July 29, 2010

Emporia Weather

Currently Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon
83° Partly Sunny
Slight Chance Thunderstorms
Slight Chance Thunderstorms
Partly Sunny
Slight Chance Thunderstorms
Fair 92°
74°
96°
74°
92°
70°
92°
71°
97°
74°

Advertisement

Advertisement

Reader Poll

Who will you vote for in the Republican primary for Jerry Moran's vacated seat?

View all polls

Events

Search events

Neosho Rapids meeting

Friday, December 4, 2009

Neosho Rapids meeting

The City of Neosho Rapids council meeting will be at 7 p.m. Wednesday in the community building.

The agenda will include mayor and committee reports and monthly business of the city, street, sewer and financial report given by Ed Leford; and completion reports about the sewer project by Bruce Boettcher of BG Consultants. Mowing and park restroom janitorial bids will be reviewed and posted for the 2010 season. Lyon County Zoning administrator and floodplain manager Steve Seeley will be present to discuss zoning and water issues regarding Neosho Rapids. The public is encouraged to attend.

Santa Fe Republican Women

The Santa Fe Trail Republican Women of North Lyon County meet at 2 p.m. Wednesday at Plumb Place, 224 E. Sixth Ave. The 2010-11 officers will be installed by Cecilia Sanaie of Yates Center, second vice president of the Kansas Federation of Republican Women.

The club continues the Lincoln Legacy series with informative segments about Lincoln’s adult life. Readers will be Shirley Milford, Susan Johnson, Connie Fager and Helen Louise Leeburg. The program about state election laws, party rules and the electoral college will be given by Karen Hartenbower, president of the Lyon County Republican Women. Christmas gift certificates will be presented to Jill Wheeler, executive director of Plumb Place.

Parking is available on Sixth Avenue, Union Street or the museum-library parking lot. Enter the front door. For more information, call president Virginia Graham at (620) 699-3319 or second vice president Alberta Brinkman at 342-7701. The next meeting will be Feb. 10, 2010, at the Allen Senior Center.

Road closing

Road X between Roads 370 and 380 will be closed beginning Tuesday for bridge replacement. The road is expected to be opened again on Jan. 13.

Comments

We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.

mvymvy (anonymous) says...

RE: Santa Fe Trail Republican Women's Meeting

Under the current system of electing the President, presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

December 4, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mvymvy (anonymous) says...

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

December 4, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

The National Popular Vote Bill certainly gets my vote. It's about time we actually become what we like to claim we've always been....one man-one vote. Under the current system some people get the equivalent thing to voting more than once.

December 4, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

Popular vote bill would make Kansas a "who gives a S$$@ State. Power to the "sit on their ass" welfare class

December 4, 2009 at 10:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

So ad......why should the vote of one Kansas sit on their A## welfare class farm subsidy recipient be worth more than some set on their A## welfare recipient in Detroit. They are both benefiting from Uncle's deep pockets.

December 5, 2009 at 4 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisements