Democrats Win, Other Side Considers Changing the Rules. What the Frick?

I heard that Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania are once again messing with the election system. This time Republicans supposedly want to change the electoral vote system in a manner that would cause the winner of the Commonwealth's popular vote to not win the complete electoral vote.

This disgusts me on so many levels. First, we live in a representative democracy in which our leaders are picked through our vote. We don't have a direct democracy in which the citizens can create laws and vote on laws. That is why voting is so important. Voting allows us to freely pick our leaders who in turn will represent us and formulate the laws.Voting, in my opinion, is what makes us free. So, when a party tries to alter the voting system it just feels wrong.

The second point I would like to make concerns suppression of the vote. This change will probably not affect Republican voters in the state. However, it will most likely affect Democrat voters. For instance, most Democrats live in Pittsburgh and Philly while Republicans live in the more rural counties of the state. President Obama won the counties of Philly and Pittsburgh while Romney won the rural counties. It seems to me like this change will give the voters of Pittsburgh and Philly a reduced voice in presidential elections. Most of PA's population lives in Pittsburgh and Philly so why is the majority of the population having a reduced vocie? Lets look at hypothetical situation. Assume that there are ten counties in a state and two of those counties contain 1000 people each while eight of those counties contain about 100 people combined. Lets assume a President wins the two larger counties totalling 2000 votes while the other candidate won the eight counties totalling 100 votes. Subsequently, under the new system the candidate with the 100 votes could receive a good deal of electoral votes why the candidate with the 2000 votes will not completely win the state. In my opinion that system is totally anti-democratic. There are both Democrats and Republicans in rural and urban counties and they don't all vote straight party ticket. President Obama won the popular vote of the country. The people spoke in the election.

The general and accepted practice in this country, with the exception of two states, is to award a Presidential candidate electoral votes based on the popular vote of each state. This is a very important reason why there is a difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. In the legislative branch of government voting is broke up into districts so diverse groups of people can be adequately represented in government. However, districts are often gerrymandered in states which means that one party may control more districts than another. Gerrymandered districts may not create the best system for adequate representation in Congress; but, the district system for voting ultimately works because the legislative branch consists of 100s of representatives. The Executive branch consists of 1 person. Imagine a gerrymandered system to vote for the President of the United States. Hypothetically speaking, the Democrats may have a national wave election around the time of the next census. Technically, the Democrats could potentially gerrymander various states so each Congressional District is controlled by Democrats. Subsequently, the Democrats could demand that the President be elected by Congressional Districts which are all Democrat. The Democrats would surely win and the Republicans would be outraged. Anything other than a state by state popular vote for President, is anti-democratic. If 60 percent of the country votes for a Democratic President and the Democrat looses, then the American people are not adequately represented in the Executive branch. Congressional districts controlled by one party are adequate for Congress, not the Presidency.


Finally, I think its important to note that it seems quite odd that these issues are coming up after a big Republican loss. Have we resorted as a country to changing the rules so that the other side can win? I believe strongly that a candidate, who wins the most votes in a state, should win the electoral votes of that state. It makes no sense to elect someone who has less votes than the other candidate. That is not adequate representation and that is not democracy. Electing someone who obtained less votes than the other, is something more like oligarchy. It is the few ruling over the many. Adequate representation in the Executive branch means the majority wining that branch... K

"Fat bottom girls"

Since we have been writing a lot of articles about politics I thought I would change it up a bit and talk about just general life problems.

     The one thing that always seems to bother me is the way people address weight. Even though a lot of people say that I am thin the whole issue of weight has always bothered me. So I decided to write a little something about this. I have a couple of friends who have struggled with weight issues and are more curvy and some have a bit of a bigger body. And lately I have noticed that whenever I'm on Facebook, articles or pictures will be put up about weight. Usually they will say that men prefer curvier women or that they can get any man. Or that they are just plain better then the skinnier women. That they are more healthy and well whatnot. As I read these things I just get so annoyed and mad and frankly end up crying for the reason that I myself have struggled with weight issues.
      Throughout my whole childhood and teen years I struggled with weight. I was very skinny, tall and bony girl. I used to dread gym for the fact that you would be weighed in front of your class. Then my parents would get a letter informing them of my underweight and that they should look into the matter. I used to wish that someday I would grow into my body and grow a good set of breasts. Now that I am 23 and still the same. I have more hips a bit of a tummy but still small breasts. Even though I have always had image issues I have slowly grown to love my body. Even though in the back of my head I still say bad things and get mad at the store when I cant find certain items I like. I suck it up and don't whine. I try and make the best of it. So if anyone who has weight problem if its chubby or skinny don't take it out on the opposite or say your better because well no one is we are all good and pretty no matter what size.

Fiscal Cliff: A Game Theory Showdown

My co-author and I thought it would be interesting to perform a basic Game Theory- Prisoner's Dilemma Analysis concerning the fiscal cliff debate.

