The 47% and 2012 Election

Well, the 2012 Presidential Election is “done”. We have some results in. Here is something that I found funny. Mitt Romney made some comments about the 47% of American citizens that do not pay income tax and receive benefits from the federal government. Here is something interesting from the election results for President in 2012.

51% of the popular vote went to Barack Obama, which is about 62,262,675 votes. 48% of the popular vote went to Mitt Romney, which is about  58,894,887 votes. Now here is what is funny, Mitt Romney made some comments about 47% of Americans, and Romney happen to get 48% of the popular vote. So 121,157,562 cast a vote for either Obama or Romney, and of those, 48% went to Romney. So did the 47% vote for Romeny and Romney received 1% of the vote from the 53% of Americans that do pay an income tax? Maybe some of Romney’s friends who only have a capital gains tax instead of having to pay the income tax, all voted for him and some of the 53% voted for him as well, at least 1% of the 53% who pay income tax.
Funny how Romney got the 47% he talked about and got 1% more. Looks like that video did nothing wrong and spoke the truth, and the people voted for him for it. Too bad he did not say what was needed to get the majority of Americans, those 53% that pay income tax. So out of 100 American citizens, 53 of them pay income tax and 47 don’t pay income tax. Romney received 48 of the votes and Obama received 51 of the votes, and other people received 2 of the votes, out of an assumed 100 votes total.
Here are the simple ideas in basic logical form of a syllogism: All those who do not pay income tax (i.e. 47%) are voted for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote. All those who voted for Barack Obama in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%). Some of those who voted for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%) and Some of those who did not vote for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%).

A Wasted Vote

Let’s talk about voting, since we have Federal elections coming up, especially for President of the United States of America. You always hear people saying that voting for a 3rd party candidate is “Wasting your Vote”. In some sense, your “wasted vote” is no better than not voting at all.

But there is now a common theme popping up by some talking heads on American politics. One of them has to deal with the Electoral College, and more specifically with the Electoral Vote. Let us take a look at this with one test case, which is the state of Maryland. I bet you will find that people wast their vote, like with a 3rd party candidate, either in the popular vote or the electoral college, i.e. wasted vote in electoral college translate into wasted vote in popular election and vice versa.

One of the necessary conditions to become, or be, President of the United States, is that you win the majority of the electoral college. The electoral college currently, as of 2012, has a total of 538 votes. A candidate needs the majority in order to win, which is sometimes stated to be 270 electoral votes.

In the American political system, you have the popular vote for POTUS and have the electoral vote for POTUS. The majority of the popular vote does not necessarily imply the winner of the Presidential election (as previous historical examples provide). However, The majority of the electoral vote does necessarily imply the winner of the Presidential election.

Before I continue I need to make one thing clear: States decide the processes of how electoral voters are decided, as long as it is consistent with the US Constitution, Federal Law, the State Constitution, or State law.

Now 48 states, like Maryland, out of 50 states have a “Winner Take All” system. The winner take all system is basically that the candidate that obtains the majority of popular vote within the state will obtain all of the electoral votes that the state has. In Maryland, each party has their own primary or caucus to decide who the registered party affiliates vote for that they believe represents the view of the majority of registered party members in that state. Once this is done, that political party in that state that had their candidate win the majority of popular votes in the state, will have 10 selected party members, because Maryland has 10 electoral votes, i.e. 2 Senators and 8 Representatives, who cast their votes for President of the United States of America.

(1) Let us just assume we only have two Presidential candidates on the state of Maryland ballot, (even though it is impossible to have a “fair election” with more than two candidates on the ballot). We have Candidate John and Candidate Jane. (2) Let us also assume that John and Jane belong to two different political parties, and (3) also assume that there are a total of 100 popular voters in Maryland and 10 electoral voters in Maryland. (4) Let us also assume that the political party that wins the popular election always votes for the political party candidate on the ballot.

John gets 51 votes from the popular vote, and Jane gets 49 votes from the popular vote. So John won the popular vote and his political party in that state will decide who the 10 electoral voters will be for the state of Maryland in the election for President of the United States. This also means that Jane’s political party will not be able to decide who the 10 electoral voters will be for the state of Maryland. So candidate John wins the state of Maryland and obtains all 10 electoral votes by winning 51% of the popular vote in the state of Maryland and losing 49% of the popular vote in the state of Maryland. Jane loses out on 10 electoral votes because she lost the popular election in the state of Maryland.

Now here is where something interesting happens. John wins the election regardless of what the rest of the voters in Maryland thought. At the end of the day John only needed 51 people to vote for him and it didn’t matter whether the other 49 people did vote or didn’t vote. In other words, those other 49 people do not matter when it comes to electing President of the United States in their state. The 49 people’s  popular vote does not translate into 10 electoral votes. The 51 people’s popular vote, however, did translate into those 10 electoral votes. Those 49 people might as well have not voted at all, since their vote did not count for anything, let alone count for who becomes POTUS. Those electoral votes go the way that 51% of the population voted. Those 49 people that voted in the 2 party system, i.e. the loser in the race, wasted their vote just as much as the person who votes for the 3rd party candidate.

Now some people do not like how the Electoral Vote allows for those 49% to have their vote not counted. This is because once one of the two candidates hits 51% of the popular vote, there is no need to keep counting the popular vote. Image, for instance, that we bring in two boxes. Each of the boxes have 100 ballots. We open the first box and find that all 50 of the votes are for John. We now know that we only need to open the box and find one other person voting for John, and than we can stop counting votes. We open the second box and first ballot we open is a vote for John. We now can stop counting the rest of the ballots in the second box. We now know who won the state’s popular vote, and thus now know who won the states 10 electoral votes. We can dump the rest of the popular votes, i.e. those 49 popular votes. Those 49 votes do not count towards their candidate, i.e. Jane, or even towards who the states electoral votes go to.

Some people do not like how this type of winner take all system in the electoral college makes it so that almost half of the people who vote do not have their vote counted. But the problem is that the same problem shows back up if we only do the popular vote and get rid of the electoral vote.

(1) Let us just assume we only have two Presidential candidates on ever person Presidential ballot, no matter what state you live in, (even though it is impossible to have a “fair election” with more than two candidates on the ballot). We have Candidate John and Candidate Jane. (2) Let us also assume that John and Jane belong to two different political parties. (3) Let us assume that one only needs 51% of popular vote to win POTUS. (4) Let us assume that we have 100 people voting.

Out of 100 popular votes cast, 51 of those votes went to John and 49 of those votes went to Jane. This means that John won POTUS. We still find ourselves in a strange situation. We would be going through the same processes with the example of going through the two boxes full of the popular vote ballots. We would still stop counting once we reached the second boxy and found the first vote to be pulled out was for John. Immediately we find that we can ignore the rest of the ballots since they have nothing to do with who becomes POTUS. With the electoral college having a winner take all system, or a popular vote system with a winner take all, 49% of people waste their vote when they vote for POTUS. Those people are no better than someone who wastes their vote on a 3rd party candidate.

The problem becomes it is not the electoral college that is at fault, or even the popular vote that is at fault. What is at vault is the very idea of a “Democracy” where it is based on majority opinion, i.e. 51%. Half of people’s opinions or votes will not matter to the bottom line who becomes POTUS. They might as well have never voted.

But let us explore this idea of the popular vote a little more, and see how it has its own problems as the electoral college, which was set up to give states with small populations to have equal say as states with a big population, i.e. equal say with states with a big population and small population.

(1) Let us just assume we only have two Presidential candidates on every person Presidential ballot, no matter what state you live in, (even though it is impossible to have a “fair election” with more than two candidates on the ballot). We have Candidate John and Candidate Jane. (2) Let us also assume that John and Jane belong to two different political parties. (3) Let us assume that we have total of 100 popular voters. (4) Let us assume that we have only 2 states where the 100 popular voters live. (5) Let us assume that state X has 51 people and state Y has 49 people.

John wins the popular vote by obtaining 51% of the popular vote. But John did not win the state of Y but won the State of X, i.e. everyone in the state of X voted for John in the popular election in that state.. John won POTUS because he won the state of X, which had the largest population. Jane lost the election and only obtained the popular vote in the state of Y. Basically, the people who live in the state of Y should not have voted, since their vote did not count for anything. It was only the people in the state of X who’s vote counted for anything. State of Y might as well voted for a 3rd party candidate, because they would have obtained the same result. In other words, the state with the most people decided the election of POTUS by popular election, while the state with the least people did not decide the election of POTUS. So the people who lived in the state of Y might as well as not vote, since the state with the smallest population had no affect on the outcome of POTUS.

As should have been noticed by now, when we have the idea of “Winner take all”, or “the candidate with the majority of votes is the winner”, leads to almost half of peoples vote being as good as those who do not vote at all. It makes no difference whether this “Winner take all” idea is implemented in the popular vote or the electoral vote. But this “Winner take all” idea is the basis of “Democracy”, which is that the majority of people decided for things to be this way or that way.

Almost half of those who partake in voting for either of the two major candidates end up, whether electoral vote or popular vote, end up doing as well as those who vote for a non-major candidate, i.e. third party. They both end up voting for the loser in the election, whether done by electoral vote alone, popular vote alone, or a mix of electoral vote and popular vote. In each scenario we find out that people wasted their vote, or cast a vote in which it had no affect on the outcome of the election or who becomes POTUS.

This is a fundamental thing in the American voting system. It pops up no matter whether electoral, popular, or a mix of both. Think of this the next time someone talks about wanting to get rid of the electoral vote and make it strictly the popular vote. The same problem shows up no matter how it is done. You don’t like one, then you would have to dislike the other. In the end, with either form of voting, almost half of people end up doing as well if they did not vote. 49% of voters, whether vote for 2 party or 3 party system, end up doing as well as people who don’t vote. 51% of people, or states, votes count and 49% of peoples, or states, votes don’t count. During an election year and hearing about how the voting system works out and all the problems, see if you notice someone bring up this fundamental issue in the American voter system. What are their alternatives to this system? I bet they end up having the same consequences as mentioned about.

 

Meet the Press: 47% of Americans & Mitt Romney

The Meet the Press episode on 9/23/2012 had some “Surrogates”, and not the type from the Bruce Willis movie, come on to the show. Some interesting points where brought up, and most of the discussion revolved around the idea of the 47% of Americans that do not pay income tax.

Now what is really strange about the 47% of Americans that do not pay federal income tax is that Harry Reid implied that Mitt Romney was part of that 47% of Americans. Of the class of 47% Americans that do not pay federal income tax, it was said that it contains Mitt Romney. But Mitt Romney’s tax returns show that he has paid federal income tax. So Mitt Romney is part of the 53% of Americans that pay federal income tax.

In the line of Mitt Romney and his federal income tax returns, Governor Deal Patrick has some talking points.

Gov. Deval Patrick: I understand people’s interest and curiosity about Mitt Romney’s tax returns. I think it was his dad that said that tax returns for presidential candidates should be produced way back many years. And I think he produced 20 year’s worth of tax returns and more when he was being considered for vice president. But the more I think important issue is what is it he plans to do with my taxes and yours and everybody else’s. He has a tax plan out there where he’s talking about $5 trillion in tax cuts, adding to the deficit. No way to pay for that and no idea about how — what the impact is on the middle class.

Now, I have already talked about Mitt Romney’s tax returns. So I will not deal too much with what Patrick says on the issue of tax returns. What I will bring up is how people consistently go back to Mitt Romney’s father releasing his tax returns. Mitt Romney is his father’s son, and yet somehow people think that what Mitt Romney’s father did means that Romney must do it as well. If Mitt Romney’s father killed a kitten does that mean that Mitt Romney must kill a kitten as well? Mitt Romney’s father did set the precedent of releasing more than 2 years worth of federal income tax returns, likewise Mitt Romney’s father did set the precedent in killing a kitten. So Mitt Romney ought to kill a kitten like he ought to release more than two years of tax returns, all because his father set the precedent by doing these things. Ridiculous type of argument by using precedent, especially when these precedents are not necessary tests to hold the office of Executive of the United States of America. This even holds in cases where people who were not Mitt Romney’s father releasing more than 2 years of federal income tax returns or releasing federal income tax returns at all. Precedent of no gay black woman being President, or candidate for President, means that a gay black woman should not be elected because they do not meet precedent set by previous candidates.

Deval Patrick does make a good point about what does the Candidate for Executive of the United States of America plan to do with your tax dollars, or all American’s tax dollars. But Deval Patrick is wrong that taking in less taxes, i.e. taking less money from individual Americans, does not mean that they you will have a deficit. There will only be a deficit if the government spends more than it takes in. Having 5 trillion less in revenue from income tax does not mean you will have 5 trillion in deficit. You will only have 5 trillion in deficit if you spend that money when you do not have it. You will only have 5 trillion in debt if you spend the money when you do not have it. So Romney would have to spend more money than is obtained by income tax.

Now one obvious impact on all Americans in 5 trillion less revenue taking in federal income tax is that Americans will keep more of their money to use as they desire, especially middle class Americans. They will be able to keep more of their money instead of having the federal government taking more of their money. But it would, supposedly, mean that there is less money for the federal government to use to run federal programs. This means that some federal programs would have to be scaled back in order for Americans to keep more of their money, unless one wants to increase the national debt. So Romney would have to cut back on some federal programs in proportion to the loss of federal revenue.

Now what would Romney use the federal income tax money on? He would have to use it on what the Constitution says that the President must do. If the Constitution said that there must be 25 aircraft carries in the Naval fleet, then Romney would have to use that income tax money to make sure that there are 25 aircraft carries in the Naval fleet, and have to make sure that those 25 aircraft carries can necessarily do what they are suppose to do.

But let us go to this 47% of Americans are “dependent on the federal government”. This main point is based on something. It is based on that 47% of Americans do not give up money in income tax, which means the tax person (or IRS person) is not coming to get your money from you by April 15th. Instead, 53% of Americans will have to give up money to the tax man while 47% do not have to give up the money. But the money that the 53% gave up to the tax man is given to the 47% Americans, while the tax man takes a cut in making that transaction of money from one party to another party. What needs to be realized 47% of Americans make money at the end of the year while 53% of Americans lose money at the end of the year.  What makes this interesting is that a large number of people are not paying into the system while another group is paying into the system, and those that are not paying into the system receive money from those who are paying into the system. You do all the work, if you are part of the 53%, while another person, if part of the 47%, gets all the reward of your work. This is equality, this is redistribution. Giving from the haves to the have nots.

How about, like Gregory David brought up in the debate between George Allen and Tim Kain in the Virgina Senatorial debate, everyone pays federal income tax? This means that the 47% who do not pay federal income tax be forced to pay federal income tax, like those 53% of American’s who payed federal income tax. This way those 47% of Americans are paying into the system like 53% of Americans, and this will make all Americans equal in how the law is executed. One group of people do not have pay federal income tax while another group of people have to pay federal income tax, and now all groups of people will have to pay federal income tax. That way if you receive some of these governments entitlements, which are usually funded by federal income tax revenue, then you are getting what you payed for.

Take this example from Ezra Kelin, the hack “journalist”.

Compare Romney to a single mother of two who works fulltime at Wal-mart who takes the earned income tax credit and whose children get health insurance through medicaid. Romney says she’s not taking personality responsibility. He says he couldn’t get her to take personal responsibility if he tried, yet Romney is someone who doesn’t even have to take personal responsibility for earning money anymore. He’s beyond all of that, and he’s carried that belief into his policy proposals, his policy platform matches his comments. He won’t raise taxes on the rich but wants to cut medicaid by over $1 trillion in the next decade.

Working at Wal-mart meets you will have a personal income that is below the taxable amount. Say that the taxable income level is 25 dollars. If you make 24 dollars then you do not have to pay the income tax, but receive money from the federal government. If you make 25 dollars or over, you have to pay the income tax. Medicade is a program that is funded for by personal income tax, so this person at Wal-mart is not paying into Medicade like the person who pays the income tax does. This person would not be taking personal responsibility if that means paying for the program that you are taking advantage for. In other words, this person would be obtaining something that they did not pay for. But we all know that nothing is free, so who payed for it? The 53% payed for that program.

I really have no clue what the line about “yet Romney is someone who doesn’t even have to take personal responsibility for earning money anymore”. But what should be noticed is that the 53% will have to pay less of their money taken by the personal income tax, and so medicaid will have 1 trillion dollars less than it had a decade ago. This means that 53% of Americans will keep more of their money, and those 47% of Americans would receive less money, within the next decade if Romney were elected.

Mitt Romney’s “Tax Returns” and “Tricky Mitt”

It appears that the Obama campaign for re-election has brought up some interesting talking points, which appear to have garnered wide attention. One of them involves Mitt Romney’s “tax returns” to be released, and for how there might be a felony or criminal action being hidden in his tax returns that have not been released. Now, unless you have been living under the sea with Ariel, there has been this narrative of “class warfare”, which has been brought up of rich American citizens v. non-rich American citizens.

Mitt Romney is placed within the category of rich American citizen, because you have to be an American citizen to run for President of the United States of America. There is even a check done to make sure that you meet the necessary requirements to run for President of the United States of America, and being a US Citizen is one of them. Anyone that tries to run for the office and does not meet these necessary requirements, well be denied that office. Romney  is considered to be a rich, which came about from his work as a private citizen and using his property that where within legal requirements.

Here is an example of an add bringing up Mitt Romney’s tax returns and linking it to be criminal and Mitt Romney is a felon.

Mitt Romney’s individual income tax returns are private information and protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. The IRS is the branch of the federal government that receives your individual income tax returns, and they can only give out your income tax returns to authorized federal branches or authorized individuals. So, for the most part, Mitt Romney’s information is private, unless Romney wants to make it public. You could own this a really great couch in your private home, and keep it private. You could also take your couch out of your private home and put it on public display or you could invite people into your private property and take a look at your really great couch. Not even the federal government is authorized to release that private information. Scary when the IRS even has boundaries that it will not transgress.

The main point would be that it is private information and one may use that private information as they want. Romney does not fell like releasing his tax returns, and Obama has not felt like releasing his college transcripts. Romney has also not released what his first memory was, or Obama has not released what his first memory was. Are both Romney an Obama holding back these things back because they broke some law? Are they criminals that are trying to run for office and be President? Are some criminals in public office now? Maybe federally elected officials are criminals. Could even be like prison in so far as you come out changed from when you went in. You go in as a law abiding person and come out a criminal, just maybe not a convicted criminal.

I really need to know this private information, I love to be all in people’s personal information and living their life for them. I really need to know what was Mitt Romney’s first job after graduate school an what was Barack Obama’s first job after graduate school, it allows me to know their unexplicated  step by step plan to reach their explicated objectives. “I’m going to fly you to the moon, but never mind how I am going to get you there.”

Does anyone know of the IRS having a good reputation of obtaining what is federally allowable by law? Assuming that they are good at obtaining what is legally attainable for them, it would mean that someone who holds back what is legally obtainable would be sought after by the IRS to obtain what is legally theirs. Has there been any information on Mitt Romney actually having been prosecuted by the IRS or Department of Justice for withholding the legally attainable private income of Mitt Romney? All signs point no. But we the public should think that he is hiding that really great couch from us; he is not sharing that really great couch, that is his private property, with us. He chooses not share his private stuff with us, so he must be choosing to do illegal things with his private property.

Romney did, on the other hand, at least release some of his private information. It is strange that he would release some of his private information since it is not necessary in order to hold the office that Romney seeks. He, or any Presidential candidate, must be natural born Citizen,  35 years of age or older, been fourteen year resident within the United States, and receive the majority of electoral votes. So the private information does not affect being a natural born citizen, over 35 years of age, and been a 14 year resident of the United States. He passed those three tests to hold federal office. The only one he is missing is the majority of votes from the electoral college voters. All the electoral college voters have to do is look at a ballot and pick which of the people listed is who they will vote for.

Is it expected that releasing this private information to obtains votes like buying a vote? Is it expected that releasing this private property to obtain votes be similar to buying votes? Without this private property being giving to the electoral college voters, Romney will fail the necessary test of being President. He can only obtain the office if he passes the necessary requirements, and failing one, like getting the majority of electoral college votes, means he is prevented from being Executive of the United States of America. Does Romney have to meet with a majority of the individual electoral college voters, and show them his private information or give up his private property, in order for them to vote for him?

But he did give up this private property to the electoral college voters. Of that, it was found that he placed some of his private property in banks. We also like to place some of our private property into banks. Nothing really strange about this. What is different is that Romney is able to put some of his private property into banks that do not have their headquarters in the United States of America. But there is nothing illegal of where you choose to place it. If this were the case, then that would mean it would even be illegal for you to choose to place it in banks that are headquartered in the United States. Instead, we are free to choose where put our private property. And those banks that Romney chose to put his private property were within federal law of where you can place your private property. This is like other people who place their banks that are headquartered in the United States and also allowable under federal law. The difference is that only those people who can afford to put their private property in this banks are allowed to do so. Romney is one of them, but some other people cannot afford to put their private property where they choose and allowable by federal law. Has anyone heard from the IRS on this issue?

What is the real problem, since he is not breaking any federal law and there is no requirement in holding office of Executive of the United States? It is that he is a rich American trying to become Executive of the United States. He is being discriminated against because of his economic class, or being given a reason to not vote for him. His economic class is trying to be used to get people to not vote for Romney, to not hire Romney. Economic class, in this situation, would be the strict factor in not hiring someone. They are in the class of rich instead of the class of not rich. They are being discriminated against based on class, like some in previous American history were discriminated from being hired in jobs because of their race, or because of their sex, or sexual orientation, or because of physical/mental deficiencies. If those groups of people, who were not hired for the job, could have changed what they were discriminated against for, then they would have been hired.

This is part of the subtle narrative of “Class Warfare”. Trying to turn one class against another, have non-rich American citizens to discriminate against rich American citizens like male American citizens discriminated against female American citizens. One class against another, division instead of equality and unity. Moving back instead of moving forward. Moving back to inequality amongst different classes instead of moving forward to equal treatment of different classes. Precedent has been set with previous elections had majority of electoral college voters not voting another candidate because of the class they belonged to, like being black or a woman. Just continuing it with another class of people after those other groups were eliminated form discrimination for holding a federal job. Precedent had been set by previous generations allowing for the discrimination and so others still follow it with another new class.