has started a "carfree" lifestyle. In this city, markets and stores are placed nearby homes, instead of being located by farend highways. Although Vauban is not completely carfree, 70% of Vauban families do not own cars Even a large 57% of families stated to have sold their cars to move to Vauban. Some families have even said to be less stressed depending on car transportation. Cars are responsible for about 12% of greenhouse gases, and can even be up to 50% in some carintensive areas in the United States. Another insight to reduced car zones brings Paris' incident with smog. Paris' officials created a system that would in fact lower smog rates. On Monday, the motorists with evennumbered license plates numbers would be ordered to leave their cars at home, or they would suffer a fine. Same rule would occur on Tuesday, except motorists with oddnumbered license plates were targeted with fines. Congestion, or traffic, was reduced by 60% after five days of intense smog. Diesel fuel played a huge part in this pollution, having the fact that 67% of vehicles in France are of Diesel fuel. The impact of the clearing of smog, resided in banning the Tuesday rule of odd license plates. Could you imagine a day without seeing a single car being used? This phenomenon occurs once a year in Bogota, Colombia. With the exception of buses and taxis being used, cars are to be left unattended for an entire day. Having a carfree day just once a year can even reduce the pollution slightly. The day without cars is part of a campaign that originated in Bogota in the mid 1990s. This campaign has renewed and constructed num… | 0 |
| 3 | 008f63e3 | 0 | "America's love affair with it's vehicles seems to be cooling" says Elisabeth rosenthal. To understand rosenthal's perspective, it is easier to suggest that America's car usage is decreasing slowly. This isn't necessarily bad in the sense that it has certain positive effects. The advantages of limiting car usage includes an increase in security and health, along with a decrease in pollution and dependence. Firstly, when car usage is limited security and health is more likely to be guaranteed. The feeling of being secure is highly important to individuals everywhere. For example, many people in colombia used public transportation during a car free day "leaving the streets of this capital city ", according to Andrew Selsky, "eerily devoid of traffic jams". The complications that stem from traffic jams end with a feeling of confidence. The plan to get from point A to B was more simple just a second ago. This complication in your personal plans leads you to become stressed as a feeling of doubt overcomes all thoughts. If car usage was limited, there would be a control on how much traffic accumulates thus minimizing chance of stress. As Heidrun Walter states "when i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way". not only does car usage minimize conditions detrimental to health, it also enlarges your capacity for exercise. The main purpose of the car is to get someone from one place to another. when an important job takes over your personal life, it becomes difficult to do things most enjoyed in life. limits on car usage forces you to stay in shape. According to Andrew Selsky "parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city". Less cars means healthier and natural situations. With parks and sport centers becoming more efficient, it becomes easier to find a more physically active population. Overall, less usage on cars minimizes stress and increases health. Secondly, limting car usage becomes beneficial to the environment. Now a days people have become annoyed with others who care so passionat… | 0 |
| 4 | 00940276 | 0 | How often do you ride in a car? Do you drive a one or any other motor vehicle to work? The store? To the mall? Have you ever thought about how many people in the world do that exact same thing travel to every destination using a fuel powered motorvehicle. Not many people realize the intensive damage that they're doing when they turn their key in the ignition. What if you didn't drive to work today? If you're like any regular car user, the thought "What?! I could never survive without my car!" may run through your mind. It is possible though, to live without your main mean of transport. Just look at cities like cuban, Paris, and Bogota each one has in some way restricted their people's usage of cars and they actually enjoy it! If you limit your car usage, it can intern result in many advantages and benefits in yourself and in your community. A not so recognized benefit to giving up your car usage would be the positive consequences it has on your health. In source 1, Heidrun Walter states that "When he had a car, he was always tense. He's much happier without it." Think about it, imagine all the angry road rage you experience while driving. That surely does not have a positive effect on your mood or health. Driving takes a copious amount of focus and mental activity, such as, trying to navigate, dealing with bad drivers, etc., that after a short period of time, you're stressed out and tired. In cities like New York and Paris, the population is high. This leads to congestion in the streets and excessive amounts of pollution. Warm layers of air, according to Robert Duffer in "Paris bans driving due to smog," traps the car emissions. How is that healthy? He also states that Paris had to enforce a temporary driving ban after the pollution levels reached an all time record. After a few days of less driving the pollution went way down. Since people aren't driving, they have to find other means of transport. This could include walking, biking, or skating to destinations. Those are all physical excercises! Your body is ge… | 0 |
| 5 | 00c39458 | 0 | Cars are a wonderful thing. They are perhaps one of the worlds greatest advancements and technologies. Cars get us from point a to point i. That is exactly what we want isnt it? We as humans want to get from one place to anther as fast as possiile. Cars are a suitaile to do that. They get us across the city in a matter of minutes. Much faster than anyhting else we have. A train isnt going to get me across the city as fast as my car is and neither is a puilic ius, iut those other forms of transportation just might ie the way to go. Don't get me wrong, cars are an aisolutly amazing thing iut, mayie they just cause way to much stress, and mayie they hurt our environment in ways that we don't think they will. With a ius or a train you do not have to worry aiout washing your car or getting frustrated when stuck in a iad traffic jam on I4. Also there is not as much pollution in air hurting our environment. You might not think so, iut there are many advantages to limiting our car usage. One advantage that not only humans would ienefit from, iut also plants and animals is that there would ie a lot less pollution in the air hurting out environment. Right now our cars give off gases that are extremely harmful towards our environment. These gases are called green house gases and come out of the exhaust pipes in our cars. Your car alone docent give off much gas iut collectively, our cars give off enormous amounts of gases. This is especially true in iig cities like France. In France, their pollution level was so high it was record ireaking. due to that france decided to enforce a partial ian on cars. This is descriied in the second article " Paris ians driving due to smog", iy Roiert Duffer, " On Monday motorists with evennumiered license plates were orderd to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumiered plates the following day." After France limited driving there congestion was down iy 60 percent. " Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France". So after five days of … | 0 |
| 6 | 00da8c32 | 1 | The electrol college system is an unfair system, people don't have the right to select their own president, they dont have the right to select a president. Because, when people vote they are technically voting for the electors for a candied. That candidate can be a democratic or a republican. In source two it states that electors can choose there opposing candidate. Which declines the the whole voting process. Why do we vote? we vote to select a leader who will defend this country and make america a place of opportunity. The most important reason why the electrol cllege is unfair because of the " winners it take all" rule. We as american people cannot choose their own government, as it says in source two, that when voters vote they are voting for the candidates electors. Each state gets one vote and then the electors can choose who they want for president. In source two it states that the electoral college consists of 538 electors and the most amount of electoral votes is 270, in order to pick an president. Also in source two it states that the number of electors we have equals to the amount of members of congress we have. I propose a new system by only letting the American people select our president by votes counted all up by each state, for example if we didn't have have electoral college, then it would be a fair vote because people votes would count the number that adds up with all votes for one candidates that will oppose another candidates and there would be technically no tie it would either ,more or less, but if we still had the electoral college then the vote would not be equally fair because if the majority of a state for example chose republican candidate, then that would be vague because some people choose democratic and there vote did not really count. but without the electoral college, than everyones vote counts and each candidates gets vote from every one, not only electoral. In source two it says that electoral who have been select by the state can choose their opposing candidtade, which is more… | 0 |
| 7 | 011dc2bc | 1 | Dear state senator, It is the utmost respect that I ask for the method for presidential election be changed from the electoral college to something more suitable for the opinion of the people. The electoral college is an unfair system to the people, it can allow for individuals to decide what to do with the votes, not by the people of the United States of America. Revising the electoral college system may seem like a bad idea but the good that could come of it overlies the bad. If the election of a president was based directly by the voters , then candidates could promise money to the people who vote for himher. There could also be other problems with direct democracy such as what would happen in the chance of a tie? Who would break the tie? And how would it be decided fairly. The electoral college shouldn't be removed, but should definitely be revised. The electoral college permits the power of the electoral votes to go to whoever the choose. The electoral college is unfair to voters due to the winnertakeall system, whichh causes candidates to focus only on states the are "swing" states. In the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see candidates at all. The electoral college is an outofdate system and either needs to be replaced or revised. When running for president, the candidate has a group of electors. With each candidate having their own group of electors, it provides without having to visit each state to nget their vote. The only thing the president is required to do is to wait. In reality, the president doesn't even need to campaign, since the electors in the college votes are what matter. So, the candidate could just bribe the electors for certain states and heshe has that states' vote. The voters do not vote for the candidates, but vote for the slate of electors. The electors are picked at state conventions, the state party's central committee and sometime the presidential candidates themselves. The biggest issue with the electoral college is the disaster factor. The disaster factor are the potent… | 0 |
| 8 | 01448434 | 0 | Fellow citizens, cars have become a major role in our daily lives. They have their many excellent uses, however there are advantages of limiting that usage. To name a few are, that it's environmentally healthier and it's less money you have to spend on them. Now let me explain why it's a smart choice to take advantage of limited usage of cars. Paris recently according to source two article "Paris bans driving due to smog" by Robert Duffer came up with a brilliant idea of partial driving ban to clear the air of the city. They took days were only even or odd license plated cars would drive or they would suffer a fine. However public transit was free throughout the week. This promoted less congestion and smog which is much better for the environment by lowering the amount of pollution in the ozone layer. As well as a cheaper way to commute. "Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog...rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world". This shows just how out of hand the smog had gotten but with limiting the amount of cars used they managed to clear over half of it! Making the world greener than before. Meanwhile in places such as Vauban, Germany, the residents went as far as giving up there cars. according to source one article "In German Suburb, life goes on without cars" By Elisabeth Rosenthal About 70% of the residents no longer own cars because it's either too expensive to have one on the edge of town and it's generally forbidden in this experiment in the new district. They even go as far as to say that it's better without having one. "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way" said Heidrun Walter,a resident in Vauban according to the article. People in general, especially the younger generations don't use cars or have liscenes in comparison to older people who are more likely to retain their licenses as the age was shown in research. People now don't care as much as what cars are driven but are more f… | 0 |
| 9 | 01c6e176 | 1 | "It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational" Plumer, Source 2. Many do not like the electoral college for these reasons and many others such as it can be a disaster or because it is just plain dumb. Also there are a few reasons why the electoral college should be kept such as avoiding runoff elections or big states, but those not in favor of it out weigh those in favor of it. The people who despise the electoral college are in favor of popular vote since it is the better choice. For various reasons the electoral college is unfair such as not everyones decisions count just those few people in the electoral college. In a popular vote election everyones vote counts not just those who are considered better than us because they hold authority over people. Those people can also be sneaky and can change votes to be in favor of their choice of president. They will even take bribes sometimes just because they can even though us other people do count. The system should not even be here today because it is outdated way past our time. "It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolsi the electoral college!" Plumer, Source 2 and many others do agree with this statement because it rather true that we do so instead of let a bunch of monkeys run our states and country, but I am pretty sure that sometimes they could even do a better job than those in office right now. ".....over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now" Plumer, Source 2 every day as we continue that percentage continues to grow and that data was recorded in 2000. Lastly, the electoral college is irrational like seriously what idiotic person came up with this. I will say this again, but a monkey could of made a better system than this. "Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president........Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends… | 0 |
| 10 | 0202ddf9 | 1 | The Electoral College has been kept for centuries, established by the founding fathers and established in the Constitution. I think that the process should be maintained so far, it has worked fine and I do not see any reason to rid of it. The Electoral College should be continued in use because there are at least five main scenarios in which it is helpful and reasonable. In ways, the Electoral College could be dangerous to use unless you have electors that are completely faithful in their party, and do not take advantage of getting to choose where to place their vote. Basically, voters are voting for a slate of electors, who then elect the president. These electors can go against the people's majority votes and decide who to vote for. It could also be possible that a state sends two slates of electors to elect. If the election was a direct vote, there would be almost no chance for a tie to happen, but with the Electoral College, there is always that possibility. Some states do not even see the candidates because of the majority of the people living there belong to a single party, and the "winnertakesall" system completely affects this. If the election were to be a direct vote, the candidates might visit the states in order to gather as many votes as possible. However, many of these reasons that the Electoral college should be abolished are just one time things, so consider the other side of the argument. Swing states basically decide the election and therefore, they are the most thoughtful voters. They know that they will be the ones to decide the election, so they pay more attention to the news, and the candidates campaigns. The swing states receive the most information and attention from the candidates. Since they will end up deciding, the candidates want them on their side. Many states are already predicted, even before the election, as a majority of them are from one party. These voters think the most about who they want to run our country and who will do the best in that position, so they should be granted… | 0 |
| 11 | 020a5d6d | 1 | Dear senator, Retain the Electoral College. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors and a majority of 270 electors is is required to elect the President. Each state has hisher own electors which are chosen by the candidate political party. You should keep the Electoral College because you have certainty of outcome, and the President is everyones not just yours. The first reason why you should stay with the Electoral College is because you are certain that the outcome will be in favor of one of the candidates. A tie in the nationwide electoral vote may happen but it is very unlikely that it will even though that 538number of electors in the Electoral College is a even numberS.3.For example in 2012's election, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral votes compared to 51.3 percent of the popular cast for him and rodney because all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis even a slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that stateS.3. However,because of the winnertakeall system in each state,candidates dont spend time in staes they know they have no chance of winning, they only focus on the close,tight races in the "swing"statesS.2. But, the winning candidates share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. The second reason you should keep the Electoral College is because the president is everyone's. The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president by themselves. So for example,a solid regional favorite,such as rodney was in the South,has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states he knows for sure that he will winS.3.A president with only his regional apppeal is very unlikely to be a successful president. The residents of the other regions may feel like there votes dont count or that he really isnt there president. In conclusion, you should stay with the El… | 0 |
| 12 | 037352a5 | 0 | "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way." Heidrun Walter source 1. For many years, people have depended on cars to take them places and allow them to live a normal life. However, the recent decline in driving and car sales has proven that there are many advantages to limiting car usage. Limiting car usage would help reduce the greenhouse effect, would help reduce smog and other lowair pollution, as well as helping promote aspects of the eeconomy which differ from purely car sales and transportation. To begin with, the greenhouse effect, a large part of which is caused by cars and their emissions, is endangering not only our environments and ecosystems, but also life as we know it. According to source 1 In german Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars, passengers car are the cause of 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and also responsible for approximately 50% of emissions in certain parts of the US. Setting restrictions would allow for a decline in emission of greenhouse gases, which in turn would better life on Earth. Its effects could be seen all over the world, such as in global warming, rising oceans, etc. Therefore, limiting car usage would have a positive effect, because it would reduce the emission greenhouse gases. Equally important, the presence of smog, pollutioncaused fog, and lowair pollution is also endangering the wellbeing of humans and other species health, as well as the wellbeing of the Earth, so to speak. According to source 2 Paris bans driving due to smog by Robert Duffer, "After Days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city." after setting restrictions for five days, Paris saw an improvement in air quality. We can thus infer that setting restrictions regularly would help reduce the pollution and general smog of the area. Placing restrictions would help promote various means of transportation, such as public transportation, bikes, walking, etc. An example would be the one from source 3 Carfree day is spinning… | 0 |
| 13 | 03a3377a | 1 | Voting for a president is one of the most important decisions you can make. This person you vote for will be changing the country for better, or for worse. Electoral colleges are a way to see what each of the states want, although some people don't seem to like it. However, I believe it is a good way to see the majorities of the states, which will take account for the majority of the country. Some people say that electoral colleges aren't a good way to determine which president is good for the country. They say that it's nondemocratic. source 3 However, you are still voting for the person you want. The people are still making a great contribution to the decision. Because in the big picture, your vote really does count. It's a lot better than not being able to contribute at all. Of course things can be better, but the thing is everything can be better in some way. Theres no such thing as something that can't be improved in some way. And there is obviously no way at all that you will be able to please everyone. So I think the electoral college is a good way to average up all the votes. While there are a lot of variables in this system, it would be difficult to come up with a more solid way. The main complaint is that people think that this system is not a good way to show who the people really want. However, I think this is is not true. You are voting to get the electoral college votes for the president you think will do a better job guiding the country. Your vote truly does count. It adds more chance of the electoral college voting for your side. It shows that all the states are one, and the majority vote shows what side the people of the state want. And that seems like a nice idea to me. Some of the counter arguments for electoral colleges is that the bigger states get more recognition. And this is true, but isn't that how it should be? Theres more people in the bigger states, so there will be more votes. However, they all count the same, so they don't really get any special advantage. The electoral college is… | 0 |
| 14 | 03c28f3e | 1 | dear senator, I have come to a conclusion on how I think the president and his candidates should be voted for. In one hand we've got the Electoral College, and the election by popular vote. These two thing have been around for hundreds of years but you've got to know if you prefer one or the other. So which one works better? Why do you prefer this one over the other? The Electoral College, electors meeting and voting for our president and vice president. This electoral college consist of 538 electors that vote to for our president. I myself dont think this is a very sensible thing. Because when you think you're voting for the president you are actually voting for a state of electors who will in turn vote for the president not you. Why should there be a select few people out of the billions of people who live in america to vote for the president while we just sit and wait for the results. To only have their opinions voiced. Does'nt seem like a very fair way to elect someone who will be changing our country. This is a winnertakeallsystem. Election by popular vote, this means you and I will be voting for the president and his cabinet ourselves. That we will have a say in who we want to change or even fix our country. Although the person we vote for may not win, we still got a say in what we believe would have made our country a better place. Although the Electoral College might give a more clear winner, if we know that our vote will actually have an effect in the election we might pay more attention to the election and vote more wisely. Knowing that we have voiced our preference rather than knowing maybe one single electoral vote might have set the election. Now there are some benefits if the Electoral College. In the case of having a precise vote on who gets to be president is one. Also maybe the fact that you voted fo the people who will be electing the president in a way is just the same. However this does notmean that it is better than you just voting yourself. Because those are onlyabout the two thing that a… | 0 |
| 15 | 03cabe10 | 0 | Everyone wants to go to the park with their children or grandchildren, or maybe just take a nice walk. With the way we live now everything will be too polluted because alot of people drive cars and dont take the bus,walk, or carpool. Yes, people should limit their car usage. They should limit their uses because owning a car is expensive, it promotes the use of walking and public transportation, and it reduces smogpollution. Owning a car is more expensive then you think. In a city such as Vauban in Germany that has only two places to park, a large parking garage, and a develment where the car owner needs to buy the spot for forty thousand dollars along with a home. In places like Bogota, Columbia on their national car free day all violaters will be fined twentyfive dollars. It may not seem like alot, but it all adds up at the end of the day. In places like Paris motorist with even numbered license plates receive a twentytwo euro fine 31, and the following day motorist with odd numbered plates received the same fine. Almost four thousand drivers were fined. those are just instances where fines have occurred, other expenses are gas. Some people who are wealthy and have money won't be impacted by this the same way an average family with three children will. Most people take public transportation for granted. Imagine if we didn't have busses, trains, and subways. Imagine having to drive to New York City instead of the subway. It is not a pretty thought. In places like Bogota, Columbia that has a national day without cars people use public transportation or walk, unless they want a twentyfive dollar fine. According to Mayor Antanas Mockus " The rain hasn't stopped people from participating." Cities such as Cali and Valledupar have also done what Bogota has done, and Municipal authorities from other countries came to see the turnout, and they were enthusiastic. New York is promoting a bike sharing program that allows people to ride bikes through the city and return them at any location. "me. Sivaks's son lives in San … | 0 |
| 16 | 03ed46ca | 0 | There are many advantages to limiting car usage in our community. Other countries such as France, Germany, and Colombia are home to cities that are working towards cutting down the use of personal automobiles. Many of the people in these places find that using alternative transportation means proves to be less stressful. Studies even show that fewer Americans are purchasing cars for themselves. Now is the perfect time to join in with Vauban, Bogota, and New York and spend less time in our cars. It may seem hard to believe, but in Germany, there's a suburban area where residents live without their own cars. According to "In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, the streets of Vauban, Germany remain "carfree" aside from some public transport. The article states that "70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here.". Heidrun Walter was quoted in the excerpt saying "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way..." Communities in Europe and the United States are hoping to move towards this "carfree" lifestyle, in order to become less dependent on automobile usage and cut back on greenhouse gas emissions that damage the environment. We may see an increase in the number of "smart planning" areas across the globe. If a mass of citizens wish to lessen the amount of time they spend in their cars, it's possible, and the city can adapt to a more automobileless way of life. Bogota, Columbia dedicates a day to transportation without the use of personal cars, where the city's goal is "...to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog". Many who visit Bogota during this time are impressed by the "revolutionary change" they see unfold before their eyes. Going "carfree" leads to more physical activity amongst residents and an overall nicerlooking community. "Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota" by Andrew Selsky claims "Parks and sports centers... have bloomed throughout the city... sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smo… | 0 |
| 17 | 03f7c6e9 | 1 | dear state senator, i believe that we should abolish the electoral college and just leave up to popular vote. The electoral college should be abolished because it is unfair, and it poses a threat to the U.S constitution. The electoral college is unfair because it takes away the democratic way of society that our founding fathers set up. In the United States of America we leave it up to the people to vote but if the people of the united states vote someone in an he doesn get to run the country because the electoral college decided differently then we should not be called a democracy. For example in the 2000 election with Al Gore and Gorge W. Bush, the people of the united states voted for Al Gore, but due to the electoral college Bush won the election. in the passage The Indefensible Electoral College it says "Over 60% of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now." what does that tell you? more then half of the USA would prefer a people vote instead of both! furthermore, I believe we should due away with the electoral college because it poses a threat to the U.S constitution. when i say this i mean it is a threat to the citizens of the USA. the people of the united states were thought to vote our president in? but if the majority of voters vote for someone an the other opponent wins then where is the democracy in that? also in the article The Indefensible Electoral College says "oh what if a state sends two slates of electors to congress? it happened in hawaii in 1960. Luckily, vice president Richard Nixon, who was presiding over the senate, validated only his opponent's electors." imagin if that happens again an someone doesn notice that? then there will be double slaters an there bound to vote for the same candidate so that will be an easy state to win for that candidate. The electoral college is nothing but problems. In conclution, The electoral college should be abolished because it is unfair, and it poses a threat to the U.S constitution. You make your conclution based on this Mr. | 0 |
| 18 | 04356693 | 0 | Transportation has become one of the largest emissions throughout the world, and many do not seem to wonder how beneficial limiting car usage can be. Not only does the release of fossil fuels harm the world, but the stress that comes with having a vehicle is immense. When considering ownership of a vehicle, one must think about the pros and cons of owning one, and realize that the limited pros... are not worth the cons. Cars, trucks, and buses have many factors in common, but one in particular is hazardous to mother nature... fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are harming our territory, the place where life has been made possible, Earth. At the streak we are going, soon enough us humans, the domain species won't have a home due to the pollutants vehicles release killing the Ozone Layer. We have become accustomed to the abuse of transportation. Even when we are capable of walking or using a bike to a nearby location, we choose to use a vehicle instead of avoiding the damage that is caused. Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the city, "Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..." Source 2 states. Their are many ways to distinguish transportation, but one very adequate description is "a death wish". The stress that comes with the ownership of any transporting vehicle surpasses what anyone can bare! The economic standards one needs to posses is difficult. In, Vauban, Germany, one can have a car under the circumstances of paying 40,000 for a parking space, along with your home, source 1 explains. Your car needs to be fed in order to function, and it's food is quite pricey, especially when it hoards gallons of the substance! In addition, one needs to pay for insurance swell! Dangers in streets are not abnormal whatsoever, so the stressfulness that one has behind their back while driving is not enjoyable. | 0 |
| 19 | 04827a9a | 0 | We live in a world where the only way to get from place to place is to use a car. If we were to limit the amount of car usage all around the world we would be living in a much better place. Imagine how much pollution is going into the air as we use our cars, many people all around the world use their cars to get from their home to work or from work to home. All the pollution that is going into the air is affecting us and the way we live our everyday lives. In the city of Bogota Columbia they have a "Car Free Day." This program is set to spread to other countries in the next few years. During the event of car free day millions of columbians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work or to their home. This caused the streets of the capital city to devoid all the traffic jams that they normally would have with the cars on the road. You would think the turnout would be extremely small for this event but no it was definitely not a small turnout. The turnout was large, despite gray clouds that occasionally dumped rain showers on Bogota. "The rain hasnt stopped people from participating," said Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Imagine if the United states were to have a "Car free day" not many people would actually come and be apart of the event due to the fact that having cars is one of the most important things to have living in the United States. In other countries or cities the people are worried about the air pollution that is going into our atmosphere. In the city of Paris, officials feel the same way about the citizens of there city using there car way to much and polluting the atmosphere. After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. Not many people agreed with this ban when it started. Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to reuters. Twenty Seven people had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine. Except there are some advantages to this ban, congestion was down 60 pe… | 0 |
| 20 | 04b11e85 | 0 | The long list of benefits that comes from limited car usage are mostly based on where you live and how much you do your part. Laws and restrictions have been arriving across the entire world to see the effects of having little or no automobiles in the community. Other countries that have an intense cloud of smog need to ban car use in the millions at a time to help settle down the atmosphere there. Life without cars today can be very well described in Elisabeth Rosenthal's article In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars. In her article she describes how the community is shaped and condensed in order to make travelling to necessary places easy through walking or bike riding distance. This is the kind of turn around that the world needs as well. With the amount of pollution happening, this is a good experiment that will hopefully spread all over the planet. The amount of pollution affecting certain cities across the world is getting rather out of hand. In Robert buffer's article Paris bans driving due to smog , he talks about the intense pollution over France's capital, resulting in the partial ban of almost of the amount of cars on the road at once. Those who violated the ban's rules were fined, and thousands of cars were impounded as well due the the reaction of citizens when they received the fine. In paragraph 14 of the article, Duffer states that " Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France , after five days of intensifying smog." The ban clearly worked, showing that it was indeed the heavy number of vehicles on the road all at once. Programs all across the world have gotten people in the millions to find other methods of travel that did not cause any pollution. Columbia is a huge example as shown in Andrew Selsky's article Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota. In the article, Selsky specifies about how millions of Columbians have taken alternative modes of transport, whether it be hiking, biking, or skating as opposed to general driving. Even on account of rain, the citizens fo… | 0 |
| 21 | 04da0c54 | 1 | The system of the Electoral College is a widely argued debate as to if it should be continued or if it should be gotten rid of. The electoral system shouldn't be used as a system of voting, who honestly wants to vote for someone who will vote for you, and if we are truly a state thats votes for its own president then why doesn't the popular vote count as the official vote? The Electoral College is a system that is rather unfit as a system of the people's voting. When you vote for your president, you're really just voting for who you think should vote for them. The article "Does the Electoral College Work?" states, "...when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for you candidate's electors." The Constitution states that we are able to vote for our president, but then what do you call this? This is not an example of what America stands for, and this is certainly not the voting system that is described by our nation's properties. There is another issue with this violation of rights concerning our voting system, it's how the Electoral College votes and how dependable they are. The article "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong." talks about how you can't control who the electoral you chose vote for. "Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always." This statement helps prove that the president you may want may not even get you vote. The Electoral College not only takes away your right to assuringly vote for the president of your choice, but it also takes away right personal voting right as an American. Don't let someone else detain your freedom of speech, let you personal voice be heard by the people. While the Electoral College may seem like a sure fire way to assure that we get a president, that doesn't really mean the majority wants that president. Think about it, we don't always get the president we voted for. Popular vote doesn't really matter, it's like saying you voice doesn't matter to the government. They took away the right as… | 0 |
| 22 | 04effeb0 | 1 | Dear Senator, Many people might agree theat we shouldn't have an Electoral College at all, since most of thee time it doesn't seem to work at all since of instead just voting on thee person or candidate you would prefer, you instead vote for a slate of electors instead of thee preferred candidate. This is not thee case, however, and in fact, thee Electoral College does seem to function. It can be proven in two simple reasons on why thee Electoral College still works certainty of outcome and thee simple fact theat it's everyone's president. Foremost, thee certainty of outcome can easily prove why thee Electoral College still works. If we even do go to a system where we actually vote for popular vote, it would work as well as we do right now withe thee Electoral College, since theere will be more disputes on popular vote thean on thee Electoral College. In Richard A. poster's article on thee defense for thee Electoral College, he states in his first reason on why theeir would be much dispute over popular vote thean on thee Electoral College, and why it's less likely to happen on a Electoral College. He states "The reason is theat thee winning candidate's share of thee Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of thee popular vote." It's true, after all theat thee Electoral College's votes exceed over thee popular votes. It could be also said theat even if thee government actually switches to popular vote, we know it would work since it does not exceed how on Electoral College votes go, which can be also seen as a simpler process of voting. On anotheer note, in some cases, theere can be ties between two candidates, as seen in 1992's Election between Nixon and Clinton on thee popular vote. To summarize, thee certainty of outcome is far greater in thee Electoral College ratheer thean thee popular vote due to sheer number of votes in thee Electoral College. On a second note, thee fact theat thee american people can vote enough theat it's everyone's president is anotheer reason on why thee Electoral college does … | 0 |
| 23 | 05072d8e | 0 | In the old world, people didn have car's, they did everything on foot. They got food, ran errands, and just to get out of the house with the family. So how come now adays people are so dependent on their car's. Places around the world are implementing rules or laws now to stop people from abusing the car. Since the car was invented it has always had the same issue, not the engine or the interior, but the environmental issue. And now that people around the world are realizing that, they have created rules and laws to ban or reduce the usage of cars. A community in Germany called Vauban have given up their car's to help the environment, and people love it. "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way," said Heidrun Walter, a mother of two. Paris "The Love City" in France has Banned cars because of the high amount of smog it creates. After the law was placed, only after five days, congestion was down 60 percent. Paris has the most smog compared to any other European capitals, they had to do this or the smog would take over the city. And since the ban has been posted, smog has been clearing and is now much more limited in the area. Major cities like New York were built in a narrow way, so its more congested when too many people are driving, and the buildings are much closer together so its more continent to walk or bike to places rather than drive. New York has implemented a new bikesharing program, and it is a hit. And around the nation a similar program is the carsharing program. It encourages people about car pulling, it is when multiple people go to work or school in the same car, it puts less cars on the road and has plentiful benefits. Like less carbon dioxide in the air, less traffic, and saves on gas money. Bill Ford, an executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, pitched a plan to live in a world that owning a personal car was impractical. He proposed to partnering with telecommunications industry to make a city or many where the "pedestrians, bicycle, private cars, commercial and p… | 0 |
| 24 | 05615b6c | 1 | . The Electoral College is a very controversial topic when it comes to electing a president. Many people think it's a system that works fine, while others think it's a complete disaster. When it comes down to it, the Electoral College is a compromise between electing a president through congress and electing president by popular vote. In the past the Electoral College has caused problems in presidential elections and it can easily cause more problems that are much more severe than what we've seen in the past. America is all about democracy, so why don't the citizens get complete control by being able to elect their president directly? It's about time that the government finds a system that works better and gets rid of the Electoral College once and for all. The electoral College has many flaws, a major one being that voters don't actually vote for their president, they vote for electors, and the electors are the ones who elect the president. You may ask yourself, "What's wrong with this? One way or another we're still choosing the candidate we want." While that is somewhat true, the system has many kinks that need to be fixed causing errors in the process. One example of this is the "winner takes all" rule. An excerpt from "The Indefensible Electoral College" says "... the electoral college is unfair to voters. because of the winner take all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states". At a basic level, this means candidates will only focus on some states, and giving up on others. In fact, the same article also says "During the 2000 campaign 17 states didn't see the candidates at all..." The facts prove it it, the Electoral College is a flawed, and unfair system, and it needs to be dealt with. Another huge problem with the Electoral College is called "the disaster factor". According to Bradford Plumer, " The American poeple should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest elect… | 0 |
| 25 | 05665390 | 1 | Dear Florida State Senator, Although many could argue that the Electoral College is a fair system of deciding the president, far too many people consider it nondemocratic and inefficient for it it continue being our way of electing our leader. A new system of election must be created to make up for the pitfalls that are inevitable in the Electoral College. A country that is supposed to be a democracy does not have the voting system that such a proud democracy deserves. Defenders of the College may say that the possibility of a tie is very low or that the electors chosen are confirmed not to betray the wants of the voters, but just because the possibility is low does not mean you can simply allow the flaws in the voting system to exist. A small hole in a fabric can only grow bigger, and the same goes for our electoral college. If we can't repair or replace the fabric that is our Electoral College, soon there will be problems too big for us to deal with in our current state. The electoral voters may keep the public in mind for now, but there have already been cases where electoral voters put their own wants ahead of the public. One thing that the Electoral College does not promote is the power in the hands of the people. Although people can vote for whatever candidate they want, the elector is the real deciding hand in the process of picking our president. If one wanted to, an elector can completely disregard the decision of the voters and choose who they want. Considering the ratio of electors in some states to people, it seems completely nondemocratic for the votes of some to be more important than the wants of the common people. Some start to feel that they shouldn't vote because their one vote wouldn't have the power to change anything, and wouldn't even ensure the election of the president they want. Another thing that lowers the morale is the absence of candidates in states that can't be won very easily. If a candidate is pretty sure he can't win over a state, he won't visit it because it wouldn't be worth … | 0 |
| 26 | 059c1332 | 0 | Thousands of people around the world use cars. It's an allaround good mode of transportation. Unfortunately, the fumes that cars emit are harmful for the environment. There are ways to limit car usage. Limiting car usage has many benefits such us the decrease in greenhouse house gas, the decrease in smog, and resources are conserved. First off, reducing the usage of cars can cut the amount of greenhouse gas produced dramatically. One can easily cut down on car usage by using other means of transportation such as : riding bike, riding the train, and plain walking. Greenhouse gas emissions are very harmful and are mostly caused by car emissions. Around fifty percent of passenger cars are responsible for these gasses source 1. If we limit car usage we can promote a healthier environment. Additionally, reducing car usage also cuts down smog. Smog is another deadly gas that isnt just dangerous to the environment, but also to us. Smog is polluted air which can cause sickness. Many cities around the world are increasing in smog due to the overusage of cars. For example Paris almost broke the record for polluted air, which is held by China, one of the most polluted cities in the world source 2. If we reduce the usage of cars, we promote cleaner air for ourselves. Just by limiting the car usage for five days in Paris, the smog went down sixty percent source 2. The advantage of limiting car usage would be cleaner air. Finally, limiting car usage is beneficial because it conserves resources. If we dont rely on cars, we could make cities more compact source 1. Therefore reducing the amount of land destroyed to build malls, highways, and houses. This would save tons of resources that were going to be used on building and natural resources source 4. Limiting car usage would improve life all around. All in all, the limit on car usage would benefit the environment, it would benefit our health, and it would aid the conservation of resources. | 0 |
| 27 | 062d11db | 1 | Although numerous amounts of people want to banish the Electoral College, there are more rights than wrongs about it. The Electoral College is in the Constitution for an enormous reason it is a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and popular vote of qualified citizens. This process allows for the people of the nation to have a say and for the elected people of each state to speak even louder for their state. The Electoral College is despised, yet it is the smartest way on how to elect the President. The Electoral College requires for a president to have transregional appeal. For example, rodney was a solid favorite in the South, but he cannot win with only the votes from the South because no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. While rodney did not have to campaign much for the South, he had to campaign very heavily in the North to increase his chances of election in those states. This is an amazing result because the people want a president that is liked throughout the nation, so while he is president he can be a hugely successful one. candidates mainly focus on swing states, and dont have a lot of time for states they know they are going to win or lose however, voters in swing states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign knowing they are the ones to decide the election. These voters in swing states are averagely the most thoughtful voters, and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election. Furthermore, the Electoral College should be kept because it almost always goes in favor of the people. Even though in the 2000 election Al Gore got the popular vote but George W. Busch won the electoral votes, that has not happened since 1888! The party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed. Many people want to change the election for the President to popular vote, but it would be more likely to have a dispute over the popular vote than in the electoral college. Also, the… | 0 |
| 28 | 06830415 | 0 | There are many different things that you could do to help out the ecosystem, and reducing your car use is certainly one of them. A study conducted in Europe shows that 12% of greenhouse gas emissions are the result of passenger car overuse. But of course as humans we are bound to resist and not give up things that make our lives easier. Yet there are many alternatives to not driving a car, for example car pool, have family members pick you up, buses, trains, taxis, bikes, etc. As you can see is not a matter of lack of alternatives but a lack of interest in helping out nature and everything that it helps support. A very important way in which car usage affects our lives is pollution, many places around the world are trying to impose taxes and fines in order to keep people from overrelying on their cars. "After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city", things like this are quite obviously why the ecosystem is not at it's worst yet. One of the most polluted cities in the world Beijing competition for Paris until law enforcers stepped in to resolve the issue. Another city fighting pollution caused by car use is Bogota, who has once again banned it's over 7.2 million population from using their cars on the "Day Without Cars" event. The Day Without Cars is an event that if not followed could be penalize citizens most likely monetary fines of around 25 dollars, although some were even arrested for not complying with this method. Described by Andrew Selsky as a "program set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during this car free day". Not only is this helping out the rest of the world is bringing people closer as more people go to parks, sport centers and spend time together. With more bans and restrictions on car usage of course the car usage is destined to decrease but although it might sound terrible it could actually lead to healthier lives. With less cars on the road the air you are breathin… | 0 |
| 29 | 06a1ad90 | 1 | Dear Senator, The Electoral College as controversial as it is can be a very simple choice to either keep it as it is, or to change the voting process to a popular vote process that in which the people vote directly for the President of their choosing. I believe that you should consider changing the Electoral College to a Popular vote voting process for reasons such as, the fact that only "one half of Americans are voting" because they do not believe that their vote will count in states such as California and Texas because the voters do not believe that the candidate will carry their state anywhereIn Defense of the Electoral College section 23. Another reason is because of the winnertakeall system the candidates will not campaign as much in states they think they will win over without going there and they focus on the "swing states" instead. Senator, one of the reasons that I believe you should consider changing to the Popular Vote process is because "only one half of the eligible American population voted in the 2012 election"In Defense of the Electoral College section 23 for reasons I believe is that they do not think that the candidate running will go somewhere with their state and the fact that they do not think their votes will actually count towards the President that they would like to win. Also the fact that segreagationists will try and corrupt the voting process in the Electoral College, i. e. When John F. Kennedy was running for President segregationists tried to replace Democratic Electors with other electors to try and go against Kennedy therefore giving the opponent the upper handThe Indefensible Electoral College Section 11. Senator, on the contrary I would understand why you would like to keep the Electoral College because of it being a set compromise that the founding fathers created, making voting equal by letting "qualified citizens in congress" have the last word into the decision What is the Electoral College Section 1. In a way I see how you would think that the Electoral College is a fair … | 0 |
| 30 | 06ee2a22 | 0 | In the generation we are living in today cars are a huge part of our everyday lives. Whether it's going to schoolwork, hanging with friends or anywhere really people rely on their cars for everything and you never hear anyone talk about walking, biking and taking another way of transportation. It's whole new era with how are society is created and working but it's how we are living, and it seems to be working. Elisabeth Rosenthal, Robert Duffer, and Andrew Selsky all have the same mindset when talking about cars while each are talking about a different reason to decrease car usage, they all have a common interest in wanting it to be implied or simply like how it is being enforced. So after reading very specific, factual, and information articles I now know the advantages of limiting car usage and that is to save time and businesses, conserve resources, and having a vast decrease in car culture. Imagine yourself on a bad morning, you woke you late and you're probably rushing out the door for work, and as a fellow American I would know that there is early morning traffic no matter where you are headed. But if you didn't use a car and maybe walked or rode a bike you could easily get there faster if it was a reasonable distance. "In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets fo this capital city eerily to devoid of traffic jams" Selsky, par 20. This goes to show that when people took other steps to get to work instead of cars that there was no traffic jams. Which means no waitng which also means getting to work at a normal time, or for some, even on time. When you think about it you know that the roads can be a really busy and hetic place to be if you time it just right, so if you take the extra measure and maybe walk home you can easily make faster time and not just that but it helps the environment. Now another advantage of not using cars is businesses start to flourish. "Parks and sports c… | 0 |
| 31 | 06f90bea | 1 | We should keep the Electoral College for a number of reasons. While it is usually thought of as "out of place", it is the fairest method in voting for our President. The Electoral College, first of all, the outcome of the Electoral vote is less likely to cause a dispute than the popular vote. Second, avoids the problem of RunOff Elections. Last, the Electoral College helps balance the political weight for large states by population. We need the Electoral College so not create any problems. The outcome of the Electoral College vote is less likely to cause a dispute than the popular vote. The number of electoral votes a candidate gets usually exceeds his popular vote. For example, "Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent on the popular votes cast for him and rodney." Since most of the states have a "winnertakeall" system, its easier to determine which candidate gets the electoral vote if there is a plurality in the state. A tie in the electoral vote is possible, but not very likely, even if the total is an even number. Voting based on the popular vote would just cause more problems than we would like to deal with. RunOff Elections are avoided because of the Electoral College. RunOff elections are elections that are caused when neither candidate receives a majority of the votes given. As the article states, "Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College 301 and 370 Electoral Votes". The Electoral College clearly shows who wins without any complications that would create pressure for runOff Elections. We are releived of this pressure because we have the Electoral College. Finally, the Electoral College helps balance the weight that large states lose because of I urge this country to continue with the Electoral College as it always has! There may be better methods out there, but the Electoral College is the best system we have right now. | 0 |
| 32 | 07384ce9 | 0 | I beam, flashing a smile towards the camera of my mom's iPhone. In my hand, I grip a fourbythree inch square of plastic that, in my perspective, is synonymous with freedom. It's the moment every kid dreams about, lying bellydown on the kitchen floor and pushing a Barbie jeep around their mother's feet as she labors away at the stove, the stark scent of garlic filling their little noses. Finally, I got my driver's license! While definitely a defining moment of adolescence, most teenagers refuse to acknowledge the degrading qualities of driving. Limiting car usage has a multitude of benefits, such as decreasing air pollution and improving the health and quality of life of the world's people. As a new driver, there is nothing I despise more than waking up to severe smog, squinting as I corral my vehicle down blurred roadways en route to school. By utilizing my own vehicle, however, I am adding to the problem. Smog and other forms of unaesthetic air pollution are caused in part by the greenhouse gas emissions from cars tailpipe. In the United States, passenger cars are responsible for up to 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. Source 1 Another large percentage of these emissions comes from the inefficient, energywasting, carbonspewing processes required to create gasoline and diesel fuel. Essentially, we emit large amounts of greenhouse gases to produce fuel for our vehicles which, in turn, release more greenhouse gases. As an AP Environmental Science student, I know better than anyone the degrading results of excessive greenhouse gases. As these particles accumulate in the atmosphere, light from the sun, including harmful ultraviolet rays, stays trapped in our planet, causing a gradual rise in average temperature. This process is known as global warming. Besides being dangerous to our planet, air pollution is unappealing visualy to all inhabitants of Earth. Smog once reached such high levels in Paris, the capital of France, that a partial driving ban was placed on the city to purify the air. After one day of diminishin… | 0 |
| 33 | 07433107 | 1 | Voting. Voting is a pretty big deal that only comes around so many years. And with voting the citizens of the U.S. have a voice. And also the voting method in which the president is elected by popular votes is just fine and it should be the only way people vote for their president. No one else should vote for them. The people have the right to choose who ever they want. And no one has the right to vote for any other person but them. The popular is just fine because first of all the popular vote for president method is more fair than the electoral college voting method. Secondly, the popular vote for president is less complicated, where as the electoral college can cause complications and problems. To start off, the popular vote for president is more fair than the electoral college. First, there really is no way of cheating in the popular vote method because people vote once for whom ever they want to be president out of the people elected and then the president is chosen that way. The popular votes method is more fair because candidates spend a little time in every if not majority of the states, depending on how much time they have. But as stated in the article written by Bradford Plumer in the electoral college voting method "candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states." That is not fair every state should be able to see the candidates who are going to be serving the country and see what they are like and how they can help the country. And this has happened before where the candidates didn't even bother showing up in some of the states. One example would be as stated in the article By Bradford Plumer "during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad." Now how on earth can people vote for their new president if they have absoloutley no idea of what the president is capa… | 0 |
| 34 | 079e747c | 1 | The Electoral College is a very useful and easy was of voting. According to thee article "What Is thee Electoral College" by thee Office of thee Federal Register, "The Electoral College process consists of thee selection of the electors, thee meeting of thee electors where theey vote for President and Vice President, and thee counting of thee electoral votes by Congress." Basically we vote for our electors which theen theey vote for thee President which seem to be working just fine why change it? There are many resons why people are in favor of changing thee Electoral College for popular vote. In thee article "Why even thee bestlaid defenses of thee system are wrong" by Bradford Plumer he asks "Can voters control whom theeir electors vote for?" Then answers himself withe "Not always." This may be true but voters do get to vote for theier electors and it is thee voters job to vote for thee one theey believe will choose thee right president. The people need to put faithe in theier electors, and even if thee Electoral College was changed to popular vote theey would have to vote for thee president and put faithe in him or her to make thee right decisions for theem, is theey same basic theing but having electors are just anotheer step. "The Electoral College restores some of thee weight in thee political balance theat large states by population lose by virtue of thee malapportionment of thee Senate decreed in thee Constitution" This was stated in thee article " Five reasons to keep our despised metheod of choosing thee President" by Richard A. Posner. This is a very good point he made, thee larger states get more attention thean thee smaller states when it comes to popular voting in presidential elections because theey have a much larger population giving theem more votes. When it comes to popular voting theere have been times where no candidate has a majority cast of votes and thee Electoral College Prevents theat problem. In 1968 Nixon received 43 percent plurality or more votes thean thee otheer candidates but s… | 0 |
| 35 | 07a44007 | 1 | "It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best. It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college!" "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong". Most supporters of the Electoral College don't understand that electors are not always honest, just because people vote for the elector that is for the presidential candidate they favor of doesn't garentee the electors vote. "What have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO all, in their time, agreed on? Answer: Abolishing the electoral College!" "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong". People want to eliminate The Electoral College, and change to election for President of the United States to election by the popular vote. The public is not voting for their presidential candidate, they are voting for the foisting electors, and in the case of a tie, the House Of Representatives are thrown the election, where people are not proportionally represented. Furthermore, voting for electors is not the same as voting for the presidential candidate. "Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes" "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong". This process called "The Electoral College" is faulty and not efficacious people are constantly deceived that they are voting for the presidential candidate, but as shown this is not always true. Not to omit anything, voters don't choose who the electors are, so who can garentee their loyalty, honesty, and the fulfillment of the will of the people. "Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeded in replacing the D… | 0 |
| 36 | 07de4af7 | 0 | In the following ideas and information passage set we see the effects of using cars too much and how limiting our car use can have a huge impact on, not only our environment, but also on cities on people. Limiting our car usage isn't only a thing that the United States has to work on, but we see that Central America and Europe also has to work on it. Limiting our car usage isn't a small issue, but more of a global issue. Over the years we have seen the effects of global warming something cause by fossil fuels, which is gas coming from our cars and how they have had an enormous impact on our world. So, why is liming our car usage even remotely important to us? In the second article "Paris bans driving due to smog", paragraph 10, the first thing it says is "After days of nearrecord pollution..", well, what does this say about how we're living today? Paris so close to to being on record breaking pollution, not that it's anything to be proud of. But, if that's how much pollution Paris has, which is a famous city for not only being the "City of Love", but for also being big, how will every other city's pollution be? Cities have been growing and expanding so much recently, factories are being built and more cars are being sold, how will this help limiting our car usage? If cities keep expanding, we'll just be adding to the pollution that already exists. After a couple decades all the issues we seem to be ignoring will come up and if the problems are bad now, how bad will they be in the future? This isn't just something we can ignore! Like David Goldberg says in paragraph seven in "In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars" "All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car..". Why have we been focusing more on a car than on health and medicine and cures for some illnesses? Why is a car so important? Yes it makes going to places much more easier and quicker, but at what cost will we go to to make things easier on us? It isn't jsut about the pollution caused from our cr usage, but it's also about… | 0 |
| 37 | 07e8e63b | 0 | I was very excited about my first trip to the West Coast California that I took last summer. It was a place Ive always fantasized over because of its variety of beauty from the surfing beaches to the skiing mountains to the north. When I first landed in LA, I expected some hustle and bustle of the city like Miami, but it was overwhelming to see the smog and traffic that polluted many peoples views of California, along with the air. Unfortunately, this is the case in many car intensive cities across the globe where limiting car usage would go a great deal farther than people actually know. The advantages of limiting car usage would allow for cleaner cities with less air pollution, and provide safety for pedestrians and even other carusers. According to source 1 on carfree cities, Elizabeth Rosenthal states "Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in carintensive areas of the United States" Rosenthal, paragraph 5. This stat only presents part of the problem as the commercial and delivery industry add to that figure as well. Limiting car usage across the world is becoming more and more popular, as people finally come to realize the devastating effects of the greenhouse gas emissions on the atmosphere. Projects in places like France, Colombia, the United States, and other countries across the globe are making a huge effort at reducing car usage, and according to source 4 by Rosenthal, they seem to be working. " Recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by"paragraph 29. Obviously, car usage altogether will not end, but limiting it can do a great deal in protecting the only planet sustainable for human life. Furthermore, limiting the use of cars in areas of large pedestrian population, such as New York City, would ultimately lead to less tragic car accidents. Approximately 500 car accidents occur daily in the United States and probably upwards of 5000 across the globe. Car a… | 0 |
| 38 | 07f7dedb | 0 | Do you know why the earth has air pollution ? they are many reason from cars. Limiting car usage could have many advances because it can slow down air pollution,save money, and safety. Sit back and relax while I explain. To begin one of the advantages of limiting car usage is that it can slow down air pollution. First reason that limiting car usage is that it can slow down air pollution is that because in the passage it says that "after days of nearrecord pollution,Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city." what that quote was basically saying was that the air pollution in paris was so terrible that they had to ban driving in order for the air to get stabilized. Next limiting car usage can slow down car pollution because it will keep major fuel companies from burning coal into the air. Lastly limiting car usage can slow down air pollution by using bikes,walking,taking the bus,riding skate boards,taking the subway,and ect. Next one of the advantages of limiting car usage is it saves money. the first reason limiting car usage saves money is because in one of the passages it says that "The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. violaters are to face 25 fines". and I dont think any one want to be a part of that. Next one of the advantages of limiting car usage is that it saves money because when a person has a car they spend lots on money to put gas in their car every week and every year gas prices are rising. finally one of the advantages on limiting car usage is it saves money is because people that drive have to be aware of tickets that are very expensive also mantanace for your car like tires, lights,oil and ect if you limit your car usage over time you will see yourself spending less. Finally one advantage on limiting car usage is safety. The first reason lmiting car usage can raise safety is because in the passage it says "pedestrian,bicycle,private cars,commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time,conse… | 0 |
| 39 | 08157ec0 | 0 | To access what one needs in the world today, many would think one needs a car. Currently, cars are a big part of transportation for many people. However, they are also major contributes to negative environmental impact as well as the decline of cities public areas and transportation. Contrary to popular belief, limiting car usage can be beneficial to many. Currently, throughout the world several car free systems are operating well. A decrease in the number of cars on streets and highways would lead to positive improvements in public spaces, public transportation, and the environment as a whole. Automobiles are one of the biggest ailments to the sustainment of a healthy environment. In "In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars", author Elisabeth Rosenthal shares the story of Vauban, Germany and their efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States." The impact of these gas emissions is incredibly negative on cities. They make the environment unstable and unsafe for a large number of people. These numbers could easily be reduced if fewer people chose to rely on cars as their mode of transportation. In some places the pollution caused by automobiles is so high that the government is stepping in to assist in the management of city spaces. In "Paris bans driving due to smog", author Robert Duffer explains this specific situation in Paris, France. "After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day." The effects of this temporary ban were also shared. "Congestion was down 60% in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog." It is easy to see that just a small reduction of vehicles created a significant c… | 0 |
| 40 | 08a01bc5 | 1 | Though I have not been alive to see most of it, I am sure that the debate on keeping the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote has been going on for ages. Now, the words of a fourteen year old might not mean much to a state senator, especially since it will be four years until I am legally allowed to vote, but please sir, hear me out. I believe that we should keep the Electoral College for many reasons. One, if the president was decided by popular vote, our president might not be the best one for the country. Secondly, if it were up to a popular vote, the president might win, or not win, simply for being a regional favorite. To start this off, if our president was decided by a popular vote, our president might not be the best thing for our country. As stated in the third article, paragraph 20, "The winnertakeall method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates... to focus their campaign efforts on the tossup states." As you know, tossup state's make the final vote. Therefore, people in these states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign, and they will be the ones with the most information. If it were up to popular vote, then anyone over the age of 18 could randomly pick a winner. Let's be honest, the majority of eighteen year old's will vote on whoever their friends or family vote for, or even the candidate representing their group Democratic or Republic. Many people, if the president was decided by popular vote, would make an uneducated decision on one of the candidates, not studying their choices as much as one would with the Electoral College system in place. Secondly, if it were up to a popular vote, the president might simply win because he or she is a regional favorite. As stated in the third article, paragraph 19, "...because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president." Also in the paragraph, it states that no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. If the president was decided by popular vote, however, can y… | 0 |
| 41 | 08cda63e | 0 | By limiting car usage you would be making it a healther environment, and a safer one! there would be less pollution in the air and that would make the air better for us to breath. Sure by limiting the usage of cars would have an effect on people its also doing us a favor wether we like it or not, because constantly breathing in polluted air is really bad for you it can have major affects on our lungs, and respotory system. Also by limiting car usage you wouldent spend so much money on gas, oil, car parts,ect:, so by saving all that money you could spent it on something else. When you own a vehicle you put in so much money in just getting your insurance and then you spend so much money on gass every week, dont get me wrong the gas prices have gone down but what will happen when they go back up and how much money will the gas be then? So is driving worth killing your air and the environment you live in and spend all your money on gas? Or would it better for us to start imiting our car usage? But that is up for you to decide what you want to do. Whe driving have you ever thought how much pollution you vehicle is dishing out while your driving around town? Probably not, probably you where thinking how log till i get there or i need to text someone back but i bet not once did car pollution ever cross you mind and its okay not alot of people think about it when there driving. Actually hardly anyone thinks abot it ever unless its on the news saying that the air pollution is bad again and thats when you start to think about it. With car pollution ypu dont realse what it is dont to you environment because you never see it happen in a fast pace it always happen really slow. All of a sudden plants will start to die really fast, people will have areally hard time breathing and will probably have to go to the hospital because of the lack of oxygen they can get. Imagine saving you money, wouldent that be nice not having to worry about a car paymeny or gas? alot of people would have so much money that alot of them ne… | 0 |
| 42 | 0901b3db | 1 | Getting rid of the electoral college would be illogical and irrational. The electoral college was established in the Constitution by the founding fathers to compromise between the Congress and the people. It is seen as nondemocratic to the modern day system because the electors elect the president, not the people because when you vote for a presidential election you are actually voting for a slate of electors. Many people say that "what if they go against your wishes" but the truth is that it rarely happens. So there is no reason to wory. We must retain the Electoral College despite it being "nondemocratic" because we will be certain of our outcome, avoid runoff elections, and Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states have. "A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College is possible it happened in 2000 but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote." in paragraph 18 meaning that winning the candidates share of electoral votes over powers his share of popular votes. "In 2012's election, for example, Obama received 61.7% of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3% of the popular votes cast for him and rodney." in paragraph 18 shows how almost all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis. So even if there was a slight popularity it creates a land slide in that state. Having an Electoral College avoids the problem of having an election where no candidate receives the majority of votes. For example in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both only had 43% plurality of popular votes. Which meant they were tied and meant of a run on election. However, having the Electoral College produces a clear winner. In paragraph 23 it says "It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state Democrats in Texas, for example, or Republicans in California."paragraph 23 Meaning that they might not even vote if it's not going to count for anything. Electoral Co… | 0 |
| 43 | 09978576 | 1 | The anachronism that is the electoral college is a system that unfairly represents voters and can possibly lead to catastrophe. The much simpler solution would be election by popular vote where every voter in every state matters rather than the system of the electoral college that discounts many voters opinions. The arguments against popular vote are either illogical or inconsequential and we as a nation should pay no heed. The biggest and most obvious problem with our current electoral college system is that it unfairly represents voters in the states. An example of this unfairness towards voters propagated by the system is expressed in "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President" by Richard A. Posner where it is stated that in the 2012 election between rodney and Obama Florida gave all of its electoral votes towards Obama when he only won 61.7 percent of the vote. This method completely exludes the opinion of the minority, that 48.3 percent of people in Florida who didn't vote for Obama got their say taken away, their opinion no longer mattered to the election because all of the electors were given to Obama by a small majority. A second unfairness to the voters is the attention taken away from any voter not in a swing state. In the article written by Bradford Plumer named "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong" it is said that in the 2000 election that seventeen states got no attention from the candidates whatsoever. This system gives undeserved attention to a few swing states which will decide the election because of our outdated system of the electoral college. If popular vote was instituted the attention given to voters of all states would be equal as every vote from every state matters. A problem with the electoral college that could possibly outshine the unfairness of it would be the potential for catastrophe that it brings. As is stated in "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the be… | 0 |
| 44 | 0a11dfd8 | 1 | The United States has been known for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but that's not all. It's also known for the different freedoms made available and its fair government. The electoral college is a system in which states choose representatives to vote on the president. In the past, there was a big debate on whether or not this process was fair. The electoral college is not fair or trustworthy for many reasons. Imagine that you picked a representative who said they were going to vote for the person you wanted for president. Sadly, they ended up changing their mind. You could end up with a president you don't like or believe in. Voters don't have total control over who their electors vote for. To me, that doesn't sound very fair. If everyone were allowed to vote, the people would be able to ensure that there vote counted towards the person they wanted, and not towards the candidate they were against. Based on multiple polls, a few presidents have won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote. That means that the candidate which was chosen by the people did not become president. Our founding fathers fought hard for our rights, and it's our right to a fair vote. There are more problems than just an unfair vote. It almost sounds impossible that there could be a tie in a presidential election, but it has almost happened before. In the past, votes have been so close that only a couple thousand have separated the victor from the loser. What would happen if the votes came out to be tied in an election? Who would become president? I'm sure some people could argue that the electoral college could fix this problem, but I don't believe it could. Since there are less people making the decision during the electoral college process, it is even more likely that there could be a tie. If one person were to vote another way, it could be the equivalent of 1,000 people voting the other way. Also, during the electoral college the electors recieve rewards if their candidate wins. The people in that state, or even the… | 0 |
| 45 | 0a13d187 | 0 | Have you ever wondered what will happen if we keep using cars as a means of transportation? All the air pollution, killing the atmosphere, wasting valuable resources. The future is going to be a place where we can't even breathe in air without having a mask on our heads due to smog. Going green as in limiting cars is a tremendous idea for the communities, and for the planet for various reasons. No smog in the atmosphere, greener communities, and more beneficial ways of transportation. Once you go green you will go never back. To start off, Smog is one of the main disadvantages of owning or being in heavily populated area where they use cars frequently. Smog is when the cars emit there gases out of there tailpipe, and get trapped in the atmosphere causing people to have problems breathing. Articles in the city of Paris in France said that they had to ban cars due to the smog in the atmosphere. They hit a near record of air pollution and stopped people form using there cars on certain days to clear the smog from the atmosphere. On that five day period of the intensifying smog actually rivaled the place of Beijing, China which is known to be one of the most polluted cities in the world. Once the smog cleared they rescind the ban of car usage only to be a the same place there are going to be now if they keep on using cars. In addition, cities around the world are creating new communities where they are not allowed to use cars. In Vauban, Germany the residents there are in a set up where they cannot use cars in there everyday life. 70 percent of the people over there do not own a car and 57 percent sold their car just to move into the community. "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way," said Heidrum Walter, a resident of the city. Other places in the world like in Bogota, Colombia is in a program that they cannot use cars in there life. The life were they are no cars is a good life for a community and for everyone else. Lastly, the end of transportion is not done, but people are finding new … | 0 |
| 46 | 0a4a6c5b | 0 | "All of our development since world war II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change." Mr. Goldberg an official of transportation for America, a growing coalition to promote car frees communities said. The world is changing for the better and one of the machines man created, that is one of the world changing inventions of it's time is coming down for it's throne is the car. So what are the reasons for not getting a car? lets find out. In Germany, that is coming faster than people think. An idea called "Smart planning is taking hold in an experimental town built in 2006 named Vauban. A place were cars are a thing of the past. People everyday are not driving to school or work they are walking, bicycling, or taking the tram into the town from the suburb. Smart planning is revolutionary building towns to not be dependent on driving. 70% of vaughn's families do not own car and are much happier to not have the everyday anxiety of driving a motor engine car everyday. 57% sold there car just to move into the small town of Vauban. Car free suburbs and town are a growing trend all across Europe, the united states and many more nations. These efforts have been making cities, towns, and suburbs denser so you don't have to go far to get some milk and eggs. The global warning is a huge part of the fight to make the earth our home more better and healthier for generations and generations to come. Cars emit gas emissions that make up 12% of the greenhouse gases in our environment, up to 50% percent in carintensive areas in the United States and around the world. France, Paris having heavy smog decided to have a partial ban on driving making even numbered license plates not drive or fear a fine. Congestion went down after the experiment. What was to blame for the smog was the Diesel fuel being used in most cars because of the fact that a tax policy favors diesel fuel over gasoline. Paris having more smog than the typical capital had a decrease in congestion and the citiy after enormous victory decided to go at… | 0 |
| 47 | 0a4bc619 | 0 | In order to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases, a new fad is being introduced all over the world. The fad is ways to make the world more "carfree" or "carreduced". This may sound shocking and to complicated to implement, but believe it or not, there are communities and cities that are already showing improvement with decreasing greenhouse gases that cars let off. Vauban, Germany, is an upscale, fully functional experimental German suburb on the outskirts of Freiburg, without cars. Street parking, driveways and home garages are not found in Vauban, the main form of transportation is a public tram that runs to downtown Freiburg. Heidrun Walter is a media trainer who lives in Vauban with her two kids, Mrs. Walter states, " I am much happier this way". Completed in 2006, Vauban is a an example of a growing European and United States trend that separates auto usage from suburban life. Everything that the 5,500 residents of Vauban could need is walking distance away, the community is built in a rectangular square mile with all of the stores on a main street. Greenhouse gases from Europe contribute to 12 percent of all emissions, the United States is responsible for as much as 50 percent of these emissions. To most people, these numbers would be meaningless, but to the people of Paris, these number clearly showed with their smog covered streets. Paris hit a nearrecord pollution rate which caused the partial driving ban to take place. The partical driving ban in Paris was as follows on Monday, motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to not use their cars, or be forced to pay a fine, on Tuesday, the same instructions were put in place for oddnumbered plates, this ban continued throughout the week. While this did outrage some drivers, public transit was free of charge from Monday through Friday which did help drivers who were restricted. A national "Day without cars" was Bogota, Columbia's way to incorperate car limitations. Millions of Columbian participants found alternative ways to get to and from w… | 0 |
| 48 | 0a529197 | 0 | There are several advantages when you limit car usage. One, you will reduce greenhouse gases. Two, you will lower the stress level of people when they thinking about driving. Three, young people will decrease their amount of driving. Overall, limiting car usage can help fellow citizens. Limiting car usage wil reduce greenhouse gases. In Source 1 the passage states that passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the United States. While we limit car usage you will not only help reduce greenhouse gases,but you will help reduce air pollution. When theres no air pollution there will be a clean atmosphere. Furthermore, limiting car usage can benefit the environment. Limiting car usage will lower the stress level of people when they are thinking about driving. Everyday people have to plan before they drive. Sometimes when people plan for driving they get stressed thinking about if theirs traffic or what if the road is closed. In Source 3 the passage states that rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic. Furthermore, limiting car usage will limit the stress level of people thinking about driving. Limiting car usage will decrease young people's amount of driving. In Source 4 the passage states that there has been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39yearolds getting a license. Another study in Source 4 was found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. If their's less young people driving then there will be less accidents occurring. Overall, limiting car usage will keep young drivers from injuring themselves. Either way limiting car usage will help our fellow citizens in general. This will reduce greenhouse gases. This will lower the stress level of people when they are thinking about driving. Also, limiting car usage will decrease the amount of young people driving. furthermore limiting car usage will help us citizens. | 0 |
| 49 | 0a62093d | 0 | Within countries around the world people are coming together, whether it be the politicians or the citizens, they are all beginning to put an end to the use of cars on a daily bases. In Germany there is a suburban city where the majority of its' streets are relatively free of cars and the residents of this "carfree" city seem quite content. Germany isn't alone in wanting to rid the world of cars along with the pollution and stress it brings, Paris, France is another of the handful of places that would prefer to begin an anticar revolution. There are days in Paris that, when the smog is too much to bare and the air is hardly breathable, they are forced to enforce a partial driving ban. After about a week the air was noticeably cleaner. While Vauban, Germany and Paris, France have joined the fight in kicking cars to the curb in their own particular ways, three cities in Colombia have also decided to become a member of the ever growing "carfree" city club by starting a program that sponsors a carfree day once a year. Taking a closer look at the suburban city of Vauban, Germany, it is easy to see the reason as to why the country would create a city free from cars along with parking spaces. When thinking of suburban cities most people create a mental image of large buildings spread far apart from public homes or neighborhoods with long winding roads and intersections packed with automobiles. Considering most of the popular suburban cities throughout the world match this description, it is not completely inaccurate, but most people fail to also imagine the abundance of smog and other forms of pollution that invade the cities because of the gaseous fumes released by cars and other vehicles. Vauban has greatly decreased the amount of air pollution in their city by simply eliminating the amount of automobiles out on the roadways. According to the article titled "In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars" by Elisabeth Rosenthal in paragragh 5, cars are the cause for up to twelve percent of greenhouse gases emersed into … | 0 |
| 50 | 0a8e65ab | 1 | Many people are in belief of evaporating the idea of having the Electoral college. A Gallop poll taken in 2000 shows that citizens would rather have a direct election. As a member of the United States you must think of all the possibilities. Yes, the electoral college was once a great process, but now there are some changes are in need of being made. The electoral college is a process in which we select electors. This long and dragged out procedure is many steps that take months to prepare for. First, there must be a selection of the electors which are chosen by the states. Then the meeting must be planned and taken place. Who and why is a hard aspect to decide on voting day for those who have been chosen to be the electors. Votes for president and Vice President must be made. After voting the counting beings. The Electoral College has a total of 538 members. Over 270 votes must be made to elect the President. This process can easily be shortened by using a direct election. By having a direct election everyone's voice is heard. This means less arguing in the states. Citizens enjoying believing their thoughts are not being avoided. Having the Electoral College taking place is highly unwanted in the US. This is because the people believe a direct vote is more efficient way for them to show who they believe is worthy of being President and Vice President. Each candidate running for office retains a group of electors from a state. These electors are normally chosen by the candidate's political party. This means if a person doesn like the electors chosen they feel like they still dont have a say of what is going on in the presidential election. In conclusion, The Electoral College is no longer a process citizens enjoy. This procedure is too long and citizens dont encourage it. Many people believe that this branch of government feels they will lose more power if the Electoral College is given up on. Using a direct election will spare the arguments and will allow us to have an easy and manageable process in which to… | 0 |
| 51 | 0a9630a4 | 0 | Since remotely times, the manhad look for some way to make his life easier, since primitive hunting weapons, to carriages. The carriages were pulled by horses mostly, and on those times, the most that those animals could do for contamination was pooping but the owners had people to clean for it as well assomeone who took care of it. While the times had change, the transportation media has too as well with the cars which it actually result to be a doble sided bladecontaminating with smog. In Paris the government has banned driving due to smog, the smog has caused a huge impact on this city, giving to it cooler nights and warmer days, many habitats blame Diesel fuel, but it does not matter which fuel you would use, it would burn and produce smog anyways. On the other hand,Vauban, Germany, is offering a new life style that many people has decided to adopt the suburbian community has no cars at the streets, people there does not own a carbecause they do not need it, the public transportation works very well, so it is not a primary need. They can live perfectlywithout cars, then they are not that necessary. Many people even sell their cars in order to move to Vauban, and had said that their lifes are so much less stressful than when they did own a car. Mothers can let their childrens to play in the streets without thinking that a car is going to kill them, and kids can let go technology if their moms want them to play outside most of the kids are so attached to technology because it is a way that parents have to keep them away from the streets. Maybe these changes like in Germany were too radicals, but it can start by a day a year like in Bogot, Colombia where once a year people take a carfree day, being buses and taxis the only ones allowed to produce smog, the violators are charged with 25 dollars fines. Even in the U.S., from 2003 to 2009 young people driving decreased a 23%, young people are considered the most dangerous driving people. There is so much for young people to do that they are not focused on driving,… | 0 |
| 52 | 0af1d837 | 0 | Dear fellow citizens of America it has come to my attention that pollution in the United States is getting worse so I have a solution use cars less. It is simple, this will help cut pollution in the U.S as the second biggest polluting factor is gone and can actually help you with a better social life as well as helping rebuild the community. As mentioned earlier,cars are the second leading cause of pollution in the U.S and cutting that will help stop some pollution by stopping one of the biggest causes. Stopping the use of cars will cut the carbon in the air and this in turn can lead to a healthier lifestyle as well. There are many neighborhoods that are carless and we have received good results from said neighborhoods as well as car free day is becoming a hit in Columbia as well as other parts in central America. This will also make smog a less likely occurrence as no car fumes are getting trapped therefore, cleaner, unpolluted air. This will help prevent the same pollution levels like in Paris pop up here. A life without cars can also positively affect the social lives of many people. As people are more likely to just walk and talk with friends or just walk or bike to the park. people in carless community like Vauban have even said they feel less stress now that they don't have cars. Young Americans have even started losing interests in cars and would rather take public transport or carpool with friends then just take their own car. And as a result are tighter with their friends and family then before. People who use cars for transport are less likely to use the sidewalk or ride their bike and as a result sidewalks and bike paths are uneven and ragged. Therefore without cars, things like disrepair sidewalks or roads would come to our attention. For example Car Free Day in Columbia led to the repair of sidewalks and 118 miles of bike roads and more sport centers parks and shopping districts have started to pop up. Getting rid of cars can help us rebuild the community with more parks and public centers and han… | 0 |
| 53 | 0b004ec7 | 0 | Reducing the usage of cars in today's world could be extremely beneficial. Sure, it is also a hastle having to reroute your commute and also making the time to get there, but the myriad advantages to the reduction of car usage is astonishing. Reducing our usage of cars will reduce the smog in cities, such as Los Angeles, Beijing, and Paris, reduce the stress of many drivers, and also save people money. Now who doesn't love money? Smogpollution is growing daily in dense, polluted areas. Looking outside of LA, you can see the dirty, polluted air surrounding the city, as well as the toxic blanket the covers Beijing. One of the main sources contributing to this is cars. Greenhouse gases are emitted from tailpipe and go straight into the atmosphere. In Europe, exhaust makes up fifteen percent of greenhouse gas emission, and accounts for fifty percent in the United States, FIFTY PERCENT. That's half of the pollution in our country, and an easy solution is to limit car usage. If your car usage is not limitable, perhaps switching to a hybrid car such as a Toyota Prius will make you feel good about contributing to the cause. Some areas, like Bogota, Colombia, participate in a Carfree Day. This day is widely celebrated in the area and is infectious spreading to nearby areas and potentially the world soon enough. This day allows for smog reduction. Cities such as Paris, however, have to ban car usage sometimes because their smog is so bad. During this ban, hybrid cars and carpooling is allowed. This shows the extreme measures necessary to reduce the smog in populated areas. As most people know, driving is stressful and is perhaps a top contributor of stress in America. In populated areas, rushhour traffic is annoying and causes many people to change their schedules. When driving during rushhour, you are in constant fear of potentially being cutoff and your risk of being in an accident heightens dramtically. With that being said, what if I told you there was a way to completely cut out this fear? Communities such as Vauban… | 0 |
| 54 | 0b10ee59 | 1 | To be fair,both the electoral college and a aoaular vote are good ways to decide an election. Although,a aoaular vote may have more aitfalls than the latter. The electoral college is definitely the best way to aick a candidate without much confusion. The electoral college may have some down falls too but the benefits out weigh them. A aoaular vote also has some benefits. In Richard A. aoster's aassage In Defence of the Electoral College he states,"The electoral college is not a democratic method it is the electors who elect the aresident not the aeoale"source 3 a15. If this was our voting method the aeoale would be choosing the aresident, not the electors. Plus the aeoale dont even know the electors their voting for. In the aassage The Indefensible Electoral College author Bradford Plumer states,"The state aicks the electors and the voters dont even get to aick who the electors vote for" source 2 a 10. Basically the aeoale have no control over who they elect. Indeed there maybe limited control for the aeoale over voting for their candidatebut the electors usually aick whoever the aeoale voted for. The electoral college also is a easier way to decide who wins the election. Theres almost no way there can be a tie in an electoral vote. Richard A.Posner states,"The winning candidates share of the electoral college invariably exceeds his share of the aoalular vote"."Even if the aoaular vote winner wins by a little he wins all the electoral votes"source 3 a 15.Which means there is no confusion as to who wins. Not only is the electoral college more organized but it makes the aresident have to aaaeal to many regions of aeoale. Richard A. Posner states,"Not one region has enough votes to win an election so the aresident has to be liked by other regions as well"source 3 a 19.This means that at least half the country must like the candidate for him to win. Swing states are also imaortant in the electoral college. These states are the ones that really care and study who will be the best aresident. Another statement from R… | 0 |
| 55 | 0b1945ec | 1 | Dear Rick Scott, Controversial. This is the word that can describe the Electoral College in recent elections. The Electoral College is composed of 538 votes, a presidential candidate must acquire 270 to win the election. States with large populations get more electoral votes so say, Rhode Island. California gets 55 votes while the puny Rhode Island gets a whopping 3 votes. The Electoral College has been debated since the 2000 election, where Al Gore lost even though he got more popularity votes. Many folks believe the Electoral College should be abolished. I believe that the Electoral College should be kept in the presidential elections, because it shows a clear winner, it ensures it is, "Everyone's President", educated voters count in the swing states and it avoids RunOff Elections. Without the Electoral College, some elections may be hard to decide a true winner. No matter the situation, the Electoral College will determine a winner, if the popular vote and electoral vote become tied, which is highly unlikely, the vote will be taken to the senate. Each senator counts as one vote, so no longer do bi states matter. Also, the Electoral College ensures the presidential candidates have transregional appeal. It makes the votes count, the president chose is surely, "Everyone's President," rather than a favorite in just northeastern states. Furthermore, swing states are tremendously important to the outcome of the election. States such as Florida, New York, Texas and California have dozens of votes combined, winning all four of those states pretty much means presidency. The swing states not only have more electoral votes because of population, but because of their voters. On average, there are more educated voters in the swing states, they actually stay up to date, watch the news and know the means of each candidate. The Electoral College also avoids the disaster of which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. A good example of this is when Clinton had only 43% of the popular votes won, yet he got a whopp… | 0 |
| 56 | 0b198045 | 0 | Many people throughout the world, would agree that car usage plays a significant role in daily lives. Although some may argue it plays an important role or a not so important role, the limitation of car usage would be a very helpful thing for everyone, and the world we are surrounded by. There are many advantages to cities being able to control the amount of cars being used everyday. Advantages such as, less pollution in the environment by creating less smog, making the cities and roads a lot safer, by lowering the risk of getting into or even causing a wreck, or even something as simple as making your life, and the lives around you much more peaceful. "Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States. paragraph 5" Cars are the number one cause of pollution in most cities, especially ones that have large amounts of drivers on the road in a single day. The author of source one, states in paragraph 8 that "..some new suburbs may well look more Vaubanlike not only in developed countries, but also in the developing world, where emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle class are choking cities" All authors state that limiting car usage, is a great way to reduce air pollution. Paragraph 10, of source two, states that "After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city" If car usage was limited in cities there would be less smog, and pollution in the air. Not only would it be better for the environment, it would also be better for your health. Wrecks are things that claim the lives of people each and everyday. Some can be prevented, yet not all can. Think of how many lives are taken each day, due to wrecks because of things like congestion in big cities. Or even things such as someone behind the wheel who is stressed, and driving recklessly. A source from paragraph 3, states "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm… | 0 |
| 57 | 0b3f580c | 0 | Are we using cars too much? In Source 2 : Paris bans driving due to smog , " After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city." Because that we use cars too much, we are creating pollution that is basically driving the planet we live on downhill. There is a way to change this. Limiting car usage, there are many advantages of limiting car usage. Life can go on without cars. In VAUBAN,Germany a community has created a carfree city. The streets are completely car free. This is an experimental new district that is seeing if excluding cars can life become better not only physically but also mentally. Many people driving on the roads daily tend to have more stress from overcrowding streets, noise, and most of all crashes. "As a result, 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move to here. "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way," said heidrun Walter." Source 1,3 From this evidence it shows that life without a car can actually have a better impact on a person. Another advantage to limiting car usage is it reduces pollution. Paris enforced a driving ban to clear smog from the global city after a near record pollution. From this ban almost 4,000 drivers were fined, and some even had their cars impounded due to their reactions from the fines. But these fines and bans came out with a positive effect in the end. Congestion went down 60 percent in the capital of France, just after a few days of putting the ban into effect. The smog cleared enough for the French ruling party to rescind the ban for certain days. Has America's love for cars already started cooling? Or has technology taken the reason why we should drive away? Elisabeth Rosenthal states that , " the interent makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. the renewal of center cities has made the suburbs less appealing and has drawn empty nesters back in. Likewise the rise in cellphones… | 0 |
| 58 | 0b89ae3e | 0 | They come in red, blue, green, black, and white. They beep and honk while they ride on highways and transport people form place to place. Cars are everclear. What would the world be like if we didnt have cars? What are the benefits of life without cars? Life with out cars benefits the environment, and peoples' health. First of all, the elimination of cars helps the environment. "Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States" 5. In other words, cars are highly responsible for the harmful gases that pollute our atmosphere and cause global warming. In Paris, a partial driving ban was issued to clear the air after days of high air pollution rates. After the driving ban, "congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France after fivedays of intensifying smog" 14. By using cars less, citizens can reduce pollution and help keep our earth clean and safe. statistics show that fewer people are using cars around the world. "A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009" 41. Sociologists believe that this trend will continue and possibly increase. They believe it will "have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions" 34. Another benefit to limiting car usage is that it will benefit the health of citizens both mentally and physically. In the German suburb of Vauban, citizens have given up their cars. A resident there says "when i had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way" 3. Limiting car use also limits the frequency of traffic jams, accidents, and unfriendly drivers in a hurry along with the stress and frustration that accompany them. In colombians capital, bogota, the Day Without Cars has had many participants. One of whom said "It's a good opportunity to take away stress" referring to the event. 24 limiting stress can have major benefits to a persons he… | 0 |
| 59 | 0bbff1f5 | 0 | Why are the streets always so jammed!? Everyone asks that all the time almost everyday around 5:00pm. The reason for is because cars being excessively used nowadays. There are several different advantages that can happen when limiting car usage. The world would be a better place if less cars were used on the roads. To begin with, why do we the people use cars? The reason is because it can get us from A to B really fast. But that's only 1 positive for the usage of cars. Think about the negatives and disadvantages of using cars. My 1 main reason of the usage of cars is that it make the world less active. Walking or running is a daily form of exercise, and the usage of cars is limiting the numbers of that. In section 1 redrum Walter says that he always was tense when he had a car, he's much happier without one. This is why we should limit the usage of cars. We don't want the people to be tense all the time, we want them to enjoy and relax when using transportation other than cars. Walking will take longer but is better in the long run. You don't have traffic jams, you can go places and areas that cars couldn't fit through and you have many different ways of getting to a particular place rather than just a road. The only repercussion that you have to worry about with walking is the rain. But heres the thing, In section 3 Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus said "The rain hasn't stopped people from participating." This means rain isn't a problem when walking on the streets. Cars may offer more protection but its more dangerous than walking. This is why places like Germany, Paris, and Bogota are trying to carry out the experience of a "carfree" life. In addition, another advantage of limiting car use is limiting riots. I know we have all heard of people screaming and arguing in the cars of people in front or behind them. This is a big problem nowadays and it's because of the use of cars. If we can limit the usage of cars than we can hopefully reduce the level of aggrevation on the streets. Alot of accidents happen everyday d… | 0 |
| 60 | 0bd440a5 | 0 | For a long time now we have been fighting against global warming and polution. Some people why we cant just end the fight quickly. And the reason is simply because we still rely so much on cars. All people need to find so type of way to stop using cars as much. There are some places that are already starting to limit uses. Like in Vauban, Germany who has a ban on cars, Paris, France who can use certain cars on certain days, and bogota, Colombia. One way people could limit their use of cars is if they did something like what Vauban, Germany did. Build cities that had no drive ways and no parking lots. That way people had to buy parking garage spots that cost alot of money. According to source one passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse emissions in Europe. Many will think this is not alot but think about how much polution there is, then find out how twelve percent is it will be alot. But when these types of cities are made there will be a reduce in the emissions because little if any cars we be driven here. In source one Heidrun Walter said "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way." This showes that without cars in people life it removes a tremondus amount of stress. People dont have to worry about spending money on gas or they don't have to worry about paying large amounts of money for their car to be fit. When there is not so much money at stake you tent to be a little less tense. Obvously creating a city were you have to buy a parking garage spot to hold your car would be a great idea because it would reduce the amount of polution being released and it would make the people living in the city less stressed. Another ways people could limit the use of cars is if they do something like Paris, France does. They placed a ban on cars with odd numbered licens plates on Mondays, And placed a ban on cars with even numbered licens plates on Tuesdays. They did this because they were having record breaking amounts of polution being released. They were releasing more polution… | 0 |
| 61 | 0c5fc9e7 | 1 | America is the country of the people, the people are the ones in the country, and are the ones living in the country. The method of which the leader of this country are selected by the people is by popular vote. Therefore, the best way, the right way of selecting the president and vice president are by popular vote. Starting of with that the electoral college is unfair. The electors might know more about this country and they think they know what is the best for these United states but they do not. The peoplr know best, the people knows what is actually going on. Just as Bradford Plummer stated in his article"the best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality"source 14. All these elector are in the political world, so they know everything political about the country and the best leader politically. These elector dont know about all the small things that thousands of people are suffering from. People want to have say in their country. If the method of choosing the president was strictly by popular college the people would feel as if the country is not theirs and if they are being controlled. The people who live in the country need to agree because if not then kaos would start to happen. People would protest and this country would fall apart bit by bit. Richard A. Posner said "to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interest, that he really isn't their president"source 19. If this is how the people feel when the other president running wins instead of the one they selected won, you could just imagine how they would feel if they did not have a part choosing who is going to be the next president of the United States. The electoral college is just not fair. Richard A. Posner says that on of the reason to retain the electoral college is "its lack of democratic pedigree"source 17. If this country has been running smoothly with popular vote why would someone want to change it? Well manyy times change is good because it is improving … | 0 |
| 62 | 0c73c177 | 1 | There are a lot of things that develop and hold a Electoral College together. There are also a lot of down falls to the Electoral College. Every state has 1 House of Representative plus 2 of your Senators in the Electoral College. There are a total of 538 people but 270 of them is the majority vote that wins. There are a total of 5 reasons why we have to keep this method to choosing the president. The 5 ways are Certainty of outcome,Everyone's President,Swing States,Big States and Avoid RunOff Elections. The main reason we have a Electoral College is so they have a right way to choose a president. The main reason for this is so that we dont leave our electing in the hands of foreign peopleimmiagrants. The is what the president needs to get elected in the electoral college. There are still a lot of down falls to this method of the electoral college though. One of these issues is "at the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voter". This means "winner takes all" which is they only focus on the bigger states and not the smaller ones because the bigger states have bigger population which means they have more in the electoral college. Another issue with this method is that the person thats running for president might get the popularity vote but still not win. See everyone that votes isnt really voting directly for the president, the people who really count is the electoral college. In order to win the vote you have to convince the electoral college and thats not always easy. So remember just because you won popular vote doesnt mean you won the majority of the electoral vote. There are 5 reasons why we keep this method of electing the president. The first reason is Certainty of Outcome. This means "it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote." Which really means the candidates share to the other people in the Electoral college there share of the popular vote and thats how they vote. The second reason is Everyone's President. This is basically shows that "the Electoral College requires a presi… | 0 |
| 63 | 0cbe426e | 1 | Dear State Senator, I think that we should change the election by popular vote for the President of the United States instead of keeping the electoral college. The reasons I think that we should have it changed to the popular vote is because I think the people should be able to choose who should be our next president instead of having the electoral college also voting for the president of the United States. Its not only me senator, but also these important men of our country all agree with me that we need to abolish the electoral college! These men are Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, and the U.S. Chamber of commerce."The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor." I just find all of this unfair because its not just the United states giving there opinion on who should be there next leader but some other men who have favoritism for the opponents also vote too! One example of how i think the electoral college voters are unfair is back in the election of President Obama and Mr. rodney the electoral voters had 29 electoral votes for Obama and rodney only had 3. So, that election could have been more fair if we didnt have so much favoritism for one person to another. When we could have had a fair vote from the people and had the opinions on who should be there next President. Now, in the defese of the electoral college it does help situations in which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast which can be very helpful when examples happen like Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 when they both had only 43 percent of the popular votes and the electoral college helped not make those elections as complicated. But, they still had a say so on who should be president and who shouldnt be president. I think that question should be answered by our own people! Thank you so much State Senator for reading my opinion on the electoral college versus the popular vote for the President of the United States. | 0 |
