Barry the comeback kid

WASHINGTON, October 17, 2012 - Democrats say President Barack Obama scored a knockout punch in the second presidential debate. Republicans call it a tie. But one thing is for sure, President Obama was clearly not “Uncle Fluffy” this time. He came to fight. The polls have been tightening so the stakes were high. The president took this debate more seriously and it showed.

Two weeks ago, the bipartisan consensus was that President Obama had a terrible performance in the first debate. The president was determined to change that narrative and he did. Unlike after the first presidential debate, the news headline today is not “What happened to the president?” It is more like “Obama fights back” “Obama wins.”

The president was less wonky and professorial and more direct and assertive. He was passionate and engaging-visibly angry at times but stern throughout the debate.

He finally brought up Mitt Romney’s 47% comment much to the delight of many Democrats. 

“But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims, who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about.

Folks on Social Security who have worked all their lives. Veterans who have sacrificed for this country. Students who are out there trying to hopefully advance their own dreams, but also this country’s dreams. Soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now. People who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas tax, but don’t make enough income,” President Obama said.

Read the full article here: Barry the comeback kid | Washington Times Communities 

Follow @AyobamiAO

The Electoral College should not be eliminated

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 7, 2012 — Every four years the Electoral College debate resurfaces. But contrary to what you may have heard, the Electoral College is a very stable and reliable way of electing a President of the United States.

Sure it has its intrinsic flaws, as evident in the dispute over Florida’s electoral votes during the 2000 presidential election. Nevertheless, it is a well-structured system that provides geographical balance and conclusive outcomes.

The Electoral College is a group of representatives chosen by each state to formally elect the president. The 538 electoral votes in the Electoral College correspond with the 435 members in the U.S House of Representatives, 100 members in the U.S Senate, and the District of Columbia’s three electoral votes.

Scholars like Mike Edwards and Danny Oppenheimer argue that the Electoral College should be abolished. In their most recent article in the Huffington Post, they argue that the Electoral College is a “cancerous tumor on American democracy” partly because it gives voters in some states greater influence over the presidential election than citizens of other states.

As a consequence, they advocate for a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) which requires states to give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
But in this national popular vote scenario, wouldn’t candidates just ignore small states and concentrate on big states in order to reach a popular majority? So if the problem with the Electoral College is that votes from certain states are worth more than others, then a national popular vote is hardly the answer since it does not solve the problem of candidates’ dismissal of some states.

Read more: The Electoral College should not be eliminated | Washington Times Communities

Follow @AyobamiAO