Making politicians and media accountable to ordinary citizens since 2000.
Home | Unconservative Listening | Links | Contribute | About
Join the Mailing List | Contact Caro
Be sure to read all the way down to the
It will knock your socks off.
The Official Map of the 2000 Presidential Selection
The New York Times
Of course, as we all know, Florida should be blue
Conservatives have made much of the fact that more states and more counties produced a majority of votes for Bush than for Gore, despite the fact that this has nothing to do with the way we elect presidents in the U.S.
Ah, yes, Bush Country!
Where men are men and sheep are nervous.
Unfortunately for their thesis, quite a number of people the states designated as red voted for Al Gore.
Shades of Purple - the Myth of the Red and the Blue America
"It is ... necessary to replace that artificial red-blue map that was obtained by rounding 49% down to zero and 50% to one hundred by a more accurate map that reflects how the voters actually voted. I have created such a map by simply mixing red, blue and green for each state, with the ratios equal to the percentage that Bush, Gore and Nader received in the 2000 election."
But if you insist on dismissing the votes of more than half of those who went to the polls on November 7, 2000, you still must consider these facts, illustrated with maps, below, from various sources.
∑ The most populous areas tended to vote Democratic.
∑ The areas that are gaining in population tended to vote Democratic.
∑ The most prosperous areas tended to vote Democratic.
∑ Most important of all, NET TAKERS FROM THE FEDERAL COFFERS TENDED TO VOTE FOR BUSH, while net givers to the federal coffers tended to vote for Gore. This may well be the biggest scam of all time.
Can it be coincidence?
THE BEST AND WORST STATES FOR WOMEN
-- Best States, 2002 (almost all blue)
8. New Hampshire
-- Worst States, 2002 (all red)
Population Change -
Geography of Poverty and Wealth
Illustrator: Samuel Velasco
*The article is archived and can be purchased for $5.00 from the Scientific American Archives. Click on The Geography of Poverty and Wealth to go directly to the article.
PROOF OF THE BIGGEST SCAM OF ALL TIME
If this doesnít
get you working to change the Democratic Party, I donít know what will.
From The New York Times
Givers and Takers
By DANIEL H. PINK
Published: January 30, 2004
...Using the Tax Foundation's analysis, it's possible to group the 50 states into two categories: Givers and Takers. Giver states get back less than a dollar in spending for every dollar they contribute to federal coffers. Taker states pocket more than a dollar for every tax dollar they send to Washington...
78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.
76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.
Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25.
Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12...
Most people who vote Republican say they want less government and not to pay for the welfare of others. What's actually happening is that those of us who live in the states that tend to vote Democratic are subsidizing those who live in states that vote Republican.
Source: Tax Foundation
How do they do it? By having more representation in the Senate than those of us who live in the Net Giver states. The fact that every state has two Senators, regardless of population, guarantees unequal representation for the states with smaller populations. And the fact that the Electoral College is made up of one vote per U.S. Representative and one vote per U.S. Senator skews the presidential vote in favor of small population states, as well.
You could say that the Net Taker states are suckers on the federal teat, but it's we in the Net Giver states who are the suckers.
Tired of the hypocrisy?
It's time for a new movement in America
NO TAXATION WITHOUT EQUAL REPRESENTATION!