| 64 | 0cfc3580 | 1 | Dear State Senator, most people in theis country may argue theat the Electoral College is well layed out system in which according to source 3: In Defense of thee Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised metheod of choosing a president "The winnertakeall metheod of awarding electoral votes induces candidates to focus theeir campaign efforts on thee tossup states", which means presidents are always looking for support from small states, which is based on population, to be voted for because in thee big states little to no votes are accepted by thee Electoral College. I disagree, I believe theat theis metheod is wrong and unfair for thee peope so I argue against it. To begin withe, according to source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even thee bestlaid defenses of thee system are wrong "At thee most basic level, thee electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of thee winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states theey know theey have no chance of winning, focusing only on thee tight races on thee "swing" states", theis means theat in some states one candidate might have a better chance of winning thean thee otheer candidate and even theough a candidate is at disadvantage because thee otheer takes all thee votes because of thee electoral college theat candidate might win and thee people of theat state will not even know who is theis winning candidate until theey see him on tv as an actual president, which probably means theat thee winning candidate won't help theat state because he does not know well enough about it. Additionally, according to source 3 "The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as rodney ws in thee Southe, has no incentive to campaign heavily in theose states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plularity in states theat he knows he will win", theis means theat in order to win thee presidency a ca… | 0 |
| 65 | 0d1dd9cf | 1 | The Electoral College? Some would say this way of voting is a lack of democratic pedigree and should be abolished. The Electoral College is when the people vote for the electors who are declaring the candidate who recieves the most popular vote. This act is not only unfair but injustice as well. The people should be able to vote directly on who they choose to govern over them. But instead we're using plurality, when a candidate receives more votes than other candidates while not receiving a clear majority of votes. Someone is chosen to speak for them. The Electoral College is very irrational and should be removed from the voting process system. It's known to be said that those voting for slate of electorss half the time dont know what they're voting for. Some states have reported that they have yet to see campaign ads, or news regarding the election and therefore dont actually know who to pick. The president goes to the states heshe may think have "swing" votes and lets himherself be known pubilically to gain more votes. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president. But what about the states who arent caught up to the political races and would like to know more about it. They may feel disenfranchised to feel that their votes don not matter. They may feel the new president may disregard their interest and is not interested in being everyone's president. People may believe by voting it goes directly to the candidate but in fact it goes to the electorss, who vote. When a vote is placed to a certain candidate it doesnt nessicisarly mean they are going to win. They may win the vote but could lose the presidency. It'd be better if everyone just had a say individually of who they wanted to take president. The Electoral College wasnt a very logical idea. "Electors" ? the Electors are slate of electorss who parties have selected to make a trusted vote towards the party's nominee. Source 3, In Defense Of The Elecoral College: Five Reasons T o Keep Our… | 0 |
| 66 | 0d208d83 | 1 | Dear State Senator, I am agreeing in favor of keeping the Electoral College. There is no need to change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. That is because the House of representatives helps elect for us, it helps us to balance our votes, and avoid problems of election. The electoral college helps the people out alot with the voting situation and helps us to better understand and know our new president. The broader significance of the electoral College is that the House of Representatives helps us vote for our new president. In source One paragraph three it says "Your state's entitled allotment of electors equal the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each number in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators...."That tells me that we the people are not alone in this process of voting who will be our next president. Also in the same source but paragraph five it states "The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party." This informs me that not only the House of representatives is involved in the elections. Tthe government is important to the electoral College because the votes of the government count most to the College. It is evident that the Electoral College helps us to balance our votes. As stated in Source Three "The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states by population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution..." This lets me know that we as the people won't have to worry to much about the voting and selection of the president. Another piece of evidence stated in the same source and paragraph "So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does..." That states that not all people and states have to worry about who the president will be. The Electoral College hepls us out alot mostly to the big states in the United States. Above all the Electoral College … | 0 |
| 67 | 0d8b9898 | 1 | The Electoral College is best described as outdated and obsolete. It was designed so that, when there were too many states and poor technology, the vote could be fairly and realistically counted, by voting between a few people from each state. This was good and efficient for that time, but, with the technology available to us today, it is impractical and easy to corrupt. if you live in a mostly Democratic state as a Republican, your vote is regarded as nothing, and you would have no reason to vote in the electoral college, instead of throwing your vote into the entire mass of the united states, where it has a chance to even slightly influence the vote. Also, since larger states are given more attention, due to the allornothing attitude of most states, other states are given less information and are forced to make more wild guesses than votes, a result of having less information. When the idea of the Electoral College was introduced, the telegraph was still pretty hot technology. All votes would be counted by hand by an impartial court, counting off the vote of every single person individually, out of perhaps more than a million voters. Instead of this, each state would record their own numbers and dispatch a group of electors, who could not be influenced away from their vote, while sending a horseman or a few across the hundreds of miles of U.S. territory with a few little scraps of paper with votes on it would be impractical and dangerous. bags could be lost, a rider could have an accident, entire counties would be unaccounted for. The Electoral College was a nessecity as well as a stroke of genius, and I applaud the man who thought of it. However, this was when the telegraph was a stroke of genius, too. Now we have a cell phone the size of a notepad that can store thousands or millions of votes alone. We have processors that can count the number of people that like apples versus oranges and come out with a percentage, verdict, receipt, and the best bussines option as soon as the numbers are input, as soon as w… | 0 |
| 68 | 0d9b0568 | 0 | Car usage all over the world has reduced and been reducing slowly. Some of the advantages of limiting car usage may be the reducing of pollution or just to save money. Also due to many different reasons, even if it's for their own needs, or to just minimize the pollution going on in different parts of the world. In many places car usage has been being limited for countries all over. If it's China, Spain, Columbia, Paris, Germany, or even the United States of America. Not all countries have taken part in trying to reduce the use of cars to an all time low. That may just be their own choice. While other countries are sure trying to cut the usage of car for a variety of reasons. Some places in the world are doing it so they can cut some of the pollution done to the world. And if you think about it if half of the world tryed as hard as they possibly could to try and minimize pollution the world wouldnt be so pulloted. I know cars aren't the only things that cause pollution, but its a pretty big part of the daily life for any person no matter where they are. In Vauban, Germany a suburban area has almost completely given up driving and even owning a car. "Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park" Rosenthal 2 but it cost a lot of money to even own a parking space. "Carowners can buy a space, for 40,000, along with a home." Rosenthal 2 That price may just be enough to keep people from owning a car all together. According to the article " In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars " by Elisabeth Rosenthal, 70 percent of vaughn's Families don't even own a car and 57 percent sold a car just to move there. Isn't that crazy? Imagine life without cars, it has advantages and disadvantages of course but advantages can lead to a positive outcome no matter what the reason is. By people in Vauban not owning cars they are most likely saving a lot of money because they don't have to buy the car, pay the ridiculous amount for a parking spot, and pay for the gas thats going to end up pollution the world anyway.… | 0 |
| 69 | 0e03e65c | 0 | Society has made the car industry accelerate rapidly and over the years the amount of money these automobile company's make only increases. However, its time to look into the advantages of limiting such car usage in our communities. Studies have shown that the use of cars only increases the amount of stress we have. Without the usage of cars we're able to release such stressors Carlos Arturo Plaza stated in Andrew Selsky's article "Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota". Its one thing to make the decision to start this movement on our own, but when a community becomes involved it makes a stronger impact. Car usage in America has only grown since it began however, the amount of cars being bought is beginning to show decrease. Many people are realizing that there are numerous amounts of ways to get around their city. Some are even carpooling. Although choosing other options such as the bus may take time it is still well worth the wait. We will find that many other options and opportunities come into play when we cut down on and get rid of the use of cars in our communities. Various factors come into play when it comes to world pollution. One of the factors being the use of automobiles which increases the amount of air pollution thus damaging the ozone layer. The use of cars is second nature to us. We love the sense of indepence we get at the age of 16 when we can finally get our license. To point out, no one thinks on whats happening as we purchase cars. Instead, we rely on diesel gas to do the trick. Imagine cutting out the use of cars. With this detuction of car usage the amount of destruction done to the ozone layer will diminish tremendously. We will be able to experience clearer air just like the communities that participate in this action. For instance, in an article done by Robert Duffer titled "Paris bans driving due to smog" we can witness through testimony the wonders done by banning car usage. Normally Paris has high amounts of pollution but in order to change this the city enforced a partial… | 0 |
| 70 | 0e7ec031 | 0 | The majority of Americans have the luxury of owning a car. A car of course, seems like a useful innovation. It gets you places quickly and efficiently, and is easier than walking. Yet so many people drive cars that the roads get congested and clogged easily as the cars just idle in the road waiting for the traffic jam to loosen up. Car usage causes the environment to decline and an increase in air pollution, it would be a great idea to lower car usage since it is so detrimental to the health of the environment and the health of the populace. An advantage to reducing car usage is a more beneficial environment and a better overall health standard. "Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some... areas in the United States." Source 1. Personal cars directly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and by cutting down personal car usage and encouraging the use of car pooling and public transportation we can decrease greenhouse gas emmmisions. Also walking and biking to your destination instead of driving helps encourage healthy living and habits as well as exercise. Cars also cause pollution and smog to hang over cities causing the air to be full of harmful chemicals, endagering peoples health and also causing a rise in asthma for the populace that lives inside the city. In places like Beijing,China smog and pollution from cars cause the air to be so foggy and dirty that you cannot even see the sky. "Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."Source 2. When Paris was accosted by the same problem they solved it by a temporary ban on driving to clear the air. Without so many people driving cars we wouldn't have these many issues with smog and it's effect on the environment. With less car usage smog and pollution would drop. Driving not only creates an issue with air pollution but also with water pollution and the contamination of the earth. Cars run on gasoline, a fossil fuel. Which is brought up from underground by d… | 0 |
| 71 | 0f235c4f | 0 | There are many advantages to limiting car usage and many people are starting to see it. In the article "In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars" By Elisabeth Rosenthal She goes to explain that in Vauban, Germany there is a community that have given up on cars. Without a car on the streets you can tell its more lively with the quote "Heidrun walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked berdants streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor." With that quote from the article you can tell that the streets are filled with the sound of people rather than the sound of motors and smoke from the vehicles. certainly not having cars is a great advantage to suburbs, in Rosenthal article it said " there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking... in attempt to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation... in this new approach, stores are placed a walk away..." Instead of wasting gas and filling the air with disgusting gas, stores could be just around the corner. Which in return would be easier for everyone around. Even the united states, environmental protection agency is promoting"car reduced" communities. Another advantage to limiting car usage is to reduce smog and air pollution, in the article "Paris bans driving due to smog" by Robery duffer he informs us that paris actually enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. It stated " Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog... the smog rivaled Bejing,china, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world." By banning driving they not only were able to reduce the smog and air pollution, They obviously reduced car traffic! Also In the article "Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in bogota" by Andrew Selsky, they banned car in an effort to promote alternative transportation and reduce spog. In the article is said "parks and sp… | 0 |
| 72 | 0f8bd702 | 0 | The wheel was the first step that took society into the making of the mobile car. Today millions of cars are made each year to help humans transport around the cities and streets around the world. Every vehicle that is powered by gasoline emits carbon dioxide, this gas is very harmful for the environment, it causes the ozone later to slowly dissolve and it also causes acid rains. Traffic jams is one of the many effects of having too many cars in a certain populated area. Debt has also been an influential part in the quantity of cars around the globe. Car usage and production should be drastically reduced to ensure a better future for all living things in the Planet Earth. Furthermore, Global warming has slowly made its toll on Earth, most of which has been produced by the Carbon Dioxide gases in the atmosphere, this gas is a mayor green house gas. Over the years cars have been more extensively used and have a great percentage in world contamination, As stated in article 1 paragraph 5 "Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of green house gas emissions in europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the united states". This being, if car production and usage are reduced, Earth will have positive reactions to this change. The levels of global warming will also be reduced all around, this will help us conserve our north and south poles for a longer period of time, keeping safe all the animals related to that area like penguinzs and polar bears. In addition, Traffic jams arent the most pleasant place to be, due to the fact that they're unpredictable and in most cases highly annoying. Information from passage 2 paragraph 14 states that "congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of france", this was due to oderly assigning days in which certain cars with certain license plates can drive through the cities of france. Less congestion means higher percent in mobility all around, this can greatly effect a 3 hour traffic jam to a simple 20 minute ride. Coming and going from places can be a breas… | 0 |
| 73 | 10235460 | 1 | While many may argue for it, the Electoral College has proved to be an obsolete way of electing the President. It is, essentially, an indirect way for voters to choose their candidates, by voting for electors whose loyalty is not guaranteed. The Electoral College vote can override the popular vote, as seen in the 2000 Presidential Election. Some say that the Electoral College is a system worth keeping, because it provides a certain outcome and avoids runoff elections, yet these arguments are founded on little reason. Undoubtedly outdated, this system is a catastrophe in the works, the 2000 election only a glimpse of the chaos that could result from the Electoral College. The disaster factor is a strong argument against the Electoral College. Consider 1960, when Louisiana segregationists came close to replacing Democratic electors with ones who wouldn't support Kennedy 11. Also along those lines, electors are bound by nothing but obligation to vote for the candidate of their party, and sometimes change their decision upon voting. Even if it only happens occasionally, it is yet another fault in this system. Not only is the Electoral College irrational, it is also simply unfair. Each state can only cast a single vote, so the one representative in Wyoming, who represents only 500 thousand, would have as much say as California's 55 representatives, who represent 35 million voters 12. Other sources say a tie would be unlikely. However, in 1979 in Ohio, it would have only taken a few thousand voters to vote the other way 12. Because of the "winnertakeall" system, certain states are left untouched by candidates who know they won't win them. In 2000, certain states didn't even see the candidates, and didn't air campaign ads, denying voters of a chance to further favor or favor them 13. It is simple, the Electoral College system is a turnoff for many voters, especially after the incident in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Voters can be discouraged if they have no hope of carrying thei… | 0 |
| 74 | 10674384 | 0 | By limiting car usage, research has shown there is less greenhouse gas emissions, a promotion in alternative transportation, and can result in a new and improved safe society. To begin, the advantages of limiting car usage reduces the amount of pollution that is emitted into the air, resulting in a more environmental friendly neighborhood. According to research in Vauban, Germany, "...Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the United States." Source 1 Many locations around the world are taking this act into perspectiveincluding not only Vauban,Germanybut also Paris,France, Bogota,Colombia, and even cities in the United States that are reducing these numbers drastically and making a beneficial change in the environment. "If the pattern persistsand many sociologists believe it willit will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions." Next, with the declining usage of cars, citizens are left with alternative transportation that are beneficial. Many people have gone from driving carsgetting from point A to point Bto visiting parks and sports centers, which can lead to an increase in physical activity. Another advantage to giving up your car can also lead to less traffic. According to the new routine in Colombia, "Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during a carfree day...leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."Source 3 In Paris, officials are enforcing drivers to clear the air of the global city with a partial driving ban. With this new ban in play, "Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France." Source 2 Since the change, public transit from Friday to Monday was free of charge. As you can see, these changes are coming into effect and are changing the world in various positive ways. Heidrun Walter said, "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier t… | 0 |
| 75 | 10f007a0 | 0 | Whether we have our license or not, we can all relate to the stress of the daily commute. As of the past century, cars have been one of the most efficient ways to get from point A to point B. Now, mainly due to air pollution, there has been a noticeable decline in the amount of cars used for travel. The advantages of limiting car usage include less stress, less air pollution, and an overall improved society. The stress of traffic and the constant pressure to be on time would be significantly reduced if people chose other means of transportation such as riding a bike, taking public transportation such as the subway or bus, or walking. Source 1 shows just how effective decreased car usage can be. It describes Vauban, Germany, a small suburb community in which there is virtually no car usage. Many citizens report being less tense, as everything is made within means of walking distance. Another cause of stress from car usage is the effects it has on the atmosphere. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the United States.Source 1 Paris is an excellent example of just how much car usage has had such negative effects on the atmosphere. Source 2 explains how Paris was so smog ridden it rivaled Bejing, China. Paris then placed limits on car usage until the smog cleared enough for the ban to be lifted. Not only does decreased car usage help the planet, it helps society as a whole. Source 3 describes Bogota, Columbia and how it celebrates one day a year of no car usage. The city has found that not only has this policy helped clear the smog, but it is enthusiastically endorsed by the citizens. Most people turned out to see the bike races, despite the occasional rain showers. This has caused two other Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar to join the event. Bogota has seen the construction of 118 bike paths, the most of any Latin American city. It is not just the government endorsing decreased car usage but people themselves. So… | 0 |
| 76 | 115bceb1 | 1 | In the westminster system, the head of state and or government is elected by the majority of both houses of their respective national legislature. In the popular vote system, the head of state and or government is elected by the majority of the nation. Unlike the westminster system, the popular vote system has a vast array of ways to carryout the elections. Tyrants sway the people and if the people are sovereign we can't let them hold all the power when they can easily be misguided. For the safety of freedom against tyranny and for the safety of the people's sovereignty the United States must ensure the continuity of the Electoral College. The united states of america is the oldest surviving republic in modern day times. This is because our founding fathers were some of the greatest thinkers in american history. the idea of the electoral college was heavily influenced by the English system of government and also the Iriqouis Confederacy though it is usually unrecognized due to the fact that many americans, at the time, thought Native Americans were savages. One of the principles of English government the founding fathers used was the idea of electing heads of the nation. in the United Kingdom the Prime Minister, i. e. the head of government, was elected by the majority of the house of commons and then approval by some higher authority to ensure the vote was valid and legitimate. Our founding fathers were afraid of a popularly elected dictator who would bring down the principles of republicans and democratic institutions. So the Founding Fathers decided to create a system where the head of state and his office where responsible and questionable to the Federal legislature the United States Congress. He could be impeached by congress if he had committed crimes and removed from office if he was unfit to carry out the duties he was entrusted with. The electoral college was made to ensure that despotism never happens in the United States. Adolf Hitler was never elected to any office, he was appointed to the chancellor… | 0 |
| 77 | 11619ff1 | 1 | Dear Senator, The electoral college was a perfect way of electing, in the 1900's. Now, we should be allowing the people of the United States decide who they want to be their president. Not only is this inequality, but it is deceiving and unfair. I know people say "Life's unfair." and while it is, we should be doing our best to keep our country in line. We are already in a steep pile of debt. Obama has only made this worse. Why was he elected? Mostly because he is part of a minority. Inequality much? U.S. citizens are being put to shame by every elector in the electoral college. We have the right to vote, for electors. And these electors barely ever follow suit. Not only do they stray from what the people want, they also take away our authority in the government. If we have the right to vote, then let us vote on wether or not to keep the electoral college. I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one who has these thoughts. I understand that I am simply a child and that you have no reason to listen to me, but if not me, listen to the rest of our country. Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. passage 2, paragraph 10 As stated by Bradford Plumer, we do not elect our president. If we did, Al Gore would have been our president in 2000. If all men are equal, then why are you choosing certain people over the U.S. population. It is utterly deceiving to take our votes and throw them away, to make us think that our votes matter when they really don't. If this is who you want to choose our president, then don't have us vote. Although people say that the electoral college takes away the chance of majority, that's how the system works. How do you think the president wins? They like to call it winnertakesall. That is a nice way to put it. The president is decided by the majority of votes in the electoral college. What puts these electors above me? I am young, but I have a working mind just like my parents. Why do my parents votes get pus… | 0 |
| 78 | 11892b17 | 0 | Cars are a luxury, but others take them for granted. Many people around the world operate cars every single day! Very few people around the world do not own a car, or have never operated one. In Vauban, Germany, residents of an upscale, high class community have decided to give up on cars. vaughn's streets are entirely "carfree" except the in the city where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community. Don't get Germany wrong, you are allowed to own a car, but there's very few places to park the car you own. The only placed you can park are large garages at the end of your neighborhood or development, but parking isn't free here. You must buy a space for 40,000, along with the price of your home. 70 percent of vaughn's citizens do not own cars, and 57 percent alone sold their car to move there. "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way," said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and a mother of two. Vauban, Germany completed in 2006, is an excellent example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States, and other places to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called "smart planning." According to Elisabeth Rosenthal who wrote, "In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars." Cars can either be a blessing or a mistake. Cars can tend to put out polluting gases, and endanger our earth. In Paris, all driving was banned due to smog. On a Monday, motorisits with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 31 fine. The same would apply to the oddnumbered plates the following day. The car emissions were trapped by a warmer layer of air, because of cold nights and warm days. Congestion in Paris, France wa down 60 percent after just fivedays of intensifying snog. This caused the smog to rival Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world. That's pretty bad to be competing with China. The Monday where all cars were banned, the smog cleared enough for the ruling French par… | 0 |
| 79 | 119d35c6 | 0 | Think about how many times a week we get in a car to drive somewhere. I know I drive to school, to lacrosse practice, and to spend time with friends on a weekly basis. Some people may claim that driving is a positive aspect of our culture because it allows us to get from one place to another and accomplish tasks in a timely fashion, but driving in excess has some serious consequences. Although some may argue that it is impossible to completely cut out an action that is essential to our daily lives, and that cutting down on driving would not be advantageous, limiting the amount of time we spend driving has many advantages. Cutting down on automobile use will decrease pollution in our air, and make us healthier and happier, which is why many legislators and cities are reducing automobile use. Beijing, China, is the most polluted city in the world according to Robert Duffer of the Chicago Tribune in 2014. source 2 paragraph 14 This is due to the fact that being's automobile use is extremely high. When the city of Paris was faced with a similar crisis, it issued a partial driving ban that allowed people to only drive on days that the government said they could in accordance to their licence plate number, or they would face a fine. source 2 paragraph 1019. This revolutionary ban caused the air pollution in Paris to drop so much that the ban was lifted after only one day. The drop in air pollution clearly refutes the claim that cutting down on driving is not advantageous. Cutting down on automobile use is beneficial to the environment because, according to Elizabeth Rosenthal of the New York Times in 2009 source 1 paragraph 5, "Passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50% in some carintensive areas in the United States." Limiting automobile use is crucial to cleaning our air and stopping the burning of fossil fuels, thus explains why is beneficial to limit our car use. Although some might argue that driving a car to work is easier, evidence shows that people who limit the… | 0 |
| 80 | 121160b9 | 1 | Dear Florida senator, I'm a young student, and no I don't haye much of a background in political ideas or things, but I know we should keep the Electoral College. This old process was created to make electing a President easier and faster, which I belieye it does. Now, the Electoral College has 538 electors, but a majority of 270 electoral yotes is required to elect the President. Some will argue that we aren't yoting for a President but we're yoting for the people, or electors, behind them. I would say that they aren't wrong, but we aren't just yoting for those electors, we are yoting for the whole idea behind their campaigning. We don't yote for the person, we yote for the idea that person agrees to carry out. By haying this process, we can focus on getting swing states yotes. The yotes of these states matter the most, in my opinion, because they are likely to swing at any minute. As said in " In Defense of the Electoral College: Fiye reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President ", "swing states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign, to really listen to the competing candidates, knowing that the are going to decide the election." This helps ayoid runon elections because the small states are likey to just yote for the most popular President, knowing their yote won't really make a difference. Most states haye a "winnertakeall" system that giyes all of the electors to the winning candidate. Howeyer, there are a few states that haye yariation with the "proportional representation" idea. The "winnertakeall" system actually works really well. Other parts of the Electoral College has it's problems but not this one. With this process it makes it easy to giye all of the yotes to one person, this means all of the state will be on the same page and not fighting with itself. This process y. proportional representation, is better in my opinion because it's quicker and helps make the presidential process one step easier. And lastly, it's a tradition to use the Electoral College. The pedig… | 0 |
| 81 | 1261e212 | 1 | Dear state senator, There should be a change in the Electoral College. It should be changed to electing presidents by popular vote. It is our right to vote for someone who would actually make changes in our society and make our lives different. The fact that we have to vote electors for those electors to choose our president, it seems unfair. Also, the purpose of voting for president is for everybody to vote not just citizens. Therefore, there should be some changes for voting. To continue, election of presidents by popular vote should be used in the United States. If we are voting for presidents, then why should us ,citizens, vote for electors in order for them to vote for our president? As stated in source 2 "The indefensible Electoral College","At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state,candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing"states." In addition, it states in source 3 "In defense of the Electoral College"," No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president." This shows that with the Electoral College, not every region is going to have electoral votes. Therefore, it would not be fair for those regions. Perhaps their votes would not count and basically the chosen president would not pay attention to them. Furthermore, everyone should be allowed to vote not just citizens. The fact that not everybody are qualified citizens to vote, then the amount of votes would be vague. This process is similar to not having enough electoral votes. The votes would not be popular or in a great amount for that specific place. For example, as it mentions in source 3, "Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaignto really listen to the competing candidatesknowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average..." There should not be any thoughtful voters deciding on the ele… | 0 |
| 82 | 1299cd27 | 0 | The automobile is a production commonly used by individuals all over the world. But utilization of this transportation vehicle arouses environmental damage as well as stress. Limiting car usage around the world would be greatly beneficial. Limiting automobile usage would decrease hazardous rates of air pollution in regions at which cars are commonly driven. The tailpipe of cars release toxins, often produced by the automobiles fuel, that severely pollute the environment once in the air. According to experts, "passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50%...in the United States"Source 1. This amplifies the dangerous impact automobiles have on the environment. Paris, a carusing country, reached extreme levels of smog due to automobile emissions. According to Reuters, "Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic matter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London"Source 2. Due to this, a ban was made on car usage and the smog eventually cleared. automobiles emissions of greenhouse gases are utterly harmful for the environment. Decreasing the utilization of automobiles would also ease stress levels among the community. In Vauban, Germany, cars are practically forbidden causing the suburbs streets to be free of the persistent humming of a motor. "When I had a car I was actually tense. I'm much happier this way,"Source 1 says Heidrun Walter, a citizen of the carfree city. This illustrates how the loss of automobiles can bring tranquility to a region. Bogota, Columbia hosts the Day Without Cars, a day where the driving of an automobile is not permitted. According to Andrew Selsky, due to this occasion, "pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks" and "rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic"Source 3. Lowering the usage of automobiles would relieve individuals of density caused by driving. Automobiles are an exemplary form of transportation but their impact isn't as beneficial for other purposes. Car emissions of greenhouse g… | 0 |
| 83 | 12c5160e | 1 | Dear Senator, I would like to bring to your attention the matter of the electoral college, and the unjust way that presidents are elected in our country. While there are benefits, more of the negative effects come to play when reviewing and contemplating on whether this system is effect or not. The Electoral College is very unfair, and should be subject for abolishment. The number of electors in the Electoral College consist of 538 electors in total, which makes a tie completely possible, although it has never happened, in the past only a few more votes were required to create this unlikely problem. According to source 3, paragraph 18, Richard A. Posner claims that, "A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes538 is an even number, but it is highly unlikely..." There's a shockingly short amount of votes required to turn an election into a situation where both candidates have an even number of votes, a problem almost occurred in 1976, that were if, according to source 2, paragraph 12, Bradford Plumer, "a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way." Those may look as if they are big numbers, however in comparison to the amount of voters in each state, these are not large amounts of people who needed to vote the other way. In comparison, the number of representatives is determined by the number of members in your congressional delegation, the amount of electors per state is fair. Still, however, the event of a tie would cause a lot of issues within our country, and would be relieved if the winner was elected by popular vote. In addition, electors are United States citizens, and are entitled to their own vote based on the Constitution, while they are allotted their own vote, this gives opportunity for problems to arise. Politics are very lowkey orders of business, and in 1960, the legislatures in Louisiana almost used the disaster factor to swing the election in their favor, by electing people who were more likley to vote for the opposer of J… | 0 |
| 84 | 12e92895 | 1 | Dear Senator, I along with many other citizens have came to the conclusion that the Electoral College worth keeping. Though, the process itself has loose ends, overall it benefits the state and national election. The system uses general influence and a representative style of voting that makes the ballot more stable and dependable. As a start, Electoral College electors are decided upon by the people. This means an elector with similar beliefs to the citizens will be chosen and most likely decide their vote in consideration of popular demand. Each state is given representatives in proportion to the population of the state. These people can be anyone who does not work in office and maybe a regular American who is probably going to empathize with the needs of the public and if chosen correctly will stand by the option of the state. Electoral College gives a more concentrated form of voting. In addition, some may argue that the Electoral College is risky and a representative may not always stay true to their word, but isn't this the case with all types of voting? A presidential candidate makes many a promise during their race for Chief Executive and there is no way to be completely certain that these oaths will hold true. The same goes for the Electoral College. Citizens must have faith in the candidate as they would in the presidential election that they will put their country or state before personal wants and carry out their responsibilities honestly. The Electoral College process requires trust like any other form of election. Lastly, though people may not want to believe it, the Electoral College brings a certainty to the ballot that popular vote could not do alone. Having a presidential tie could be the messiest turnout of an election, but with representative voting we can tip the scale in either way, in the interest of any state or party. It's a game of chance, but sure enough works better than flipping a coin! The Electoral College makes the voting system more reliable. In conclusion, the Electoral Colle… | 0 |
| 85 | 130199b7 | 0 | Cars have been the main use for transportation from one distant destination to another. The population is relying on cars more often to get them to were they need to be. Everyone in the communities are becoming lazier and cannot bother to grab a bike or even a pair of skates to help them get where they need to go. More and more of the population do not want to walk to the store which is usually down the street. Cars have even been polluting the atmosphere causing numerous issues, such as health problems and even a rise in the temperature of the planet. The purpose of this essay is to inform fellow citizens of the advantages of limiting car usage. By limiting the amount of cars we have in the country or even by reducing the days one can use their car, can dramatically reduce the pollution in the atmosphere and also cause citizens to become more active and healthy. "Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders."Source 1, Paragraph 2. Vauban is one community to begin their journey to becoming a car reduced area. "As a result, seventy percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and fiftyseven percent sold a car to move here."Source 1, paragraph 3. As said by one of the residents, "When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way," said Heindrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."Source 1, paragraph 3. Paris is another city to take on the challenge of limiting the use of cars. Paris is a city where there is an abundance od smog and pollution. "After days of nearrecord pollution Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city." Source 2, paragraph 10. Because of such effort, "Congestion was down sixty percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."Source 2, paragraph 14. By limiting car usage… | 0 |
| 86 | 1341e8d1 | 1 | The Electoral College is a controversial topic in the US. This is the system used to elect the president of the United States, but most people 60% of Americans, according to source 1 believe that we shouldn't use this particular system and that we should go with the popular vote instead, while all others are strong in their stance that we should continue its use. Under the Electoral College, it is entirely possible for a Presidential Candidate to win presidency, even with the majority of voters voting for the opposing candidate. We should discard the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote. The Electoral College is a system that allows a certain amount of electoral votes to each state. Each state is given 2 electoral votes plus another amount of votes which depends on that state's population. The amount of votes ranges from 3 to 55 source 3. A candidate must receive 270 out of 538 possible votes. The candidate the electoral votes of a state go to is decided by the majority vote of each individual state. In all states but Maine and Nebraska give a candidate the entirety of their votes if the majority of its citizen votes for them source 1. Some people don't even bother voting due to the fact that their vote will not contribute to their favored candidate's election. This happens often when a democratic voter lives in a republican state, and vice versa source 3 Many people stand by the Electoral College as the best course of action. They argue that the certainty of the winner is better, a candidate can't win the election due to regional favor, and this system ensures that there will still be a clear winner even when each candidate receives the same percentage of votes. We began using the Electoral College in order to ensure that states with low populations weren't ignored by presidential campaigns. However, it fails to do just that. Presidential candidates focus their attention to swing states, in order to win their electoral votes. Candidates have little to no need to campaign in states that have a majorit… | 0 |
| 87 | 134e57ff | 1 | Dear Senator, The debate regarding the necessity of the Electoral College and it's validity has aroused some tension among the citizens of America, and the government as well. This process is not only used to decide the President of our nation, but to ensure the equality of the voting. By establishing our county as a democracy, we made a promise to maintain a systematic balance between the government and it's people. Without the existence of the Electoral College, where would this balance be? The Electoral College is the basis upon which our country is built, and is vital to uphold the balance and equality between government and people. The Electoral College has many benefits towards the nation that many people are unaware of. For example, in order to do well, a candidate must have connections nationwide. In source 3, line 19, it states "The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal." This means that no candidate is guaranteed a win if they only appeal to one area or region. This creates an overall balance throughout the nation, and makes sure only a portion of the country doesn't have all the power. Also, this allows the people to have a clear understanding of who they're voting for, and what this means. Equality is key, and without this equality, where would our nation be? By continuing the use of the Electoral College, we have decided to be the best we can be. It says in Source 1, line 1 "The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and the election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens." This provides valid information to support the necessary balance of people and government. The Electoral College also produces a winner arguably qualified due to the amount of votes received. This is clearly described in Source 3, line 22, "The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority o… | 0 |
| 88 | 134f0445 | 1 | I believe that we should get rid of Electoral College because it seems like that it causes more problems then it does with popular vote. So i think that we should use elections to popular vote over electoral voting. For example, the disaster affect which the state legislatures took responsibilty for picking electors, and those electors could always defy the will of the people. Even though that the electoral college has some pros it has more cons. There are a couple things wrong with the Electoral college. In the electoral college system you dont vote for your president you vote a state of electors who in turn elect the president. If your vote won then the state that you live in would get that amount of electoral votes. For example, if you live in florida and your slate of electors won then your president would get 29 electoral votes. But in there has been a few instances where this system has not worked because of how close the votes were to each other. If there was a tie then it would be sent to the house of representatives where the state delegations vote on the president. This is one of the reasons why I dont like the electoral college because its one big long process when actually it could only take a couple days if we used popular vote instead of electoral college. At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner take all system in each state candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states. It is not fair to lot of people in our country that they have to be put into this long process of determining who our president is going to be when they could just vote and then they'll be done if they use the popular vote system. If we get rid of the electoral college then the popular vote system will be a more quick and efficient way of voting for our president. Also, there will be less tension in our country and less arguments going on. It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated… | 0 |
| 89 | 135b769a | 1 | To the State Senate, Addressing my ultimate opinion, I believe should change the vote of the Electoral College into a popularbased vote. Examining a large number of articles which has fulfilled my understanding of the Electoral College including the process and diverse opinions of the Electoral College. This essay will propose the counterclaim the opposing side of why we should not change the process of vote in the United States and address the counterclaim of why the Electoral College should be changed to a popular vote. In order to understand each side, we must first comprehend the process behind the Electoral College. Posner stated, "...it is the electors who elect the president, not the people. When you vote for a presidential candidate you're actually voting for a slate of electors" 3. This is the one of the most important concepts to understand in the process of the Electoral College, for we must know that each vote you compose, you vote for a slate of electors, who will basically vote for their candidate. "The Electoral College is a process, not a place" Office of the Federal Register, 1. This lets us put down a foundation of the Electoral College as well. According to Plumer, "Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote" 2. This indicates how the tie could carry the vote to the House of Representatives, where the federal judgement takes place of voting for the president. Not only this, but Plumer also stated,"Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters" 2. This statement from Plumer strongly imposes the knowledge that this tie carried to the House of Representatives would hardly reflect the will of the people due to census of the population. This article highlighted that the vote in 2000 where the system actually seemed to flaw when Gore recieved a higher popular vote than Bush, however, Bush received a higher electoral… | 0 |
