I strongly suspect that much of this attitude is carefully encouraged by the media. Those "winner-take-all" state laws and other restrictions did not exist until recently in some cases. In addition, systematic efforts to shut out all political voices not tied to the existing duopoly have been underway for a while. Remember when the D.A.R. sponsored the Presidential debates?
For all his unpopularity, Mr. Nader has been accurate in his critique of US politics; see his book Crash!ng the Party for more details.
Obviously, then, US citizens need to work harder to get the Electoral College fixed. Note that I am *not* suggesting that it be abolished; there are good reasons for its existence. But its reform, like the reform of English spelling and the "Gregorian" calendar, is seriously overdue.
I think that there are more "refuseniks" out there than are commonly realized. Most minorities, including women, may wind up in that category, as they already have "pre-existing conditions" [and yes, being a woman is a "pre-existng condition" in contemporary US healthcare :-(]. One of my best US friends, for example, has stated she will wind up in that category.
I called the penalty and requirement a "tax" because that is how it was named by SCOTUS in its recent decision. AIUI, the penalty amount is fixed or "flat" as well. If I'm wrong on that, please clarify.
Comments 3
(The comment has been removed)
For all his unpopularity, Mr. Nader has been accurate in his critique of US politics; see his book Crash!ng the Party for more details.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I called the penalty and requirement a "tax" because that is how it was named by SCOTUS in its recent decision. AIUI, the penalty amount is fixed or "flat" as well. If I'm wrong on that, please clarify.
Reply
Leave a comment