The Game will be based on a 0 to 100 payoff. So lets assume that the principal goal of the President is to protect entitlements by raising taxes on the very rich in the country. Raising taxes on the rich will produce optimal payoffs for the President. Now lets assume that the principal goal of the Republicans is to pass a deal without raising tax rates on the rich. Similarly, the Republicans will obtain very high payoffs in a scenario that does not raise taxes on the rich. The following chart illustrates the analysis.

It is important to note that the game is simultaneous.This Game represents the political outcomes of the fiscal cliff negotiations. Also, this is a theoretical simulation from one particular viewpoint. It is meant to spark a discussion, not tell the future.

Best Response for President if Republicans don't go over cliff = Propose deal to raise taxes on rich=100

Best Response for President if Republicans go over cliff= Propose deal to raise taxes on the rich =60.

Best Response for Republicans if the President proposes to not tax rich=Don't go over cliff=100

Best Response for Republicans if the President proses to tax the rich=Don't go over Cliff = 25

In this scenario the President will receive the optimal payoffs from proposing a deal that includes tax hikes on the rich, even if the country goes over the fiscal cliff. For example, the President will retain his political support  to continue his agenda because the American people support taxing the rich. Taxing the rich is part of the President's plan to protect entitlements for the middle class. In addition, the President still receives a higher 60 payoff if the country goes over the cliff and the President proposes to raise taxes. This higher payoff is the result of taxes going up on the wealthy as the country goes over the fiscal cliff. Also, the 60 payoff is the result of the President staying true to the political will that supports tax hikes on the rich. Dissimilarly, the President only receives a 50 payoff if he does not support tax hikes and the country goes over the fiscal cliff. This result is due to the fact that the President submitted to the Republicans and did not fight for tax hikes on the rich. For example,if we go over the fiscal cliff and the President does not fight for tax hikes to protect entitlements, he will lose political points.

The Republicans receive the highest payoffs from not going over the cliff.For example; if the Republicans do not allow the country to go over the cliff and the President offers a deal with no tax rate hikes, the Republicans win everything they wanted. If the President proposes a deal with tax hikes and the Republicans do not go over the cliff, the Republicans will still obtain a 25 payoff because they save some political face for not going over the cliff. The Republicans also save some political face for preventing tax hikes on the middle class. However, the Republican base will be disappointed that the Republicans submitted to the Democrats.

The last chart will display the most probable strategies:

Best Repsonse For President if Republicans don't go over cliff=Propose to raise taxes on rich=100

Best Response for President if Republicans go over cliff= Propose deal to raise taxes on the rich =60.

Dominant Strategy for the President is to Propose a deal to raise taxes.
Best Response for Republicans if the President proposes to not tax rich=Don't go over cliff=100
Best Response for Republicans if the President proses to tax the rich=Don't go over cliff = 25
Dominant Strategy for Republicans is to not go over over the cliff.

So in Conclusion, my co-author and I hypothesis that the President will continue to propose a deal to raise taxes and the Republicans will not go over the fiscal cliff.

Note:
Nash Equilibrium was invented by Dr. John Nash.

Don't Trip Over Your Power Trip

My co-author and I are big fans of people standing up to people who are on a power trip. I enjoy stories of an underdog standing up to a bully, so I thought I would share this story with viewers of this blog. The names have been changed to protect the participants from extreme embarrassment.

My father worked in a dry cleaning shop shortly after graduating from high school. One day, he had to deliver some dry cleaning to a teacher at his old high school. The teacher he delivered the dry cleaning to was my father's friend. The teacher's name was Glenn. Subsequently, my father took the clothes to the high school where he saw another teacher. My father said to the other teacher "hi Mr. Dooo have you seen Glenn?" The teacher proceeded to yell at my father, "how dare you address him as Glenn, he is a teacher, how dare you." My father responded with "no last year when I was in high school his name was Mr. Smith, this year now that I'm graduated its Glenn." However, Mr. Dooo continued yelling at my father. So once again my father said "this year that I'm graduated its Glenn, end of story." My father walked away at that point.

I always enjoyed this story because sometimes people get on a power trip and they think they can push others around. Here was a case of a grown adult man being verbally harassed by a teacher. My father was graduated, so really what Mr. Dooo did was harassment. Mr. Dooo may have thought my father was still in school; but once my father informed him that he was graduated that should have been the end of it. I'm glad Mr. Dooo was told off by my father.

So Mr. Dooo and all you other bullies out there don't trip over your power trip.
We will post future articles concerning underdogs standing up to bullies.

Ghostbusters Awesomeness

If you grew up in the 1980s or 1990s you were probably a big fan of the film Ghostbusters. This film has everything; science fiction, romance, suspense, action, comedy, etc. Usually films do not capture all of those separate genres in one film. However, Ghostbusters did capture all of these genres. My childhood best friend and I loved the film so much we can basically recite the film from memory at any time.

Ghostbusters captured the 1980s pop-culture spirit. In addition, the film displayed the 80s nature of the underdog overcoming a bully and in this case the bullies were the ghosts. Ghostbusters is a much see movie, I recommend that the viewers of this blog go back and revisit the film. You wont be disappointed.

Check out my 2012 Halloween costume.

Peter Vekman "We came, we saw, we kicked its ass!"

Socialism's Human Side

My co-author and I wanted to write an article concerning Socialism. Yes, we know the dangers of socialism if its left unchecked. But, we appreciate the good things that Socialism can do for a society. For instance, Socialism placed a man on the moon because a collectively owned government program, NASA, placed a man on the moon. We don't think a private company could have accomplished that feat. Anyone that has attended a state owned university has benefited from Socialism. People that are able to sustain themselves in retirement due to social security have benefited from Socialism.

Socialism is not the evil enemy that many people portray it to be. Socialism unchecked may produce negative consequences just as Capitalism unchecked may produce negative consequences. Lets look at the Republican proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher system. Imagine being above 65 and taking your voucher to a private insurance company to buy insurance. A private insurance company will most likely raise your rates because people above 65 have more medical costs and private insurance companies are in the business of making money. Medicare on the other hand is a safety-net for people who cannot afford higher rates. Socialism protects those people.

We are not defending complete socialism and we are not denouncing Capitalism with this article. What we are saying is that some socialism is really good for the country. It allows the country to do great things and help many people.

Women of the World

I think we need to examine how we treat women around the world. Women face serious challenges including: lack of education, sex trafficking, forced marriages, lack of access to reproductive health, etc. Lets look at the example of India.

In India young girls are often married as early as 5 or 6 years of age. There is an ancient system in India known as the Dowry. In the Dowry, a young girl's parents will offer the girl to a groom and his family. In addition, the girls parents will actually pay the groom along with the offering of the girl. If the payments are not large enough, the groom and his family will beat and even kill the girl. Another threat that these young Indian women face is complications of having births too young. Young girls' bodies are not developed enough to facilitate a healthy pregnancy. The pregnancy often kills young girls or causes serious health threats such as fistulas. Forced marriages of young girls are not unique to India either. This is a worldwide problem that needs to be solved.

I believe the two main causes of the Dowry are tradition and poverty. For example, families believe it is cheaper to marry off their girls rather than send them to school. In India school fees are expensive for people living in poverty. But, we as American can donate a mere few dollars to countries like India or countries in Africa and South East Asia. A mere ten or twenty dollars could save a child's life in India.

In my opinion the two causes of the forced marriages will be solved with these small donations. The money will allow the kids to become educated and bring their families out of poverty. In addition, the outdated cultural practice of the Dowry can only be solved through education. Education produces a more open minded and logical society. Besides the terrible human rights violations of the forced marriages, it makes no sense to continue these forced marriages in countries. Women hold societies up, it makes no sense to oppress women with forced marriages. We need to educate parents as well and explain that forced marriages and abuse of women threaten the entire society.

Americans listen up! That ten or twenty bucks we use to get beer on a Friday night or go bowling, or out to eat. That ten or twenty bucks could be donated to a kid in India and allow that kid to go to school rather than be married at the age of 5 and face a horrible life or even death.

"Its a Hard Life"

I know this article is a little late but due to a lot things going on I was not able to post it. Sorry for the delay but here it is.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kergan-edwardsstout/obamas-victory-and-the-aftermath-of-please-defriend-me_b_2089532.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed


     I recently read this article on someones post. When I started reading it I came to the conclusion that in a way I myself have been faced with such a problem. But the roles are different; they are not one of a LGBT matter but rather the roles are concerned with racial discrimination. Once the election was done and over with I was faced once again with the same racial discrimination I suffered through out my whole teen years. I was faced with the same angst and depression I felt when I came to live in a place where there is not much Hispanic culture. When I came to live in Pennsylvania I was faced with stares and derogatory terms. Whenever I became "friends" with people, but they for some reason or another got annoyed with me I was faced with derogatory terms that had never been there before. So once again I was faced with the same challenge. When the announcement was made that Obama had won my friends cousin who had voted for Romney came forward with her racial discrimination. I have known my friends cousin for 5 years now, and even though she knows that I am indeed Mexican, she has established very much that she likes me. However, she has still shown her true colors. On more then one occasion I was asked if I was a citizen. And the most recent comments from my friend's cousin following the downfall of Romney: 1)She said that illegals had voted for Obama and 2) she thinks that Hispanics should get out of the republican party anyway. My thinking is that she has gotten over the fact that I am Mexican and just sees me as a human being but when comments of that sort are said it means that deep down she still may contain racist views. There are so many things wrong with the comments made by her. I think that rasicm and being ignorant go hand in hand. For example, the first comment that "illegals" had voted for Obama is just pure bullshit. In no way whatsoever can undocumented people vote. When you go and vote you have to have proper identification to be able to vote. That was not the only person in my life who has recently made remarks insinuating that I am anti-American because of my political beliefs. So in conclusion I was faced with the same problem as the person in the blog. Do I want to completely cut ties with these types of people? Would cutting ties be doing exactly what I myself detest and cut people out for believing in something that is opposite of my belief? And if I didn't do such a thing, then what would I do now?

     My decision in the end was to not cut them out of my life. My co-author recently told me that various Republicans are coming out to support the DREAM Act and Iimmigration Reform. Some for political reasons of course, but some are changing their view because they believe it is the right thing to do. There by itself is a situation where a group of people solely believed in one thing but saw the error of their ways and decided to change for the best. I myself wanted to be the type of person that would keep these friends and acquaintances and help them see that other people have different opinions and help them be tolerable and see maybe on occasions that their way of thinking isn't precisely the best. At the moment I have a friend on Facebook who if she doesn't like any comments made by you she will delete you. I don't want to be like her I want to be a better person and let people have their opinions not shut them out for having an opinion that I percisly do not agree with.

Gifts Equal Returning Investments

I had heard on the news that Mitt Romney said President Obama won the election because he gave gifts to the American people such as amnesty to children of illegals, or the gift of health insurance to college kids until they are 26, etc. It seems as though, my interpretation anyways, that Mitt Romney is suggesting that the Americans who voted for Obama are just a bunch of freeloaders who want free "gifts."

I think that is condescending nonsense on the part of Mitt Romney. Look the reality of the situation is that there are some people who take advantage of the system absolutely. However, many people truly need these quote "gifts." In addition, look at the logic of these quote "gifts." The "gifts" are an investment in the whole country. Lets look at the two example Mitt Romney recently cited. First, children who were brought to American by their parents when they were toddlers. President Obama granted these kids deferred action legal status, not citizenship or amnesty. These kids were brought here by others and they should not be penalized for the actions of others who brought them here. This country was built on the idea of fairness. How is it fair to send a kid, who grew up in the U.S and calls the U.S. their home, back to a country they have never known? In addition, these kids want to stay in the country and contribute to the country. They don't want a handout, they want to work their way through college or serve in the military and give back to the country they grew up in and call home. The deferred Action policy is not a gift, its a smart investment in people who want to contribute to the country. The other "gift" that Mitt Romney cited concerned college kids who got insurance until they were 26. Well Mr. Romney I am one of those kids and I had a job and was a full time student. I spent my days working at my job or on school work. Still, I didn't have enough money to buy a health care plan that could maintain my health issues. Fortunately, Obamacare allowed me to stay on my parents insurance until I was 26. So Mr. Romney if it wasn't for that "gift" of Obamacare, I may have never finished college and I may have gone bankrupt. You see that provision to extend insurance until age 26 was not a gift, it was an investment because it has allowed college kids to finish school without having to drop out due to medical bills. And an educated society creates a better economy for that society. It was a smart investment by President Obama, not a "gift."

Finally, my grandfather worked all his life, he served in World War II on a B17 in Europe, and he loved this country. At certain points in his life because times were hard, he had to utilize government entitlement programs including the G I Bill. Mr. Romney you tell someone like my grandfather that he was just a gift taker or he was part of the"47% dependents." If my grandfather were still living he would probablly stoically smile and disregard your nonsense, because that is what it is, nonsense.

The View of a Democrat

I was very happy with the election results on November 6th. President Obama won the election. The American people have spoken through popular vote and electoral vote. However, the millions of Americans, who voted for Romney, are not wrong. They too have legitimate policy visions for the country and Democrats should work with Republicans through compromise. Compromise will allow both sides to obtain policies that are good for the country.

There are going to be disagreements but we are all Americans. Republicans and Democrats should now work together to get the country back on track. Its completely ridiculous for both Democrats and Republicans to utilize language such as "we need to take our country back" or "we need to save America from herself." No we are all Americans no matter our beliefs or who we vote for. That language insinuates that people who disagree with a certain ideology are not American. That type of thinking is nonsense. However, we are free to think that nonsense if we wish as well but I wish we would be more openminded.


Also it is time to for the country to realize that President Obama is not some "socialist dictator". For example, Obamacare is not some Communist takeover of the country. One of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, found Obamacare to be Constitutional. And Obamacare helped me and my family obtain health care during a time of economic hardship for the family. And no my family is not part of the "47% dependents." We work hard at our jobs and put ourselves through college.

There are checks and balances in this country that will protect the American people from extremest on both sides. So, lets stop the nonsense and work together American.