| 90 | 13a35506 | 0 | Nearly everyone in the United States has a car, if they're of age. Many people would probably argue that they need cars. How else would you get somewhere? Well, there are plenty of alternatives to driving, and other ways to just cut back. Limiting car usage has become rather popular recently. Even though there are some disadvantages from limiting car usage, there are so many more advantages that are extremely beneficial. Pollution has always been a big problem almost everywhere in the world, and cars have a huge influence on it. Pollution can affect people's health and damages the environment. In Paris they put up a partial driving ban to clear up horrible smog. "Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..." Source 2. It only took one day of a driving ban to clear up the smog. Imagine how much less pollution there would be if people limited driving for multiple days, even maybe weeks, or months? It's not like you have to permanently give up driving, just limit it when you can. Limiting car usage can also help reduce stress levels and make you happier. It might sound crazy at first because, well how would you get places? Wouldn't that cause more stress? Vauban, a city in Germany, is a city that "forbids" parking, driveways, and houses with garages. They strategically put stores and buildings within an idealistic walking distance. "when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two" Source 1. If a working mother can do it, so can you. When you're always inside and juggling your kids and their needs, you'll most likely be tense and always feel busy. When you have no other option, besides paying over fourty grand for a space in a parking garage, than to walk somewhere, you'll get to be outside and experience socialization and the fresh air. In my opinion that sounds way better than being confined to a little car when you have to go somewhere. Obviously there are uncountable benefits that come fro… | 0 |
| 91 | 13f3429a | 0 | Ever since their creation, cars have been the main method of transportation. However, in recent times cars have become less popular because of the issues that they cause. Limited car use would be very advantageous because vehicles discourage physical activity, make pollution, and cost everyone money. An advantage of limiting the use of cars is that they discourage physical activity. Reliance on a motorized vehicle for transportation from place to place results in little to no physical activity. Cars have replaced the use of bicycles, skateboards, and regular walking, their use seemingly reserved only for the youth. In a car free society such as Vaunban, Germany, the "swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children" can be heard by anyone walking down the street Source 1. This clearly shows that when cars are used less, people engage in more physical activity. This is the same case for Bogota, Columbia where the Day Without Cars is a big hit. Just in the third year of this event, over 118 miles of bicycle paths have been constructed in the city Source 3. Limiting the use of cars is definetely advantageous because they discourage physical activity. Limiting the use of cars would be incredibly beneficial because they make pollution. The billions of vehicles in the world create unbelievable amounts of pollution. In Europe, "passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions" and "up to 50 percent... in the United States" Source 1. The pollution from the increasing amounts of cars in compacted areas "are chocking cities" Source 1. Nearly nothing else creates that much pollution. The only thing that cars are second to in the pollution rates are the monstrous power plants that continuously belch smoke into the atmosphere Source 4. If the use of vehicles decreases, then "it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment" Source 4. This evidence clearly supports that the use of vehicles is causing a huge amount of pollution. Thus, limiting the use of cars would … | 0 |
| 92 | 147c66a0 | 0 | Imagine a life without cars. All those paved roads completely empty with no traffic and no honking horns. Sounds like a peaceful community to me. Limiting cars could be a huge advantage to our world. Reducing these big pieces of metal flying all over our roads could help our environment, save tons of money, and improve our safety. Recently, I've heard about all the well known car dealers pushing hybrid cars and trying to design a environment friendly vehicle. But in reality, the only big step to helping our planet is to reduce cars overall. Studies shown that green house gases are "... up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States". Not only is the green house gas rate going up, but pollution, carbon emissions, and smog are as well. In Paris, France they had to ban driving for a couple of days as the pollution produced smog. "Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London...". The numbers keep rising in Europe and the USA. Picture what our environment is going to be like in 20 years if we keep this pace up. Without these machines we could reduce the number of micrograms, produce the harmful gases from affecting the environment, and stop polluting the air we breathe. Everyone likes to save money, whether it's with coupons or getting the best prices possible. So how would you feel if you had the ability to save thousands of dollars a year? With reducing cars, you can save your money by public transportation, not paying for a car insurance, and not paying for a car in general. Not getting a car may seem strange as you need to get to location A and B. But in Vauban, Germany cars are not allowed and they seem to be doing just fine. Reports say "Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile may be the most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life". Even though they aren't aloud personal cars, they can walk, bike, or take a tram anywhere they need to go! Also in most parts of America they now have car… | 0 |
| 93 | 149867fb | 0 | Many countries and places are starting to reduce their usage of cars. In multiple places they are to considered "carfree" or they have ensued partial car bans, even going as far as setting a specific day to "Carfree Day". The issues in most of these places is the reduction of the smog that is thought to be produced by diesel vehicle. The fights against pollution are really starting to take effect in a multitude of places, such as, Vauban, Germany. Paris, France and bogota, Colombia. And their efforts against pollution is really starting to take ahold and become popular. In Vauban, Germany The people of this high class community have completely given up their vehicle. In Vauban, street parking and other car related items are forbidden in the "experimental new district". The main thoroughfare however, is one of the few places on the edge of the city where car ownership is allowed. But, there are only ever two places to park. A large set of garages at the very edge of the development. Where said car owner would be required to but a space and a home for 40,000. Just for a parking lot. Resulting factors from this CarFree suburban, people seem to be happier without their vehicle. vaughn's residents seem to rather enjoy "the swish of bicycle tires, the chatter and laugter of the wandering children, drown out the occasional distant motor." Vauban is to be considered a main component of a movement called "smart planning". When finished in 2006 57 percent of it's residents sold their vehicle to move into the residence. Germany's efforts in the past two decades have never been as successful as Vauban has been. With its 5,500 residents withing a rectangualr square mile, it is considered to be on of the most advanced experiments in lowcarcarless suburban life. Germany has been attempting to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transport. Whether it be bikes, walking, skates or some form of physical transport. Near by these carless suburbs, they place stores along a main street near the suburb and not in … | 0 |
| 94 | 14e82744 | 1 | Dear senator, the Electoral College has always been a good way to elect our leaders, and it is the best way to do it. It has the ability to use swing states for better voting, larger and smaller states get different amounts of electoral votes, and presidents cannot be elected by a region alone. The effect of having swing states because of the Electoral College is a positive one because when a state feels like they have a chance of having their candidate win, they put more thought into the vote they cast knowing that their vote counts. Having voters put more thought into their votes instead of not caring as much gives the better candidate a greater chance of winning, if one candidate was truly better than the other. The more thoughtfull candidates in a swing state will pull more information from the candidates campaigns. Popular vote does not use the winner takes all method so the idea of swing states will no longer have any effect in the election. Another great reason why the Electoral College is better than popular vote is because depending on the size of the states a certain amount of votes is given to the electors. Larger states get more attention from presidential candidates because of the majority vote in the particular state. if there was only popular vote then presidential candidates could waste their time on smaller states when they could of been winning larger states. The varying amount of electoral votes for each state depending on its size also allows for a more equal and fair election, due to the less populated states not being able to have more electoral votes then the more populated states. The Electoral College allows that presidential candidates cannot win the election by regional appeal. This means that if a particular region favors a candidate they cannot win by only a single regions votes. This makes the candidates campaign less in regions that are more likely to be won and more in other regions. But with the Electoral College this makes it harder for a candidate with only regional appeal to… | 0 |
| 95 | 14fd1521 | 1 | The Electoral College is an outdated system of voting. There are few weak reasons why it should be carried out as the nations voting process. The United States of America should change to election by popular vote for the presidency. Admmitedely, the winner take all system is a fair way of deciding the votes. In the first article "What Is the Electoral College?" by the Office of the Federal Register, the author asserts, "Most states have a winnertakeall system that awards all the electors to the winning presidential candidate." If a presidential candidate spends lot of time, effort, and money in a campaign for a "swing" state he should be awarded all the votes for winning that state. It is a high risk but high reward to spend all that time and money to only earn sixty percent of the votes. That is why a "winnertakeall" is crucial. To add on, the author of the first article mentions, "Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are..." This is saying that a candidate chooses his or her electors, and you vote for the electors to then choose the candidate you voted for. However the people should have the right to directly choose the candidate of his or her choice. Therefore, the electoral college is outdated and must be eliminated. To start off, Bradford Plumer the author of "The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong" states, "Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president." Every vote counts. But why make a vote more powerful than another. Citizens shouldn't be given a special vote just because they were chosen by the candidates party. Additionally, Plumer explains, "If you lived in texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for John Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors … | 0 |
| 96 | 1539183b | 0 | In the world we live in today, cars are used by people nearly everyday. To some they are looked at as a need such as water, food, or shelter rather something we want to improve our life. Although, it may improve our lives in the particular moment to some degree, we fail to see the greater and more longterm effects from everyday car usage. The following sources reviews these effects and reveals the problems and solutions we may have to fix them. One of the more serious and more recognized problems from car usage is the steady increase of greenhouse gas emissions produced from vehicles all over the world. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. Vauban, Germany is an example of the effort being made to reduce these greenhouse gas emissions, this experimental city is trying to remain "carfree" and in doing so the city itself has to make its own changes. This basic precept is being adopted around the world by trying to compact suburbs and make them more accessible by public transportation."When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way" said by heidrun waltersource 1. With this new experiment, people are finding ways to adapt and live the changed life while others actually feel better off. Another serious and impacting issue from car usage is the increase in smog over big named cities. In paris, after days of a near record breaking pollution, paris bans driving throughout the city in attempt to clear up the skies. Diesel fuel is looked at as main problem paris faced in cleaning out the intensifying smog, since a france tax act favors diesel over gasoline it displays an issue the france government must correct in their own wrong doings. A different look towards car usage is that recent studies show americans buying fewer cars, getting fewer and fewer licenses, and also driving less overall. If this pattern continues there will be positive reinforcements for carbon emissions and the environment, since its the and largest emission producer in America. The int… | 0 |
| 97 | 15eaf968 | 1 | When electing the president of the United States, you must vote in favor of the president you want. However, instead of coming down to popular vote, the system uses the Electrolar College to decide. The electoral Vote works in that the people of a certain states votes for their candidate and the majority of people who vote for a certain president give their votes to a slate of voters. What this means is that the popular vote within a state wins the electoral votes of the electors who then vote for the president. Many people dislike this system including myself. I disaprove of this system because it limits representation, permits the disinterest of voters, and reduces a candidates interest in a state. One major problem with the Electoral College voting system is that it limits representation of the people. The Electoral COllege votes work so that the population of a state directly effects the amount of votes that states receives. For example, Wyoming only has about 500,000 voters so it only receives one electoral college vote. Because there is only one vote for wyoming, the 500,000 voters do not have acurate representation in a vote that has a total of 270 electoral votes. There have also been times in which a president has won the piopular vote but lost the Electoral College vote. This was seen in the 2000 vote of Bush versus Gore when Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the electoral vote. One might claim that because the amount of electoral votes for a state is based of the population, it is fair. However, I believe that the popular vote is more fair because it expresses the opinion of the majority. In some states, there is a large majority of people running for a single party. This can be observed primarily in Texas where an overwhelming majority of voters are Republican. Therefore, the Republican president wins Texas almost every election period. This can be frustrating for Democrats who live in Texas because they know that their vote does not matter causing them to lose interest in voting in the first p… | 0 |
| 98 | 15f7ea58 | 1 | Dear Senator, Concerning the topic of the merits and demerits of the Electoral College, herein abbreviated as EC. The Electoral College, through which our president and vice presidents currently are selected, is an institution that concerns many people in the United States. Some claim that the Electoral College is "an anachronism, a nondemocratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner." Posner Though the lack of control over the president of the United states election is disconcerting, the Electoral College, as you are aware is beneficial to elections, for example, it allows disputes to be settled over ties and complications in the popular voting process to be reduced, and minimises the amount of votes necessary for tallying, the Electoral College also provides accurate representation to citizens in certain areas. However, is this appropriate? Can the single justification for the disconnection from citizens of a nation to their president be justified on convenience? From what most sources suggest, the Electoral College is a safety system, in place to minimize the risk of complications arising from the voting process. The use of the Electoral College in this manner is unsettling to the American voter, and poses many risks for the basis of the United States. Therefore, the Electoral College should not be allowed to continue in its current manner. Foremost, the EC as a method of backup to reduce risk of complications in popular voting is inappropriate. In theory, the EC is not invalid however, the way in which it is implemented is prone to error, or lack thereof, for reasons that harms the voter's representation. As each citizen votes, heshe votes for an EC slate, with each party selecting a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee. Richard Posner in his publication "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President," states that, "it is entirely possib… | 0 |
| 99 | 162be3e7 | 0 | Sometimes you don't need a car to go some place, you have choices like take the bus, or use your bike, but sometimes you need a car to go some place far away. I will discuss about the advantages of limiting car usage. I feel that the cars are important but we can live without the because we have others sources to transported and don't expent to much money. First of all, commercial and public transportation are woven through a connection of network to save time, to conserve resources, lower emissions and to improve safety. Theres a lot of accidents that people commit because a car, sometimes they are tired and don't pay attention to the road, they get distracted by something, and sometimes theres no parking lad for a car. A car is a responsibility. When you have a car you can get tense because, you have to expent you money filling the tank of gas, and repair something if is broken, but sometimes you don't have the money for do that and you take the bus or the subway because is less expensive. People have their cars impounded fot their reaction to the fine, cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions. people sometimes said that they can't live without a car, if you get to think, they're sometime wrong because there's many public transportation. In addition, if people don't have a car it would be a impact to people because everybody would be on the streets, and everything would be full of people, but without a car we can get to safe more the atmosphere. Sometimes we have carfree days to save the environment of our world, it's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution and the turnout was large. The day without cars is part of an improvement campaign. parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city, pitted sidewalks have beed replaced bye broas, smooth sidewalks, arushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic, and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up. The united states, with its broad expanses and suburban ideals, … | 0 |
| 100 | 163853c5 | 0 | Car alarms, car horns, and engines are basically the only thing people hear nowadays. The number of cars in the streets are simply beginning to get out of hand. Citizens all around the world, we all should really try to limit the amount of time that we are spending using our vehicle. If you really take a moment to think about it, this could honestly turn out to be a really good thing. Cars are not necessarily a need, they are a want. I can undertand if you are going to be traveling a far distance that two feet cant get you, but certianlty and ten minute walk to the grocery storemarket cant hurt. Limiting car usage is very important. Most families tend to spend about about 2050.00 on gas a week. One advantage to limiting car usage is saving a ton of money on gas that could easily be spent of food, to feed your family. " " When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way" " People who have decided to limit the amount of time they spent using their car, are much happier. One advantage to limiting the use of cars is that the air would become much more fresh and clean, and it would become alot more healthier for us citizens. " " Its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution," said a businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseated bicycle with his wife." " Most people that have decided to stop using cars or have significantly limited their car usage, have nothing but positive things to say. If more people became aware that not spending so much time driving was a good thing, and simply limited their care usage, the air would become so much more clean, and alot more of us would be happy. A former citizen has shared with us that one advantage to limiting car usage for her is that her children have "... organized their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or car pool with friends." She has also mentioned that her children were not in any rush to get their drivers license, even though where they live a car would would definete… | 0 |
| 101 | 1648c117 | 1 | Dear Senator, I am a student writing to you that we should be changing the Electoral College, to the election by popular vote. If you change the voting system to the election by popular vote, then people are able to vote for who they want to vote, rather than having someone for president as a mistake during the voting. I believe that people should have the right to vote based on the president, not the slate of electors. Also because of the "disaster factor," and because of the "winnertakeall" system. First off, you should change the system to the election by popular vote, because people should be able to vote based on the president and not the slate of electors. It is not fair that the people who pick the electors are people from the states convention, party's central committee or the candidates themselves. The voters should be allowed to control who their electors vote for. Since they are part of the country, they should have a say in the country too. We should not be confused about the voting for the "wrong" electors, but be able to know what we are doing. Secondly, may I recall the "disaster factor," the biggest crisis the century? The Louisiana legislature back in the 1960's, they had some trouble in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors. In fact, they almost did not succeed in doing this. The state's legislatures are probably the ones who are responsible for this incident, because of picking the electors themselves. By keeping the electoral college, you could probably make the same mistakes again. Lastly, another reason why we should change the voting system to the election by popular vote is, because of the "winnertakeall" system. Candidates running for president know they have no chance in winning, if they spend their time in the wrong states. So instead they spend all their time in states are probably going to vote for them. All in all, we should not be keeping the electoral college, because its unfair to voters who don't know the real reason why they voted for a candidate, people also d… | 0 |