In the United States, the presidential election is decided by what is known as the electoral college, which is:
the group of presidential electors required by the Constitution to form every four years for the sole purpose of voting for the president and vice president. Each state appoints electors under the methods described by its legislature, equal in number to its congressional delegation (representatives and senators) totaling 535 electors.
This has precisely one effect: providing voters in states with small populations a considerable advantage in terms of political power over those in states with large populations. For example, in Wyoming, one electoral vote derives from each group of 193,000 citizen. In California, that number is 741,000, meaning that Wyoming voters are 3.8 times more powerful than Californians in determining the president and vice president.
What makes this important are the factors that go into making small states small and big states big. What we see when we examine this is that big states tend to have higher levels of education, productivity, and affluence. Thus the electoral college skews U.S. voting in favor of the relatively uneducated, poor and uninformed.
Does that sound like to a good idea to anyone who honestly wants this nation directed by intelligence? There is a reason that Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. are headquartered in California and not in Wyoming; these decisions were not made by rolling dice.
There is a push to abolish the electoral college, and, needless to say, I support it.
You might have thought that the scenario at left was impossible. Here’s a racist moron lecturing the Pope on “matters of theology.”
The American public is losing patience with this insanity.
And “the American public” is not limited to educated liberals. There are plenty of hateful morons who can see that the criminal sociopath in the White House has lost whatever clarity of thought he may have once had.
Plant-based meats, which once seemed destined to help us reduce our consumption of slaughtered cows and lower the vast ecological damage that the beef industry is inflicting on our planet, seems to have failed.
Beyond Meat, which is the only publicly traded company in this space, has seen its stock price drop from $200 per share to $0.90.
What happened is a matter of speculation, though two things are certain:
a) The beef industry tried to sue, claiming that the word “meat” meant specifically “the flesh of dead animals.” But the courts sided against them, on the basis that there are a variety of other legitimate uses of “meat” in the contexts of “the meat of the matter,” “the meat of the avocado,” etc.
b) They then launched a g0-for-the-jugular PR campaign against the competition, spending uncountable millions of dollars in an effort to convince consumers that plant-based meat was essentially toxic.
Sadly, it appears that the campaign has been successful. Many fast-food chains have dropped their burger options based on the products from Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods.
FWIW, I remain a fan, particularly of Burger King’s “Impossible Whopper.”
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits