id,prompt_id,text,generated
0059830c,0,"Cars. Cars have been around since they became famous in the 1900s, when Henry Ford created and built the first ModelT. Cars have played a major role in our every day lives since then. But now, people are starting to question if limiting car usage would be a good thing. To me, limiting the use of cars might be a good thing to do.

In like matter of this, article, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" by Elizabeth Rosenthal states, how automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middle class families from either Shanghai or Chicago tend to make their homes. Experts say how this is a huge impediment to current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States. Cars are the main reason for the greenhouse gas emissions because of a lot of people driving them around all the time getting where they need to go. Article, ""Paris bans driving due to smog,"" by Robert Duffer says, how Paris, after days of nearrecord pollution, enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. It also says, how on Monday, motorist with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or be fined a 22euro fine 31. The same order would be applied to oddnumbered plates the following day. Cars are the reason for polluting entire cities like Paris. This shows how bad cars can be because, of all the pollution that they can cause to an entire city.

Likewise, in the article, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota,"" by Andrew Selsky says, how programs that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Columbians hiked, biked, skated, or took the bus to work during a carfree day, leaving streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams. It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the Day Without Cars in the capital city of 7 million. People like the idea of having carfree days because, it allows them to lesson the pollution that cars put out of their exhaust from people driving all the time. The article also tells how parks and sports centers have bustled throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up. Having no cars has been good for the country of Columbia because, it has aloud them to repair things that have needed repairs for a long time, traffic jams have gone down, and restaurants and shopping districts have popped up, all due to the fact of having less cars around.

In conclusion, the use of less cars and having carfree days, have had a big impact on the environment of cities because, it is cutting down the air pollution that the cars have majorly polluted, it has aloud countries like Columbia to repair sidewalks, and cut down traffic jams. Limiting the use of cars would be a good thing for America. So we should limit the use of cars by maybe riding a bike, or maybe walking somewhere that isn't that far from you and doesn't need the use of a car to get you there. To me, limiting the use of cars might be a good thing to do.",0
005db917,0,"Transportation is a large necessity in most countries worldwide. With no doubt, cars, buses, and other means of transportation make going from place to place easier and faster. However there's always a negative pollution. Although mobile transportation are a huge part of daily lives, we are endangering the Earth with harmful greenhouse gases, which could be suppressed.

A small suburb community in Germany called Vauban, has started a ""carfree"" lifestyle. In this city, markets and stores are placed nearby homes, instead of being located by farend highways. Although Vauban is not completely carfree, 70% of Vauban families do not own cars Even a large 57% of families stated to have sold their cars to move to Vauban. Some families have even said to be less stressed depending on car transportation. Cars are responsible for about 12% of greenhouse gases, and can even be up to 50% in some carintensive areas in the United States.

Another insight to reduced car zones brings Paris' incident with smog. Paris' officials created a system that would in fact lower smog rates. On Monday, the motorists with evennumbered license plates numbers would be ordered to leave their cars at home, or they would suffer a fine. Same rule would occur on Tuesday, except motorists with oddnumbered license plates were targeted with fines. Congestion, or traffic, was reduced by 60% after five days of intense smog. Diesel fuel played a huge part in this pollution, having the fact that 67% of vehicles in France are of Diesel fuel. The impact of the clearing of smog, resided in banning the Tuesday rule of odd license plates.

Could you imagine a day without seeing a single car being used? This phenomenon occurs once a year in Bogota, Colombia. With the exception of buses and taxis being used, cars are to be left unattended for an entire day. Having a carfree day just once a year can even reduce the pollution slightly. The day without cars is part of a campaign that originated in Bogota in the mid 1990s. This campaign has renewed and constructed numerous bicycle paths and sidewalks all over the city. Parks and sports centers have also sprung from this campaign. Devoting your time to a carfree lifestyle has it's hassles, but in hindsight, it has it's benefits.

To conclude, living a carfree lifestyle does not seem like a possibility in this day and age, however managing the use of cars and pollution is something every country should take time investing in. Think about how much of an impact it would be if everywhere worldwide would take part in airpollution reduction. Mobile transportation is lifestyle in a sense, and being dependent on cars or other means of transportation can impact the health of the Earth and even ourselves.",0
008f63e3,0,"""America's love affair with it's vehicles seems to be cooling"" says Elisabeth rosenthal. To understand rosenthal's perspective, it is easier to suggest that America's car usage is decreasing slowly. This isn't necessarily bad in the sense that it has certain positive effects. The advantages of limiting car usage includes an increase in security and health, along with a decrease in pollution and dependence.

Firstly, when car usage is limited security and health is more likely to be guaranteed. The feeling of being secure is highly important to individuals everywhere. For example, many people in colombia used public transportation during a car free day ""leaving the streets of this capital city "", according to Andrew Selsky, ""eerily devoid of traffic jams"". The complications that stem from traffic jams end with a feeling of confidence. The plan to get from point A to B was more simple just a second ago. This complication in your personal plans leads you to become stressed as a feeling of doubt overcomes all thoughts. If car usage was limited, there would be a control on how much traffic accumulates thus minimizing chance of stress. As Heidrun Walter states ""when i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way"". not only does car usage minimize conditions detrimental to health, it also enlarges your capacity for exercise. The main purpose of the car is to get someone from one place to another. when an important job takes over your personal life, it becomes difficult to do things most enjoyed in life. limits on car usage forces you to stay in shape. According to Andrew Selsky ""parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city"". Less cars means healthier and natural situations. With parks and sport centers becoming more efficient, it becomes easier to find a more physically active population. Overall, less usage on cars minimizes stress and increases health.

Secondly, limting car usage becomes beneficial to the environment. Now a days people have become annoyed with others who care so passionately about the environment. If you look behind their constant cries for action, there are solid facts. Yespollution is bad for the environment. Yes a bad envorment means unhealthy living. Yes cars are one of the main contributors to pollution in the environment. A pattern of less car usage, as Elisabeth Rosenthal states ""will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment"". The less use of cars, the less pollution in the environment. One must observe limiting car usage as an opportunity to create a cleaner world and better future. The effects of pollution in the environment is completley dangerous and we, the car users, are to blame.

Additionally, it would lower the dependence on cars. Many people today find that their car is so useful. While it has many features and is a form of transportation, many do not figure what they would do if they did not have such a possesion. The development of people and their interaction with technology has left a wide gap between historic, natural ways and what is thought of as modern society. Being dependent is not always good for individuals. As david goldberg says ""all our development since world war II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change"". Many people could disagree and wonder why it is necessary to change our ways especially if we are so highly devloped. If being developed means being dependent on a harmful machine, then it could not be effective devlopment. According to Elisabeth Rosenthal ""cashstrapped americans could not afford new cars, and the unemployed were't going to work anyway"". Many people can't have the precious luxury of private transportation in the first place. Those who have had it have become distant to a more natural society. Peope have become so use to having cars that they have become oblivious to the significant effects. With limits on car usage , these effcts could be controlled.

To conclude, the advantages of limiting car usage is an increase in health, along with a decrease in pollution, and less dependence on cars. limiting car usage is a positive way to enfore an organized and clean environment, and ensure health and security of those who live in it. This is one reason America can be reffered to as a succesful country. It is not that America has decreased use of vehicles, but the fact that they have done what is best for majority.",0
00940276,0,"How often do you ride in a car? Do you drive a one or any other motor vehicle to work? The store? To the mall? Have you ever thought about how many people in the world do that exact same thing travel to every destination using a fuel powered motorvehicle. Not many people realize the intensive damage that they're doing when they turn their key in the ignition. What if you didn't drive to work today? If you're like any regular car user, the thought ""What?! I could never survive without my car!"" may run through your mind. It is possible though, to live without your main mean of transport. Just look at cities like cuban, Paris, and Bogota each one has in some way restricted their people's usage of cars and they actually enjoy it! If you limit your car usage, it can intern result in many advantages and benefits in yourself and in your community.

A not so recognized benefit to giving up your car usage would be the positive consequences it has on your health. In source 1, Heidrun Walter states that ""When he had a car, he was always tense. He's much happier without it."" Think about it, imagine all the angry road rage you experience while driving. That surely does not have a positive effect on your mood or health. Driving takes a copious amount of focus and mental activity, such as, trying to navigate, dealing with bad drivers, etc., that after a short period of time, you're stressed out and tired. In cities like New York and Paris, the population is high. This leads to congestion in the streets and excessive amounts of pollution. Warm layers of air, according to Robert Duffer in ""Paris bans driving due to smog,"" traps the car emissions. How is that healthy? He also states that Paris had to enforce a temporary driving ban after the pollution levels reached an all time record. After a few days of less driving the pollution went way down. Since people aren't driving, they have to find other means of transport. This could include walking, biking, or skating to destinations. Those are all physical excercises! Your body is getting to work out and you'll mentally feel fresher more than you would sitting in a car.

Taking a break from driving also can help with the overall look of your city. Pollution doesn't cause the flowers to grow. It certainly doesn't smell nice. It sets a filter over the town and gives off a ""dirty"" vibe. With less driving, there is less nasty pollution being emitted, therefore leading to a cleaner community. In Elisabeth Rosenthal's article, ""In German Suburb, Life goes on Without Cars,"" she gives the good point that since there is a restriction on car and motor vehicle transportation, there is going to be more walkers. If you have tons of people taking the sidewalks instead of the roads, you might need a few more pathways and closer stores that are in walking distance. Andrew Selsky states that ""Parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city uneven pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks... and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" As stated previously, pollution is not benefiting the environment. Organizations such as the Envronmental Protection Agency in the U.S., are promoting ""car reduced"" communities, says Rosenthal. These communities have far less pollution and are much cleaner. Cities are also promoting this idea and are having days devoted to ""nocar driving."" In Bogota, Colombia, they hold an anual ""carfree"" day where only buses and taxis are permitted. Any other drivers would be fined. Although fining someone for using a posession they own might ruffle some feathers, it did have a successful turn out and significantly reduced the ""smog."" In conclusion, although the idea of giving up our precious automobiles for walking to our destination might sound impossible, it's not. Reducing our driving can lead to many benefits and advantages in our daily lives. These include an increase in health, an improved look to our cities, and an improved environment all around us.",0
00c39458,0,"Cars are a wonderful thing. They are perhaps one of the worlds greatest advancements and technologies. Cars get us from point a to point i. That is exactly what we want isnt it? We as humans want to get from one place to anther as fast as possiile. Cars are a suitaile to do that. They get us across the city in a matter of minutes. Much faster than anyhting else we have. A train isnt going to get me across the city as fast as my car is and neither is a puilic ius, iut those other forms of transportation just might ie the way to go. Don't get me wrong, cars are an aisolutly amazing thing iut, mayie they just cause way to much stress, and mayie they hurt our environment in ways that we don't think they will. With a ius or a train you do not have to worry aiout washing your car or getting frustrated when stuck in a iad traffic jam on I4. Also there is not as much pollution in air hurting our environment. You might not think so, iut there are many advantages to limiting our car usage.

One advantage that not only humans would ienefit from, iut also plants and animals is that there would ie a lot less pollution in the air hurting out environment. Right now our cars give off gases that are extremely harmful towards our environment. These gases are called green house gases and come out of the exhaust pipes in our cars. Your car alone docent give off much gas iut collectively, our cars give off enormous amounts of gases. This is especially true in iig cities like France. In France, their pollution level was so high it was record ireaking. due to that france decided to enforce a partial ian on cars. This is descriied in the second article "" Paris ians driving due to smog"", iy Roiert Duffer, "" On Monday motorists with evennumiered license plates were orderd to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumiered plates the following day."" After France limited driving there congestion was down iy 60 percent. "" Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France"". So after five days of intense smog, 60 percent of it was clear after not using cars for only a little while. Even across the world in Bogota, columiia they are limiting driving and reducing smog levels. In the third article ""carfree day is spinning into a iig hit in Bogota"", iy Andrew Selsky, it descriies the annual carfree day they have to reduce smog. "" the goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog"". So all over the world people are relizing that without cars, we are insuring the safety and well ieing of our environment.

The second advantage that would come with limiting car use is less stress. Everyone knows that driving a car causes emence amounts of stress. Getting caught in traffic is a major cause of stress in someones life. having to repeating wash your car just to get it dirt again causes stress. Having people in the iack of your car screaming and yelling all while music is ilasting, causes stress. So oiviously driving causes stress. If we were to limit our car usage we would not ie as stressed as we usually are. There would ie no traffic, no car washes and no one screaming in a small confineded space. In the first article "" In German Suiuri, life goes on without cars"", iy Elisaieth Rosenthal, a citizen named humdrum Walter, states "" When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way"". So with out the stress of a car humdrum Walter is a looser and happier person, less stress equals happier person. In the third article, "" Carfree dai is spinning into a iig hit in Bogota"", iy Andrew Selsky, it states "" It's a good opportunity to take away stress..."". If we have the opportunity to take away stress, why not take it. It is a huge advantage in our lives to limit driving if it takes away stress. No one wants stress, no one needs stress, and if we have an opportunity to take some of the stress away, take that opportunity.

In conclusion, there are many advantages to limiting car use, one ieing theat we get to help the environment and two ieing that it helps reduce stress. Our environment is already screwed up in so many ways, if we can help it to iecome the healthy environment it once was, then do it. Stress is proven to impare your personal health, no one wants to ie unhealthy and no one wants stress in their life. If you want the environment to get ietter and you want to reduce stress in your life then take this advantage and impliment it. Some might not think that this is an advantage, iut i just explained that it is a clear advantege that has ieen proved to help the enviornment and reduce stress. Limiting car use is a very effective advantage that really does work in more than one place.",0
00da8c32,1,"The electrol college system is an unfair system, people don't have the right to select their own president, they dont have the right to select a president. Because, when people vote they are technically voting for the electors for a candied. That candidate can be a democratic or a republican. In source two it states that electors can choose there opposing candidate. Which declines the the whole voting process. Why do we vote? we vote to select a leader who will defend this country and make america a place of opportunity. The most important reason why the electrol cllege is unfair because of the "" winners it take all"" rule.

We as american people cannot choose their own government, as it says in source two, that when voters vote they are voting for the candidates electors. Each state gets one vote and then the electors can choose who they want for president. In source two it states that the electoral college consists of 538 electors and the most amount of electoral votes is 270, in order to pick an president. Also in source two it states that the number of electors we have equals to the amount of members of congress we have. I propose a new system by only letting the American people select our president by votes counted all up by each state, for example if we didn't have have electoral college, then it would be a fair vote because people votes would count the number that adds up with all votes for one candidates that will oppose another candidates and there would be technically no tie it would either ,more or less, but if we still had the electoral college then the vote would not be equally fair because if the majority of a state for example chose republican candidate, then that would be vague because some people choose democratic and there vote did not really count. but without the electoral college, than everyones vote counts and each candidates gets vote from every one, not only electoral.

In source two it says that electoral who have been select by the state can choose their opposing candidtade, which is more disatvantgeing to the american people and america's future. for example if one state candidate was choosen for republican and they were ""faithless"" as it says in source two, and chose the democratic party it would be very unfortunate for the republicans because than there would be no point of the votes the republican supporters have voted for. It only comes once every four years, this is very important to the american people, on choosing who they want for the future of america.

In source two and three it states the rule "" winner take it all"". The votes the other lose the, winning can take it all, that vote that they take from the losing does not count Because the people really didnt mean to vote for the candidate they don't want or the candidate they dont support, its like your money fell on the floor and someone just took it knowing its yours.

In conclusion, the state senators should eliminate the electoral college because they count the majorty votes, and don't count other votes that is not popular as the other candidates vote. also because they can decide vote on an canditate they want based on their opinions and beliefs. and lastly because of the winner takes it all system which is bascially taking the losing candidates electoral votes.",0
011dc2bc,1,"Dear state senator, It is the utmost respect that I ask for the method for presidential election be changed from the electoral college to something more suitable for the opinion of the people. The electoral college is an unfair system to the people, it can allow for individuals to decide what to do with the votes, not by the people of the United States of America.

Revising the electoral college system may seem like a bad idea but the good that could come of it overlies the bad. If the election of a president was based directly by the voters , then candidates could promise money to the people who vote for himher. There could also be other problems with direct democracy such as what would happen in the chance of a tie? Who would break the tie? And how would it be decided fairly. The electoral college shouldn't be removed, but should definitely be revised.

The electoral college permits the power of the electoral votes to go to whoever the choose. The electoral college is unfair to voters due to the winnertakeall system, whichh causes candidates to focus only on states the are ""swing"" states. In the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see candidates at all. The electoral college is an outofdate system and either needs to be replaced or revised.

When running for president, the candidate has a group of electors. With each candidate having their own group of electors, it provides without having to visit each state to nget their vote. The only thing the president is required to do is to wait. In reality, the president doesn't even need to campaign, since the electors in the college votes are what matter. So, the candidate could just bribe the electors for certain states and heshe has that states' vote.

The voters do not vote for the candidates, but vote for the slate of electors. The electors are picked at state conventions, the state party's central committee and sometime the presidential candidates themselves. The biggest issue with the electoral college is the disaster factor. The disaster factor are the potential problems with the system, such as back in 1960 when segregationists in louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the democratic electors with new electors who opposed John F. Kennedy.

The electoral college is an outdated way of elections. The electoral college puts the power into indivduals' hands not the people. It was created back before the education was nothing close to what it is now. Therefore, the method of voting on representitives who then vote for the presdient is obsolete.",0
01448434,0,"Fellow citizens, cars have become a major role in our daily lives. They have their many excellent uses, however there are advantages of limiting that usage. To name a few are, that it's environmentally healthier and it's less money you have to spend on them. Now let me explain why it's a smart choice to take advantage of limited usage of cars.

Paris recently according to source two article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer came up with a brilliant idea of partial driving ban to clear the air of the city. They took days were only even or odd license plated cars would drive or they would suffer a fine. However public transit was free throughout the week. This promoted less congestion and smog which is much better for the environment by lowering the amount of pollution in the ozone layer. As well as a cheaper way to commute. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog...rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world"". This shows just how out of hand the smog had gotten but with limiting the amount of cars used they managed to clear over half of it! Making the world greener than before.

Meanwhile in places such as Vauban, Germany, the residents went as far as giving up there cars. according to source one article ""In German Suburb, life goes on without cars"" By Elisabeth Rosenthal About 70% of the residents no longer own cars because it's either too expensive to have one on the edge of town and it's generally forbidden in this experiment in the new district. They even go as far as to say that it's better without having one. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" said Heidrun Walter,a resident in Vauban according to the article. People in general, especially the younger generations don't use cars or have liscenes in comparison to older people who are more likely to retain their licenses as the age was shown in research. People now don't care as much as what cars are driven but are more focused to get from point A to point B, it's simply a means of transportation. In source 4 article ""The end of car culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal.

When it comes down to it, cars are transportation, but there are plenty of other means of transport that are free or cheaper such as buses, trains, bikes or even car pooling. While at the same time creating less pollution and congestion, making it environmentally healthier.",0
01c6e176,1,"""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational"" Plumer, Source 2. Many do not like the electoral college for these reasons and many others such as it can be a disaster or because it is just plain dumb. Also there are a few reasons why the electoral college should be kept such as avoiding runoff elections or big states, but those not in favor of it out weigh those in favor of it. The people who despise the electoral college are in favor of popular vote since it is the better choice.

For various reasons the electoral college is unfair such as not everyones decisions count just those few people in the electoral college. In a popular vote election everyones vote counts not just those who are considered better than us because they hold authority over people. Those people can also be sneaky and can change votes to be in favor of their choice of president. They will even take bribes sometimes just because they can even though us other people do count.

The system should not even be here today because it is outdated way past our time. ""It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolsi the electoral college!"" Plumer, Source 2 and many others do agree with this statement because it rather true that we do so instead of let a bunch of monkeys run our states and country, but I am pretty sure that sometimes they could even do a better job than those in office right now. "".....over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now"" Plumer, Source 2 every day as we continue that percentage continues to grow and that data was recorded in 2000.

Lastly, the electoral college is irrational like seriously what idiotic person came up with this. I will say this again, but a monkey could of made a better system than this. ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president........Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, soemtimes the presidential candidate themselves. Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. DO voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candiate? Sometimes"" Plumer, Source 2 I know this statement says it all because how could one simply not want popular vote after reading this.

I know that electoral college vote can help and not cause problems, but there are more problems while there is one easy fix which is popular vote. ""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational"" Plumer, Source 2.",0
0202ddf9,1,"The Electoral College has been kept for centuries, established by the founding fathers and established in the Constitution. I think that the process should be maintained so far, it has worked fine and I do not see any reason to rid of it. The Electoral College should be continued in use because there are at least five main scenarios in which it is helpful and reasonable.

In ways, the Electoral College could be dangerous to use unless you have electors that are completely faithful in their party, and do not take advantage of getting to choose where to place their vote. Basically, voters are voting for a slate of electors, who then elect the president. These electors can go against the people's majority votes and decide who to vote for. It could also be possible that a state sends two slates of electors to elect. If the election was a direct vote, there would be almost no chance for a tie to happen, but with the Electoral College, there is always that possibility. Some states do not even see the candidates because of the majority of the people living there belong to a single party, and the ""winnertakesall"" system completely affects this. If the election were to be a direct vote, the candidates might visit the states in order to gather as many votes as possible. However, many of these reasons that the Electoral college should be abolished are just one time things, so consider the other side of the argument.

Swing states basically decide the election and therefore, they are the most thoughtful voters. They know that they will be the ones to decide the election, so they pay more attention to the news, and the candidates campaigns. The swing states receive the most information and attention from the candidates. Since they will end up deciding, the candidates want them on their side. Many states are already predicted, even before the election, as a majority of them are from one party. These voters think the most about who they want to run our country and who will do the best in that position, so they should be granted the honor of making the decision.

Electoral votes help avoid runoff elections, by reducing the pressure that might complicate the election. Say that our government referred to the direct vote system, with a lesser system known as the Electoral College was for comparison, and during the presidential election, there happened to be a problem with the popular votes versus the Electoral College this complication could be avoided if we used the Electoral College. This has happened with nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992, when they both had only a 43 plurality of the popular votes but were winning in the Electoral College.

The Electoral College could be unwanted by many minority voters in states that leaned completely one way. These voters hardly pay attention during the campaign because they know that their vote will hardly make a diffference in their state, but a voter's vote could not swing a complete election, and not the full population voted in the 2012 election. Voters usually just like to express their preference and have it known than decide the vote that will make an election. It is more likely that your vote will count if you are educated in the happenings of the government, and maybe your vote can make a difference.",0
020a5d6d,1,"Dear senator, Retain the Electoral College. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors and a majority of 270 electors is is required to elect the President. Each state has hisher own electors which are chosen by the candidate political party. You should keep the Electoral College because you have certainty of outcome, and the President is everyones not just yours.

The first reason why you should stay with the Electoral College is because you are certain that the outcome will be in favor of one of the candidates. A tie in the nationwide electoral vote may happen but it is very unlikely that it will even though that 538number of electors in the Electoral College is a even numberS.3.For example in 2012's election, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral votes compared to 51.3 percent of the popular cast for him and rodney because all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis even a slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that stateS.3. However,because of the winnertakeall system in each state,candidates dont spend time in staes they know they have no chance of winning, they only focus on the close,tight races in the ""swing""statesS.2. But, the winning candidates share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote.

The second reason you should keep the Electoral College is because the president is everyone's. The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president by themselves. So for example,a solid regional favorite,such as rodney was in the South,has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states he knows for sure that he will winS.3.A president with only his regional apppeal is very unlikely to be a successful president. The residents of the other regions may feel like there votes dont count or that he really isnt there president.

In conclusion, you should stay with the Electoral College simply because you most likely not going to have a tie and because the president is everyone's.",0
037352a5,0,"""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Heidrun Walter source 1. For many years, people have depended on cars to take them places and allow them to live a normal life. However, the recent decline in driving and car sales has proven that there are many advantages to limiting car usage. Limiting car usage would help reduce the greenhouse effect, would help reduce smog and other lowair pollution, as well as helping promote aspects of the eeconomy which differ from purely car sales and transportation.

To begin with, the greenhouse effect, a large part of which is caused by cars and their emissions, is endangering not only our environments and ecosystems, but also life as we know it. According to source 1 In german Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars, passengers car are the cause of 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and also responsible for approximately 50% of emissions in certain parts of the US. Setting restrictions would allow for a decline in emission of greenhouse gases, which in turn would better life on Earth. Its effects could be seen all over the world, such as in global warming, rising oceans, etc. Therefore, limiting car usage would have a positive effect, because it would reduce the emission greenhouse gases.

Equally important, the presence of smog, pollutioncaused fog, and lowair pollution is also endangering the wellbeing of humans and other species health, as well as the wellbeing of the Earth, so to speak. According to source 2 Paris bans driving due to smog by Robert Duffer, ""After Days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" after setting restrictions for five days, Paris saw an improvement in air quality. We can thus infer that setting restrictions regularly would help reduce the pollution and general smog of the area. Placing restrictions would help promote various means of transportation, such as public transportation, bikes, walking, etc. An example would be the one from source 3 Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota in this case, a day during which a capital city places restrictions of the use of cars, helps build a campaign, which allows for bike paths, parks, and sport centers to be created and for sidewalks to be repaired. It has also led to restrictions to regulate rushhour traffic. Clearly, reducing and limiting car usage can not only reduce smog and lowair pollution, but can also help create a more active city.

Finally, limiting car usage may promote different aspects of the eeconomy. According to source 1, the transportation bills in the US budget have, in the past, been used, for the most part, for highways. Reducing car usage may allow for certain parts of the US budget to be used for more important and diverse things, such as education, government funding, community life, and many more. Also, limitations on car usage could help conserve resources, allowing people to place their money into different aspects of their lives, like it is explained in source 4. Moreover, the less people can use their cars, the less people will buy cars source 4: ""Demographic shifts in the driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate. There has been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39yearolds getting a license"". This will help people focus on rebuilding the economy. Obviously, there are economic advantages to limiting car usage, such as availability for flexibility in the government budget, conserving money, and the rebuilding of the eeconomy.

To conclude, there are various advantages to limiting car usage limitations may help improve the eeconomy, will help reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, and will help reduce the lowair pollution and smog often found in largely populated areas.",0
03a3377a,1,"Voting for a president is one of the most important decisions you can make. This person you vote for will be changing the country for better, or for worse. Electoral colleges are a way to see what each of the states want, although some people don't seem to like it. However, I believe it is a good way to see the majorities of the states, which will take account for the majority of the country.

Some people say that electoral colleges aren't a good way to determine which president is good for the country. They say that it's nondemocratic. source 3 However, you are still voting for the person you want. The people are still making a great contribution to the decision. Because in the big picture, your vote really does count. It's a lot better than not being able to contribute at all. Of course things can be better, but the thing is everything can be better in some way. Theres no such thing as something that can't be improved in some way. And there is obviously no way at all that you will be able to please everyone. So I think the electoral college is a good way to average up all the votes.

While there are a lot of variables in this system, it would be difficult to come up with a more solid way. The main complaint is that people think that this system is not a good way to show who the people really want. However, I think this is is not true. You are voting to get the electoral college votes for the president you think will do a better job guiding the country. Your vote truly does count. It adds more chance of the electoral college voting for your side. It shows that all the states are one, and the majority vote shows what side the people of the state want. And that seems like a nice idea to me.

Some of the counter arguments for electoral colleges is that the bigger states get more recognition. And this is true, but isn't that how it should be? Theres more people in the bigger states, so there will be more votes. However, they all count the same, so they don't really get any special advantage. The electoral college is a fair way to really show what the country wants, and some people don't like it, and I think this is a normal occurance.

The electoral college is a good way to show what all of the states want, by putting the majority vote into account to put electoral votes to show what president should be the leader of the country. There are admittedly some problems to it, but I think there would be even more problems with putting it to a popular individual vote. Every system has it's quirks, but overall, the electoral college is a great way to put all of the votes into account, and it's very more organized in the long run. It may not work for everyone, but honestly, nothing can.",0
03c28f3e,1,"dear senator, I have come to a conclusion on how I think the president and his candidates should be voted for. In one hand we've got the Electoral College, and the election by popular vote. These two thing have been around for hundreds of years but you've got to know if you prefer one or the other. So which one works better? Why do you prefer this one over the other?

The Electoral College, electors meeting and voting for our president and vice president. This electoral college consist of 538 electors that vote to for our president. I myself dont think this is a very sensible thing. Because when you think you're voting for the president you are actually voting for a state of electors who will in turn vote for the president not you. Why should there be a select few people out of the billions of people who live in america to vote for the president while we just sit and wait for the results. To only have their opinions voiced. Does'nt seem like a very fair way to elect someone who will be changing our country. This is a winnertakeallsystem.

Election by popular vote, this means you and I will be voting for the president and his cabinet ourselves. That we will have a say in who we want to change or even fix our country. Although the person we vote for may not win, we still got a say in what we believe would have made our country a better place. Although the Electoral College might give a more clear winner, if we know that our vote will actually have an effect in the election we might pay more attention to the election and vote more wisely. Knowing that we have voiced our preference rather than knowing maybe one single electoral vote might have set the election.

Now there are some benefits if the Electoral College. In the case of having a precise vote on who gets to be president is one. Also maybe the fact that you voted fo the people who will be electing the president in a way is just the same. However this does notmean that it is better than you just voting yourself. Because those are onlyabout the two thing that are evn remotely good about the Electoral College.

So when you decide who you want to be president think of how you would like your vote to be heard. through your own vote or maybepossibly through anothers vote. I know which system i would choose. Giving that it would give me more voicein the matter.",0
03cabe10,0,"Everyone wants to go to the park with their children or grandchildren, or maybe just take a nice walk. With the way we live now everything will be too polluted because alot of people drive cars and dont take the bus,walk, or carpool. Yes, people should limit their car usage. They should limit their uses because owning a car is expensive, it promotes the use of walking and public transportation, and it reduces smogpollution.

Owning a car is more expensive then you think. In a city such as Vauban in Germany that has only two places to park, a large parking garage, and a develment where the car owner needs to buy the spot for forty thousand dollars along with a home. In places like Bogota, Columbia on their national car free day all violaters will be fined twentyfive dollars. It may not seem like alot, but it all adds up at the end of the day. In places like Paris motorist with even numbered license plates receive a twentytwo euro fine 31, and the following day motorist with odd numbered plates received the same fine. Almost four thousand drivers were fined. those are just instances where fines have occurred, other expenses are gas. Some people who are wealthy and have money won't be impacted by this the same way an average family with three children will.

Most people take public transportation for granted. Imagine if we didn't have busses, trains, and subways. Imagine having to drive to New York City instead of the subway. It is not a pretty thought. In places like Bogota, Columbia that has a national day without cars people use public transportation or walk, unless they want a twentyfive dollar fine. According to Mayor Antanas Mockus "" The rain hasn't stopped people from participating."" Cities such as Cali and Valledupar have also done what Bogota has done, and Municipal authorities from other countries came to see the turnout, and they were enthusiastic. New York is promoting a bike sharing program that allows people to ride bikes through the city and return them at any location. ""me. Sivaks's son lives in San Francisco and has a car, but takes the Bay Area Rapid Transit when he can even though it often takes longer then driving."" Even though some people don't take public transportation beacuse they are too cool for it, they might just need to in order to save the place they live.

Have you ever wondered why you can hardly see the stars at night? It's not because they aren't there, but it is beacuse the smoke from the pollution and smog is covering the view. After days of nearrecord pollution Paris has enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of all the polution. Congestion of the smog only went down sixty percent in five days. The reason was of diesel fuel which is more used because france has a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. Places like Bogota, Columbia who have a day without cars have a day for pollution and smog to be reduced, and places like Vauban, Germany who only have cars on the main thoroughfare virtually have no smog or pollution beacuse they don't allow cars in homes. Even though it's a hassle to change everything to do it, but by just doing one thing a time they are helping the enviroment.

Now that we see and know that the people of Vauban, Germany live with no cars, and the people of Bogota, Columbia have a day with no cars. those places don't have as much pollution such as Paris who had to ban driving so they can reduce pollution. We know that in Vauban you can park the car for forty thousand dolalrs, or get fined for driving on the one day you are asked not to. All thoose reasons only promotes public transportation or walking. So yes, people should limit there use of cars because it is expensive, it promotes the use of walking and public transportation, and it reduces smogpollution.",0
03ed46ca,0,"There are many advantages to limiting car usage in our community. Other countries such as France, Germany, and Colombia are home to cities that are working towards cutting down the use of personal automobiles. Many of the people in these places find that using alternative transportation means proves to be less stressful. Studies even show that fewer Americans are purchasing cars for themselves. Now is the perfect time to join in with Vauban, Bogota, and New York and spend less time in our cars.

It may seem hard to believe, but in Germany, there's a suburban area where residents live without their own cars. According to ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, the streets of Vauban, Germany remain ""carfree"" aside from some public transport. The article states that ""70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here."". Heidrun Walter was quoted in the excerpt saying ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way..."" Communities in Europe and the United States are hoping to move towards this ""carfree"" lifestyle, in order to become less dependent on automobile usage and cut back on greenhouse gas emissions that damage the environment. We may see an increase in the number of ""smart planning"" areas across the globe. If a mass of citizens wish to lessen the amount of time they spend in their cars, it's possible, and the city can adapt to a more automobileless way of life.

Bogota, Columbia dedicates a day to transportation without the use of personal cars, where the city's goal is ""...to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog"". Many who visit Bogota during this time are impressed by the ""revolutionary change"" they see unfold before their eyes. Going ""carfree"" leads to more physical activity amongst residents and an overall nicerlooking community. ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky claims ""Parks and sports centers... have bloomed throughout the city... sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks... restaraunts and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."". Not only does the city reduce the amount of greenhouse gas it contributes to the atmosphere, but it results in a more active and betterlooking community.

What change would we see in our own community were we to follow in the footsteps of Bogota and Vauban? The United States is seeing a decrease of car ownership in the country. Less and less people are buying automoblies and obtaining driver's licenses. ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal says that ""...America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling."" The writer cites investment research company Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, which states ""...the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily thereafter..."" The country is already subconsciously moving towards a more carindependent lifestyle. The millenial generation seems to be the biggest contributor to this declined interest in carownership. With improved methods of communication by means of social media and cellphones, as well as more use of carpooling and public transportation, people are staving away from car commuting. While this may require a change within the automobile industry, many agree that this turning away from private car usage will see communities striving to be more time and energy efficient when it comes to transportation.

Limiting the use of cars can lead to a less polluted and stressful environment, more exerciseoriented and upscale communities, and the conservation of our natural resources. Cities around the world are working to become less cardependent, so that they may limit their contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Were our community to move towards this more ecofriendly, carfree way of life, we would not be alone.",0
03f7c6e9,1,"dear state senator, i believe that we should abolish the electoral college and just leave up to popular vote. The electoral college should be abolished because it is unfair, and it poses a threat to the U.S constitution.

The electoral college is unfair because it takes away the democratic way of society that our founding fathers set up. In the United States of America we leave it up to the people to vote but if the people of the united states vote someone in an he doesn get to run the country because the electoral college decided differently then we should not be called a democracy. For example in the 2000 election with Al Gore and Gorge W. Bush, the people of the united states voted for Al Gore, but due to the electoral college Bush won the election. in the passage The Indefensible Electoral College it says ""Over 60% of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" what does that tell you? more then half of the USA would prefer a people vote instead of both!

furthermore, I believe we should due away with the electoral college because it poses a threat to the U.S constitution. when i say this i mean it is a threat to the citizens of the USA. the people of the united states were thought to vote our president in? but if the majority of voters vote for someone an the other opponent wins then where is the democracy in that? also in the article The Indefensible Electoral College says ""oh what if a state sends two slates of electors to congress? it happened in hawaii in 1960. Luckily, vice president Richard Nixon, who was presiding over the senate, validated only his opponent's electors."" imagin if that happens again an someone doesn notice that? then there will be double slaters an there bound to vote for the same candidate so that will be an easy state to win for that candidate. The electoral college is nothing but problems.

In conclution, The electoral college should be abolished because it is unfair, and it poses a threat to the U.S constitution. You make your conclution based on this Mr.",0
04356693,0,"Transportation has become one of the largest emissions throughout the world, and many do not seem to wonder how beneficial limiting car usage can be. Not only does the release of fossil fuels harm the world, but the stress that comes with having a vehicle is immense. When considering ownership of a vehicle, one must think about the pros and cons of owning one, and realize that the limited pros... are not worth the cons.

Cars, trucks, and buses have many factors in common, but one in particular is hazardous to mother nature... fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are harming our territory, the place where life has been made possible, Earth. At the streak we are going, soon enough us humans, the domain species won't have a home due to the pollutants vehicles release killing the Ozone Layer. We have become accustomed to the abuse of transportation. Even when we are capable of walking or using a bike to a nearby location, we choose to use a vehicle instead of avoiding the damage that is caused. Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the city, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" Source 2 states. Their are many ways to distinguish transportation, but one very adequate description is ""a death wish"".

The stress that comes with the ownership of any transporting vehicle surpasses what anyone can bare! The economic standards one needs to posses is difficult. In, Vauban, Germany, one can have a car under the circumstances of paying 40,000 for a parking space, along with your home, source 1 explains. Your car needs to be fed in order to function, and it's food is quite pricey, especially when it hoards gallons of the substance! In addition, one needs to pay for insurance swell! Dangers in streets are not abnormal whatsoever, so the stressfulness that one has behind their back while driving is not enjoyable.",0
04827a9a,0,"We live in a world where the only way to get from place to place is to use a car. If we were to limit the amount of car usage all around the world we would be living in a much better place. Imagine how much pollution is going into the air as we use our cars, many people all around the world use their cars to get from their home to work or from work to home. All the pollution that is going into the air is affecting us and the way we live our everyday lives.

In the city of Bogota Columbia they have a ""Car Free Day."" This program is set to spread to other countries in the next few years. During the event of car free day millions of columbians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work or to their home. This caused the streets of the capital city to devoid all the traffic jams that they normally would have with the cars on the road. You would think the turnout would be extremely small for this event but no it was definitely not a small turnout. The turnout was large, despite gray clouds that occasionally dumped rain showers on Bogota. ""The rain hasnt stopped people from participating,"" said Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Imagine if the United states were to have a ""Car free day"" not many people would actually come and be apart of the event due to the fact that having cars is one of the most important things to have living in the United States.

In other countries or cities the people are worried about the air pollution that is going into our atmosphere. In the city of Paris, officials feel the same way about the citizens of there city using there car way to much and polluting the atmosphere. After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. Not many people agreed with this ban when it started. Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to reuters. Twenty Seven people had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine. Except there are some advantages to this ban, congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of france. But the smog rivaled Bejing, China, which is known as one of the most populated cities in the world. Having rules or banning certain things like a partial driving ban could have a good turnout or a really bad turnout with the citizens of that particular country or city.

However, some people may say that limiting car usage or banning certain things like driving won't help at all. They may state that banning something will make people rebel against it especially if it's with their car, and if that is how they get from place to place. Recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by.""Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a longterm curtural shift,"" said Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University. With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may find less reason the resume the habit. Poeple in the Untied States have begun to decrease the use of cars in every state which means that everyday our atmosphere becomes less polluted.

Living in a world where cars are everyone's number one priority is horrible. Using a car is one of the main reasons why our earth is extremely polluted. Limiting the amount of car use has it's negative side and it also has it's positive sides. Could you imagine what it would be like to have a nonpolluted earth or living a better life by using bikes, skates or even just walking to places would be like. Limiting car usage would be the best thing anyone could ever do to make the earth a better place.",0
04b11e85,0,"The long list of benefits that comes from limited car usage are mostly based on where you live and how much you do your part. Laws and restrictions have been arriving across the entire world to see the effects of having little or no automobiles in the community. Other countries that have an intense cloud of smog need to ban car use in the millions at a time to help settle down the atmosphere there.

Life without cars today can be very well described in Elisabeth Rosenthal's article In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars. In her article she describes how the community is shaped and condensed in order to make travelling to necessary places easy through walking or bike riding distance. This is the kind of turn around that the world needs as well. With the amount of pollution happening, this is a good experiment that will hopefully spread all over the planet.

The amount of pollution affecting certain cities across the world is getting rather out of hand. In Robert buffer's article Paris bans driving due to smog , he talks about the intense pollution over France's capital, resulting in the partial ban of almost of the amount of cars on the road at once. Those who violated the ban's rules were fined, and thousands of cars were impounded as well due the the reaction of citizens when they received the fine. In paragraph 14 of the article, Duffer states that "" Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France , after five days of intensifying smog."" The ban clearly worked, showing that it was indeed the heavy number of vehicles on the road all at once.

Programs all across the world have gotten people in the millions to find other methods of travel that did not cause any pollution. Columbia is a huge example as shown in Andrew Selsky's article Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota. In the article, Selsky specifies about how millions of Columbians have taken alternative modes of transport, whether it be hiking, biking, or skating as opposed to general driving. Even on account of rain, the citizens found ways to get about without using their cars. This is making Bogota a more human and social place as well, as Selsky states, "" Parks and sports centers have also bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks."" This event is happening for the good of the people and of the planet, and it seems like everyone is okay with that.

With the way our world is rapidly changing with a new generation and new technology, we are going to have to adapt from our old habits. Young adults are not seeing the full necessity of buying a vehicle when they can get to where they need to go by other means that are less expensive and less harmful to the environment. The need for everyone to have a car is slowly going down. It may never completely go away, but it is reducing greatly.",0
04da0c54,1,"The system of the Electoral College is a widely argued debate as to if it should be continued or if it should be gotten rid of. The electoral system shouldn't be used as a system of voting, who honestly wants to vote for someone who will vote for you, and if we are truly a state thats votes for its own president then why doesn't the popular vote count as the official vote?

The Electoral College is a system that is rather unfit as a system of the people's voting. When you vote for your president, you're really just voting for who you think should vote for them. The article ""Does the Electoral College Work?"" states, ""...when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for you candidate's electors."" The Constitution states that we are able to vote for our president, but then what do you call this? This is not an example of what America stands for, and this is certainly not the voting system that is described by our nation's properties. There is another issue with this violation of rights concerning our voting system, it's how the Electoral College votes and how dependable they are. The article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong."" talks about how you can't control who the electoral you chose vote for. ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always."" This statement helps prove that the president you may want may not even get you vote. The Electoral College not only takes away your right to assuringly vote for the president of your choice, but it also takes away right personal voting right as an American. Don't let someone else detain your freedom of speech, let you personal voice be heard by the people.

While the Electoral College may seem like a sure fire way to assure that we get a president, that doesn't really mean the majority wants that president. Think about it, we don't always get the president we voted for. Popular vote doesn't really matter, it's like saying you voice doesn't matter to the government. They took away the right as an American they gave you in the first place. Popular vote should replace the Electoral College. There have been instances where the popular vote reined supreme, but the Electoral College didn't agree. In the article, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" it mentions an election where Al Gore lost even though he won the popular vote. ""...according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency..."" This helps show the people that it seems our vote isn't what is truly important, it's only what the Electoral College does that makes a true impact on choosing of president for the next two years. It's even stated in the very same article that, ""...over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" If our vote truly matters then why not vote on keeping the Electoral College in play or getting rid of the flawed system once and for all.

The Electoral college is claimed to keep the voting system in line and prevent major mess, however this is not truly the case. There will still be flaws, but this is not the correct way to fix it. Listening strictly to the people's vote is what Amercia was built on and as an American I would like to see a change and let my voice be heard. If I want to vote I will vote, I don't want to vote on someone voting for me.

The Electoral College is unfair, unjust, and unamerican. The system takes away our right to vote for who we want not who we want to vote for us. If you are a true American you will understand why I know this is flawed. The Electoral College is not a proper way to handle our votes it must be a vote decided completely by the people of Amercia.",0
04effeb0,1,"Dear Senator, Many people might agree theat we shouldn't have an Electoral College at all, since most of thee time it doesn't seem to work at all since of instead just voting on thee person or candidate you would prefer, you instead vote for a slate of electors instead of thee preferred candidate. This is not thee case, however, and in fact, thee Electoral College does seem to function. It can be proven in two simple reasons on why thee Electoral College still works certainty of outcome and thee simple fact theat it's everyone's president.

Foremost, thee certainty of outcome can easily prove why thee Electoral College still works. If we even do go to a system where we actually vote for popular vote, it would work as well as we do right now withe thee Electoral College, since theere will be more disputes on popular vote thean on thee Electoral College. In Richard A. poster's article on thee defense for thee Electoral College, he states in his first reason on why theeir would be much dispute over popular vote thean on thee Electoral College, and why it's less likely to happen on a Electoral College. He states ""The reason is theat thee winning candidate's share of thee Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of thee popular vote."" It's true, after all theat thee Electoral College's votes exceed over thee popular votes. It could be also said theat even if thee government actually switches to popular vote, we know it would work since it does not exceed how on Electoral College votes go, which can be also seen as a simpler process of voting. On anotheer note, in some cases, theere can be ties between two candidates, as seen in 1992's Election between Nixon and Clinton on thee popular vote. To summarize, thee certainty of outcome is far greater in thee Electoral College ratheer thean thee popular vote due to sheer number of votes in thee Electoral College.

On a second note, thee fact theat thee american people can vote enough theat it's everyone's president is anotheer reason on why thee Electoral college does work. The Electoral College works by havng thee winner win transregionally ratheer thean just focus on just on region theat just favors theem and only theem. So instead of one region getting thee candidate theat prefers and focuses on only theem, everyone can have a candidate theat will focus largely on thee nation's issues ratheer thean just a specific part ot thee country. For example, let's say theat thee largest population of people in a regon in thee United States is thee southe not saying it is or isn't, it's just an example. The southe is mainly republican, so theey will only vote for a republican theat will focus majorly on thee southe. It is unfair for thee rest of thee regions, such as thee Northeeast, Middle, Pacific, and otheer regions of thee United States, since theey are mainly democratic not really, it is used as an example who would want focus on theeir region as well, too. In Bradford plumber's article on why thee Electoral College should be gone, he states theat thee electoral college is unfair to voters, since most candidates did not botheer withe thee states theey know theey have no chance of winning at all. There could be an easy counter argument against theis, since theose states have probably already made up theeir minds on who to vote for, like a democratic candidate visiting Texas where it's mainly republican, theey know who Texas is going to vote for, theere is no use in trying to convince theem when theey have already made up theeir minds, same goes if a republican candidate tries to convince thee democratic California, theey already know theere is no use in reasoning and convincing when someone has already made up theeir mind. Also, someone can easily counterattack most of thee arguments brought up in the plumber's article, since theis was written before thee 2004 election, and it has been a decade already, plenty of theings could've changed during thee course if ten years in politics. In order to make a greater argument against thee electoral college, one must have an updated list of facts in order to back it up, as certain theings could've changed during a certain course of a decade. During thee course of a decade, we seen how affective thee electoral college was during thee 2004 elections people who disagreed during thee 2004 elections and also agree theat thee electoral college doesn't work at all have to see thee events theat transpired before thee 2004 elections and thee promises made before it also, thee 2008 elections again, if thee people disagreed on how thee electoral college worked at theat time, you would need to look at how people saw change during theat time and thee amount of younger citizens voting at theat time, and thee 2012 elections as well also again, if disagreeing withe thee electoral college is reasonable at theat time, you would need to look at how people reacted at theat time and how different events before thee election affected thee outcome. In a final note, thee electoral college is thee vote on thee people's president is true, and witheholds it since it can focus on ratheer thean on one specific region, but thee nation as a whole.

In summarization, thee electoral college should be kept due to thee simple reasoning of certainty of outcome and thee voting on thee people's president. The reasoning of certainty of outcome can be applied here is due to thee simple fact theat thee votes for thee electoral college are far more greater thean thee votes for popular vote, same goes to thee voting on thee people's president, since it focuses on thee entire nation ratheer theat just one region of thee country. Senator, we should be able to keep our electoral college, as it proves effective during thee recent elections, and can certainly prove itself useful and reliable during thee next elections to come.",0
05072d8e,0,"In the old world, people didn have car's, they did everything on foot. They got food, ran errands, and just to get out of the house with the family. So how come now adays people are so dependent on their car's. Places around the world are implementing rules or laws now to stop people from abusing the car.

Since the car was invented it has always had the same issue, not the engine or the interior, but the environmental issue. And now that people around the world are realizing that, they have created rules and laws to ban or reduce the usage of cars. A community in Germany called Vauban have given up their car's to help the environment, and people love it. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter, a mother of two.

Paris ""The Love City"" in France has Banned cars because of the high amount of smog it creates. After the law was placed, only after five days, congestion was down 60 percent.

Paris has the most smog compared to any other European capitals, they had to do this or the smog would take over the city. And since the ban has been posted, smog has been clearing and is now much more limited in the area.

Major cities like New York were built in a narrow way, so its more congested when too many people are driving, and the buildings are much closer together so its more continent to walk or bike to places rather than drive. New York has implemented a new bikesharing program, and it is a hit. And around the nation a similar program is the carsharing program. It encourages people about car pulling, it is when multiple people go to work or school in the same car, it puts less cars on the road and has plentiful benefits. Like less carbon dioxide in the air, less traffic, and saves on gas money.

Bill Ford, an executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, pitched a plan to live in a world that owning a personal car was impractical. He proposed to partnering with telecommunications industry to make a city or many where the ""pedestrians, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emission and improve safety."" Banning cars around the world isn't a solution because they are more continent than taking a train or walking, but their needs to be a cut down on the amount we use a car, we abuse it. Eventually all the greenhouse gases might end up destroying the planet we live on. But their are solutions, implementing a world day were we dont use cars would help tremendusly, their are other means of getting around other than car. For example Biking is a great form of excersice and will get you to were you need to be faster than walking, while getting in shape at the same time.",0
05615b6c,1,".

The Electoral College is a very controversial topic when it comes to electing a president. Many people think it's a system that works fine, while others think it's a complete disaster. When it comes down to it, the Electoral College is a compromise between electing a president through congress and electing president by popular vote. In the past the Electoral College has caused problems in presidential elections and it can easily cause more problems that are much more severe than what we've seen in the past. America is all about democracy, so why don't the citizens get complete control by being able to elect their president directly? It's about time that the government finds a system that works better and gets rid of the Electoral College once and for all.

The electoral College has many flaws, a major one being that voters don't actually vote for their president, they vote for electors, and the electors are the ones who elect the president. You may ask yourself, ""What's wrong with this? One way or another we're still choosing the candidate we want."" While that is somewhat true, the system has many kinks that need to be fixed causing errors in the process. One example of this is the ""winner takes all"" rule. An excerpt from ""The Indefensible Electoral College"" says ""... the electoral college is unfair to voters. because of the winner take all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states"". At a basic level, this means candidates will only focus on some states, and giving up on others. In fact, the same article also says ""During the 2000 campaign 17 states didn't see the candidates at all..."" The facts prove it it, the Electoral College is a flawed, and unfair system, and it needs to be dealt with.

Another huge problem with the Electoral College is called ""the disaster factor"". According to Bradford Plumer, "" The American poeple should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse."" Plumer then explains how in Louisiana the legislature almost replaced the democratic candidates with some who opposed John F. Kennedy so that the popular vote wouldn't go to him, but rather someone else. This is a fine example of how corrupt this system can become if someone actually manages to pull something like this off. Other problems like a state sending two slates of electors to congress, or a tie in the electoral vote can happen, and there are some solutions to these problems, but why even go through them when a new system can be created altogether?

People like Richard A. Posner argue that we should keep the Electoral college. Posner believes that the Electoral College balances the weight between big and small states. The Electoral College gives big states less electoral votes and smaller states more to balance things out. I don't see this as balancing anything. Now the smaller states have an advantage over the bigger states, so you still have the same problem you began with. Posner also argues that voters in toss up states are more likely to pay attention to campaigns, but Plumer clearly contradicts this in his article. He states ""... seventeen states didn't see the campaign at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't see a single campaign ad."" The proof is irrefutable, the Electoral College has it's loop holes which seem fairly easy to get through. The system is outdated, it's time for a new system to take its spot.

I stand my ground when I say the Electoral College should ber abolished. The people should have full control over the election of our president, and even if that's not possible, the system is very corrupt. While some still agrue that the Electoral College is working fine, the proof shows it isn't. It either needs to be renewed or replaced altogether.",0
05665390,1,"Dear Florida State Senator, Although many could argue that the Electoral College is a fair system of deciding the president, far too many people consider it nondemocratic and inefficient for it it continue being our way of electing our leader. A new system of election must be created to make up for the pitfalls that are inevitable in the Electoral College. A country that is supposed to be a democracy does not have the voting system that such a proud democracy deserves.

Defenders of the College may say that the possibility of a tie is very low or that the electors chosen are confirmed not to betray the wants of the voters, but just because the possibility is low does not mean you can simply allow the flaws in the voting system to exist. A small hole in a fabric can only grow bigger, and the same goes for our electoral college. If we can't repair or replace the fabric that is our Electoral College, soon there will be problems too big for us to deal with in our current state. The electoral voters may keep the public in mind for now, but there have already been cases where electoral voters put their own wants ahead of the public.

One thing that the Electoral College does not promote is the power in the hands of the people. Although people can vote for whatever candidate they want, the elector is the real deciding hand in the process of picking our president. If one wanted to, an elector can completely disregard the decision of the voters and choose who they want. Considering the ratio of electors in some states to people, it seems completely nondemocratic for the votes of some to be more important than the wants of the common people. Some start to feel that they shouldn't vote because their one vote wouldn't have the power to change anything, and wouldn't even ensure the election of the president they want. Another thing that lowers the morale is the absence of candidates in states that can't be won very easily. If a candidate is pretty sure he can't win over a state, he won't visit it because it wouldn't be worth his time. He also wil prioritize large states over small ones because they have more electoral votes. All of these can make a state or person feel as if the election isn't really in their hands, and when people feel like their vote doesn't matter, they don't vote.

Besides the power it takes away from the common man, some could say that the system itself is very inefficient compared to what it could be. Even though it has a very low possibility, the fact is that a tie is possible due to the electoral college having an even number of votes. It would then go to the House of Representatives, who might not even have the want of the people in mind. Since most of the time Congress has a party that makes up a majority of it, it would be very unfair to allow them to pick the president. It's also possible that even if a majority of the people vote for a president, the electoral votes elect the other candidate instead, like what happened to Al Gore in 2000. An election like this just has too many holes and pitfalls to be efficient. The holes need to be repaired before we can actually use this as our primary way to select a president, or else we're setting ourselves up to have problems in the future.

The Electoral College may be functional, but is largely inefficient and is not in the best interest of the common people. The vote for a candidate is not even in the hands in the people, but rather a minority of chosen electors. In a country that prides itself on the power the people have, and the control they have on how their country is run, the people have surprisingly less influence than you would think. We as a people need to speak up against the overrated system that is the Electoral College, and develop a system that fits the needs of a true democracy like America should be.",0
059c1332,0,"Thousands of people around the world use cars. It's an allaround good mode of transportation. Unfortunately, the fumes that cars emit are harmful for the environment. There are ways to limit car usage. Limiting car usage has many benefits such us the decrease in greenhouse house gas, the decrease in smog, and resources are conserved.

First off, reducing the usage of cars can cut the amount of greenhouse gas produced dramatically. One can easily cut down on car usage by using other means of transportation such as : riding bike, riding the train, and plain walking. Greenhouse gas emissions are very harmful and are mostly caused by car emissions. Around fifty percent of passenger cars are responsible for these gasses source 1. If we limit car usage we can promote a healthier environment.

Additionally, reducing car usage also cuts down smog. Smog is another deadly gas that isnt just dangerous to the environment, but also to us. Smog is polluted air which can cause sickness. Many cities around the world are increasing in smog due to the overusage of cars. For example Paris almost broke the record for polluted air, which is held by China, one of the most polluted cities in the world source 2. If we reduce the usage of cars, we promote cleaner air for ourselves. Just by limiting the car usage for five days in Paris, the smog went down sixty percent source 2. The advantage of limiting car usage would be cleaner air.

Finally, limiting car usage is beneficial because it conserves resources. If we dont rely on cars, we could make cities more compact source 1. Therefore reducing the amount of land destroyed to build malls, highways, and houses. This would save tons of resources that were going to be used on building and natural resources source 4. Limiting car usage would improve life all around.

All in all, the limit on car usage would benefit the environment, it would benefit our health, and it would aid the conservation of resources.",0
062d11db,1,"Although numerous amounts of people want to banish the Electoral College, there are more rights than wrongs about it. The Electoral College is in the Constitution for an enormous reason it is a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and popular vote of qualified citizens. This process allows for the people of the nation to have a say and for the elected people of each state to speak even louder for their state. The Electoral College is despised, yet it is the smartest way on how to elect the President.

The Electoral College requires for a president to have transregional appeal. For example, rodney was a solid favorite in the South, but he cannot win with only the votes from the South because no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. While rodney did not have to campaign much for the South, he had to campaign very heavily in the North to increase his chances of election in those states. This is an amazing result because the people want a president that is liked throughout the nation, so while he is president he can be a hugely successful one. candidates mainly focus on swing states, and dont have a lot of time for states they know they are going to win or lose however, voters in swing states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign knowing they are the ones to decide the election. These voters in swing states are averagely the most thoughtful voters, and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election.

Furthermore, the Electoral College should be kept because it almost always goes in favor of the people. Even though in the 2000 election Al Gore got the popular vote but George W. Busch won the electoral votes, that has not happened since 1888! The party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed. Many people want to change the election for the President to popular vote, but it would be more likely to have a dispute over the popular vote than in the electoral college. Also, there could be a tie in the nationwide electoral vote because the total number of votes is an even number, but it is tremendously unlikely given that there has never been a tie. Also, the Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no canidate receives a majority of the voter's cast.

The Electoral College can be argued to repel potential voters for a canidate who has no hope of carrying their state, for example, republicans in California on the other hand, every voter's vote plays a big part to their state's electoral vote. Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election. The Electoral College has worked for more than a century and will keep on working if the people of the nation agree to work with it.",0
06830415,0,"There are many different things that you could do to help out the ecosystem, and reducing your car use is certainly one of them. A study conducted in Europe shows that 12% of greenhouse gas emissions are the result of passenger car overuse. But of course as humans we are bound to resist and not give up things that make our lives easier. Yet there are many alternatives to not driving a car, for example car pool, have family members pick you up, buses, trains, taxis, bikes, etc. As you can see is not a matter of lack of alternatives but a lack of interest in helping out nature and everything that it helps support.

A very important way in which car usage affects our lives is pollution, many places around the world are trying to impose taxes and fines in order to keep people from overrelying on their cars. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"", things like this are quite obviously why the ecosystem is not at it's worst yet. One of the most polluted cities in the world Beijing competition for Paris until law enforcers stepped in to resolve the issue. Another city fighting pollution caused by car use is Bogota, who has once again banned it's over 7.2 million population from using their cars on the ""Day Without Cars"" event. The Day Without Cars is an event that if not followed could be penalize citizens most likely monetary fines of around 25 dollars, although some were even arrested for not complying with this method. Described by Andrew Selsky as a ""program set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during this car free day"". Not only is this helping out the rest of the world is bringing people closer as more people go to parks, sport centers and spend time together.

With more bans and restrictions on car usage of course the car usage is destined to decrease but although it might sound terrible it could actually lead to healthier lives. With less cars on the road the air you are breathing will be more pure and healthy and less polluted. More people will have to walk which will decrease heart problems, obesity and other diseases all over the world. If people don't buy cars then companies like Ford, Toyota, Honda and more will make less money and some might run out of business but that will not happen since most people are not ready to make a commitment such as giving up your car. But if cars are not being purchased then they will stop being produced which can lead to a better economy since the government won't be spending billions on gas, diesel and such. Apparently the amount of miles driven by a person yearly has decreased over the last couple of years which has led sociologists to believe that if this pattern persists it will have many beneficial implications for the environment, even though it could have negative implications for car industries as i stated before.

Car usage will decrease since people are driving less and less every year and young people are buying less cars according to a study in 2013 that found that ""driving by young people decreased 23% between 2001 and 2009"". Even though many experts can't be sure yet, the drop in sales and decrease in usage has led many to believe that the U.S. has already peaked in miles driven and possibly car sales. There is no accurate way of predicting whether this will bring completely positive or completely negative consequences. President Obama's ambitious goals to change the greenhouse gas emissions has proven to shift or change the way people act as recent studies show that ""Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by"".",0
06a1ad90,1,"Dear Senator, The Electoral College as controversial as it is can be a very simple choice to either keep it as it is, or to change the voting process to a popular vote process that in which the people vote directly for the President of their choosing. I believe that you should consider changing the Electoral College to a Popular vote voting process for reasons such as, the fact that only ""one half of Americans are voting"" because they do not believe that their vote will count in states such as California and Texas because the voters do not believe that the candidate will carry their state anywhereIn Defense of the Electoral College section 23. Another reason is because of the winnertakeall system the candidates will not campaign as much in states they think they will win over without going there and they focus on the ""swing states"" instead.

Senator, one of the reasons that I believe you should consider changing to the Popular Vote process is because ""only one half of the eligible American population voted in the 2012 election""In Defense of the Electoral College section 23 for reasons I believe is that they do not think that the candidate running will go somewhere with their state and the fact that they do not think their votes will actually count towards the President that they would like to win. Also the fact that segreagationists will try and corrupt the voting process in the Electoral College, i. e. When John F. Kennedy was running for President segregationists tried to replace Democratic Electors with other electors to try and go against Kennedy therefore giving the opponent the upper handThe Indefensible Electoral College Section 11.

Senator, on the contrary I would understand why you would like to keep the Electoral College because of it being a set compromise that the founding fathers created, making voting equal by letting ""qualified citizens in congress"" have the last word into the decision What is the Electoral College Section 1. In a way I see how you would think that the Electoral College is a fair system because the people are still choosing somewhat who the Electoral College elects and the fact that anachronism is a factor that plays into the Electoral College greatlyIn Defense of the Electoral College Section 15. The Electors elected should be trusted truthful people and they are to vote for the nominee in honest fact of who got the most electoral votesIn Defense of the Electoral College Section 16 but sometimes even if the electoral votes are calculated and are higher the popular vote could be higher than the electoral vote even if its a rare occuranceIn Defense of the Electoral College Section 16.

Senator, as you see both sides of this controversy you could also see that the Winnertakeall method is all in all unfair. In the winnertakeall method the candidates that are in the election will take more time to go to the bigger states and try and have ads for their campaign posted in there and not in the littler states they believe they will win without campaigning there. The candidates will focus even more on the ""swing states"" because they believe they will have more luck in those states than the other smaller states. ""Seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't see a single campaign ad""What is wrong with the Electoral College Section 13 this fact goes to show that the candidates would rather focus more on the larger states and ""swing states"" than go to the smaller states this makes those smaller states less encouraged to vote because the candidates don't even bother to come to them to campaign.

Senator, in the end I strongly believe that you should think about changing the Electoral College to a Popular Vote process because it will give the voters an incentive for them to vote, for them to decide who wins and who will run their state or country. Power to the People has always been a great thought to keep running around in your brain for me.",0
06ee2a22,0,"In the generation we are living in today cars are a huge part of our everyday lives. Whether it's going to schoolwork, hanging with friends or anywhere really people rely on their cars for everything and you never hear anyone talk about walking, biking and taking another way of transportation. It's whole new era with how are society is created and working but it's how we are living, and it seems to be working. Elisabeth Rosenthal, Robert Duffer, and Andrew Selsky all have the same mindset when talking about cars while each are talking about a different reason to decrease car usage, they all have a common interest in wanting it to be implied or simply like how it is being enforced. So after reading very specific, factual, and information articles I now know the advantages of limiting car usage and that is to save time and businesses, conserve resources, and having a vast decrease in car culture.

Imagine yourself on a bad morning, you woke you late and you're probably rushing out the door for work, and as a fellow American I would know that there is early morning traffic no matter where you are headed. But if you didn't use a car and maybe walked or rode a bike you could easily get there faster if it was a reasonable distance. ""In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets fo this capital city eerily to devoid of traffic jams"" Selsky, par 20. This goes to show that when people took other steps to get to work instead of cars that there was no traffic jams. Which means no waitng which also means getting to work at a normal time, or for some, even on time. When you think about it you know that the roads can be a really busy and hetic place to be if you time it just right, so if you take the extra measure and maybe walk home you can easily make faster time and not just that but it helps the environment. Now another advantage of not using cars is businesses start to flourish. ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rush hour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"" Selsky, par 28. Since many people have decided not to use their cars they walk or bike and that can lead to going to places near by which would mean they see more of their city than they did in a car. More eyes are to catch businesses and they find themselves walking into a store because they aren't rushed andor it might just look intersting which is a huge benefit for companies.

Secondly, another advantage on limiting car usage would be conserving resources. This is a very major step when it comes to the environment and things like these should be enforced for a greener Earth. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" Rosenthal, par 5. This is damaging our Earth and the only to prevent it is to limit your car use. Because how it's happening and how it's polluting our Earth is from the cars tailpipes when it releases the exhaust. Due to this hazardly problem laws are starting to be made to limit the use. Towns and cities have tried to come up with a nodriving day to decrease the use and help the environment, and in many cases it has worked while in some, it hasn't. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"" Duffer, par 10. In effect to this 'experiment' it is shown that this way of thinking had changed Paris pollution decreased and congestion in traffic was down and the smog that was being created by cars had stopped the next couple of days. It's unbelievable to know what can happen when you limit yourself.

Finally, it is clear that there is a decrease in car culture. There have been recent studies that imply that more Americans aren't driving or just plain out don't want to get their licenses. ""A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009..."" Rosenthal, par 41. We aren't really understanding as to why this is happening. Maybe it's because they are afraid of getting a ticket, their parents haven't allowed it, they are against pollution it's not known. But what we do know is that yes, it's saving the environment but it's hurting the car businesses. ""If the pattern presists and many sociologists believe it will have a beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emission, just behind power plants"" Rosenthal, par 34. Yes, this is going to increasingly better our enivornment by not having more cars on the road to pollute, but it will for sure hurt the car industry. Not many people even have the money to go out a buy a car in this economy. And from the car businesses in ruins, some are even rebranding themselves. The change in car culture is known for much less commuting due to technology as well.

Lastly, a reminder of the advantages in limiting car usage are saving time and businesses, conserving resources and a decrease in car culture. So when you're on the road, start thinking about ways to stop your use of cars and see how it would benefit the environment cause the more we drive around the worse our Earth will become.",0
06f90bea,1,"We should keep the Electoral College for a number of reasons. While it is usually thought of as ""out of place"", it is the fairest method in voting for our President. The Electoral College, first of all, the outcome of the Electoral vote is less likely to cause a dispute than the popular vote. Second, avoids the problem of RunOff Elections. Last, the Electoral College helps balance the political weight for large states by population. We need the Electoral College so not create any problems.

The outcome of the Electoral College vote is less likely to cause a dispute than the popular vote. The number of electoral votes a candidate gets usually exceeds his popular vote. For example, ""Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent on the popular votes cast for him and rodney."" Since most of the states have a ""winnertakeall"" system, its easier to determine which candidate gets the electoral vote if there is a plurality in the state. A tie in the electoral vote is possible, but not very likely, even if the total is an even number. Voting based on the popular vote would just cause more problems than we would like to deal with.

RunOff Elections are avoided because of the Electoral College. RunOff elections are elections that are caused when neither candidate receives a majority of the votes given. As the article states, ""Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College 301 and 370 Electoral Votes"". The Electoral College clearly shows who wins without any complications that would create pressure for runOff Elections. We are releived of this pressure because we have the Electoral College.

Finally, the Electoral College helps balance the weight that large states lose because of I urge this country to continue with the Electoral College as it always has! There may be better methods out there, but the Electoral College is the best system we have right now.",0
07384ce9,0,"I beam, flashing a smile towards the camera of my mom's iPhone. In my hand, I grip a fourbythree inch square of plastic that, in my perspective, is synonymous with freedom. It's the moment every kid dreams about, lying bellydown on the kitchen floor and pushing a Barbie jeep around their mother's feet as she labors away at the stove, the stark scent of garlic filling their little noses. Finally, I got my driver's license! While definitely a defining moment of adolescence, most teenagers refuse to acknowledge the degrading qualities of driving. Limiting car usage has a multitude of benefits, such as decreasing air pollution and improving the health and quality of life of the world's people.

As a new driver, there is nothing I despise more than waking up to severe smog, squinting as I corral my vehicle down blurred roadways en route to school. By utilizing my own vehicle, however, I am adding to the problem. Smog and other forms of unaesthetic air pollution are caused in part by the greenhouse gas emissions from cars tailpipe. In the United States, passenger cars are responsible for up to 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. Source 1 Another large percentage of these emissions comes from the inefficient, energywasting, carbonspewing processes required to create gasoline and diesel fuel. Essentially, we emit large amounts of greenhouse gases to produce fuel for our vehicles which, in turn, release more greenhouse gases. As an AP Environmental Science student, I know better than anyone the degrading results of excessive greenhouse gases. As these particles accumulate in the atmosphere, light from the sun, including harmful ultraviolet rays, stays trapped in our planet, causing a gradual rise in average temperature. This process is known as global warming. Besides being dangerous to our planet, air pollution is unappealing visualy to all inhabitants of Earth. Smog once reached such high levels in Paris, the capital of France, that a partial driving ban was placed on the city to purify the air. After one day of diminishing the number of cars on the roads by 50%, the smog had cleared enough for civilians to continue their daily activities. Source 2 The grotesque images associated with smog can harm Paris' economy tourists want to view the Palace of Versailles with a tear in their eye from its beauty, not from the sting of air pollutants.

Limiting car usage also has a variety of physical and psycological benefits that improve the health of earth's people. For example, a suburban community in Germany, known as Vauban, has gone completely carfree. 57% of Vauban's residents sold a car to move in and, so far, the majority of them seem to be enjoying the benefits. Heidrun Walker, a media trainer and mother of two, is one of them. ""When I had a car, I was always tense,"" she said, ""I'm much happier this way."" Source 1 Walker's statement shows the improved psychological wellbeing of those who do not rely on cars for the majority of their transportation. Decreased reliance on motor vehicles can also improve the physical health of humanity. Without personalized vehicles for transportation, many people will walk, jog, bike, or skate to their various destinations. Such a phenomenon occurs annually in Bogota, the capital of Columbia. Every year, they host a ""Day Without Cars"", during which Columbians rely on their own two feet to move about their sprawling city. Source 3 Physical activities such as walking have a variety of benefits, including increased cardiovascular health. If more countries hosted events similar to Bogota's ""Day Without Cars"", emergency rooms may find they have less clogged arteries to deal with.

Limiting car usage has many pros, including decreased air pollution and increased mental and physical wellbeing of the world's people. The next time you unlock your car to drive two minutes to your friend's house, stop and consider the consequences of your actions. Consider the health of yourself and your planet, and try walking instead.",0
07433107,1,"Voting. Voting is a pretty big deal that only comes around so many years. And with voting the citizens of the U.S. have a voice. And also the voting method in which the president is elected by popular votes is just fine and it should be the only way people vote for their president. No one else should vote for them. The people have the right to choose who ever they want. And no one has the right to vote for any other person but them. The popular is just fine because first of all the popular vote for president method is more fair than the electoral college voting method. Secondly, the popular vote for president is less complicated, where as the electoral college can cause complications and problems.

To start off, the popular vote for president is more fair than the electoral college. First, there really is no way of cheating in the popular vote method because people vote once for whom ever they want to be president out of the people elected and then the president is chosen that way. The popular votes method is more fair because candidates spend a little time in every if not majority of the states, depending on how much time they have. But as stated in the article written by Bradford Plumer in the electoral college voting method ""candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states."" That is not fair every state should be able to see the candidates who are going to be serving the country and see what they are like and how they can help the country. And this has happened before where the candidates didn't even bother showing up in some of the states. One example would be as stated in the article By Bradford Plumer ""during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" Now how on earth can people vote for their new president if they have absoloutley no idea of what the president is capable of doing to help or even hurt the country.

Next, the popular vote for president is less complicated, unlike the electoral college where complications, problems, and just a big mess could happen. With the popular vote it is pretty straight forward and simple. The people vote for whom ever they want to be their next president and serve the country, the votes get counted up and whoever has the most votes gets to be the new president. But with the electoral college if a tie had occured as stated in the article written by Bradford Plumer ""the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president.The Senate would choose the vicepresident. Because each state casts only one vote, the single from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters."" Now that sure seems to be complicated. Just one vote represents 500,000 or 35 million voters. The popular vote method is a lot more simple it doesn't require all of these steps. With the popular vote everyone votes and the majority of the votes is the winner, as simple as that. It doesn't require going to the representatives who vote for themselves and a whole bunch of other people as well.

In conclusion, the popular vote method is better because it is more fair. It gives people a voice to choose for whom ever they want not what anybody else wants. Also, the popular vote method is a whole lot less complicated than the electoral college. Where if there is a tie the representatives vote for themselves and are also representing thousands of other people who may or may not want that specific candidate to be president. So voting is no joke it is serious and it shouldn't be taken as a joke either. Every person should have a voice they should be able to vote for who ever they desire. No one else should be able to vote for them, not even the representatives. Voting is no joke.",0
079e747c,1,"The Electoral College is a very useful and easy was of voting. According to thee article ""What Is thee Electoral College"" by thee Office of thee Federal Register, ""The Electoral College process consists of thee selection of the electors, thee meeting of thee electors where theey vote for President and Vice President, and thee counting of thee electoral votes by Congress."" Basically we vote for our electors which theen theey vote for thee President which seem to be working just fine why change it?

There are many resons why people are in favor of changing thee Electoral College for popular vote. In thee article ""Why even thee bestlaid defenses of thee system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer he asks ""Can voters control whom theeir electors vote for?"" Then answers himself withe ""Not always."" This may be true but voters do get to vote for theier electors and it is thee voters job to vote for thee one theey believe will choose thee right president. The people need to put faithe in theier electors, and even if thee Electoral College was changed to popular vote theey would have to vote for thee president and put faithe in him or her to make thee right decisions for theem, is theey same basic theing but having electors are just anotheer step.

""The Electoral College restores some of thee weight in thee political balance theat large states by population lose by virtue of thee malapportionment of thee Senate decreed in thee Constitution"" This was stated in thee article "" Five reasons to keep our despised metheod of choosing thee President"" by Richard A. Posner. This is a very good point he made, thee larger states get more attention thean thee smaller states when it comes to popular voting in presidential elections because theey have a much larger population giving theem more votes.

When it comes to popular voting theere have been times where no candidate has a majority cast of votes and thee Electoral College Prevents theat problem. In 1968 Nixon received 43 percent plurality or more votes thean thee otheer candidates but still not receving a clear majority of votes in thee popular votes same withe Clinton in 1992 but theey bothe won majority in thee electoral College, so theere was no need for and runoff election.

I believe theat we shouldn't change thee Electoral College for popular votes thee way we arevoting now is working just fine and it makes it so larger states like Texas don't get more of an impact on thee election because of theier population thean smaller states like Rhode Island. Also thee Electoral College prevents Runoff elections. Even theough some believe thee Electoral College as an anachronism I theink theat thee Electoral College is still a good way of voting.",0
07a44007,1,"""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best. It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college!"" ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"". Most supporters of the Electoral College don't understand that electors are not always honest, just because people vote for the elector that is for the presidential candidate they favor of doesn't garentee the electors vote. ""What have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO all, in their time, agreed on? Answer: Abolishing the electoral College!"" ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"". People want to eliminate The Electoral College, and change to election for President of the United States to election by the popular vote. The public is not voting for their presidential candidate, they are voting for the foisting electors, and in the case of a tie, the House Of Representatives are thrown the election, where people are not proportionally represented.

Furthermore, voting for electors is not the same as voting for the presidential candidate. ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes"" ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"". This process called ""The Electoral College"" is faulty and not efficacious people are constantly deceived that they are voting for the presidential candidate, but as shown this is not always true. Not to omit anything, voters don't choose who the electors are, so who can garentee their loyalty, honesty, and the fulfillment of the will of the people. ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. so that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy."" ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"". The deception and deferment can not be more evident and clear. The Electoral College is not a stable foundation to rely our country on. ""In the same vein, ""faithless"" electors have occasionally refuse to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please..."" ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"". Their deferment and inevitable deception is clear and pellucid The Electoral College should not be trusted! The people should vote!

In continuation, in the case of a tie in electoral votes the House of Representative would be responsible for choosing the president and vice president, but their method is just as outrageous as The Electoral College. ""Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters"" ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"". In what world in this sensible, sane, or intellegent? Well, it seems this ubsurd representation can be found on a planet called Earth, whose inhabitants claim to be intellectual beings. ""Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people. And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In 1968 a shift of just 41,971 voters would have deadlocked the election In 1976, a tie would have occured if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The election is only a few swing voters away from a castastrophe"" ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"". People are told that ""voting makes a difference"", but with all these false representations, can people continue to say this without becoming a liar themselves. With all these holes in the ship, howcome The Electoral College hasn't sunken yet. The majority is in favor of switching the process of election for President of the United States to election by the popular vote.

To conclude, the transition from ""The Electoral College"" to election by the popular vote for the President of the United States would be the best thing for this beloved country. Voting for electors is not the same as voting for the desired candidate, and in the case of a tie the House of Represenatives unproportionally represent the will and voice of the people. Voters should be allowed to vote and be represented justly, and not defied and deceived into voting incorrectly or indirectly. Let the people be heard, when they chant in unicen: ""Let us Vote"". The president who says he is ""For the people"" should be chosen ""By the people"".",0
07de4af7,0,"In the following ideas and information passage set we see the effects of using cars too much and how limiting our car use can have a huge impact on, not only our environment, but also on cities on people. Limiting our car usage isn't only a thing that the United States has to work on, but we see that Central America and Europe also has to work on it. Limiting our car usage isn't a small issue, but more of a global issue. Over the years we have seen the effects of global warming something cause by fossil fuels, which is gas coming from our cars and how they have had an enormous impact on our world. So, why is liming our car usage even remotely important to us?

In the second article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", paragraph 10, the first thing it says is ""After days of nearrecord pollution.."", well, what does this say about how we're living today? Paris so close to to being on record breaking pollution, not that it's anything to be proud of. But, if that's how much pollution Paris has, which is a famous city for not only being the ""City of Love"", but for also being big, how will every other city's pollution be? Cities have been growing and expanding so much recently, factories are being built and more cars are being sold, how will this help limiting our car usage? If cities keep expanding, we'll just be adding to the pollution that already exists. After a couple decades all the issues we seem to be ignoring will come up and if the problems are bad now, how bad will they be in the future? This isn't just something we can ignore!

Like David Goldberg says in paragraph seven in ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" ""All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car.."". Why have we been focusing more on a car than on health and medicine and cures for some illnesses? Why is a car so important? Yes it makes going to places much more easier and quicker, but at what cost will we go to to make things easier on us? It isn't jsut about the pollution caused from our cr usage, but it's also about our health. There are fewer and fewer parks by the year because we'd rather have all our tax money go towards roads instead parks. More malls are opening up and more fast food places are opening up on big interstates and highways, and now all we really have to being close to nature is when we pass by the trees near the interstates and highways. We need trees in order to have oxygen, but if all this pollution is slowly killing trees, how much more time do we have left before we realize it's too late to try saving our trees and limiting our car usage? Back then no one really worried much about limiting our car usage and pollution, because it wasn't that bad. Now all you ever really hear is about pollution and how to stop it.

Even though we really have got to start limiting our car usage, there is still hope in lowering and or even stopping pollution. We could start off small, for instance, by having a day where no one is allowed to drive their cars to places or be fined if you do drive, like Bogota, Colombia does in ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"". It must've had a positive effect because it encouraged Cali and Valledupar, two other Colombian cities, to participate in the event as well.",0
07e8e63b,0,"I was very excited about my first trip to the West Coast California that I took last summer. It was a place Ive always fantasized over because of its variety of beauty from the surfing beaches to the skiing mountains to the north. When I first landed in LA, I expected some hustle and bustle of the city like Miami, but it was overwhelming to see the smog and traffic that polluted many peoples views of California, along with the air. Unfortunately, this is the case in many car intensive cities across the globe where limiting car usage would go a great deal farther than people actually know. The advantages of limiting car usage would allow for cleaner cities with less air pollution, and provide safety for pedestrians and even other carusers.

According to source 1 on carfree cities, Elizabeth Rosenthal states ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in carintensive areas of the United States"" Rosenthal, paragraph 5. This stat only presents part of the problem as the commercial and delivery industry add to that figure as well. Limiting car usage across the world is becoming more and more popular, as people finally come to realize the devastating effects of the greenhouse gas emissions on the atmosphere. Projects in places like France, Colombia, the United States, and other countries across the globe are making a huge effort at reducing car usage, and according to source 4 by Rosenthal, they seem to be working. "" Recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by""paragraph 29. Obviously, car usage altogether will not end, but limiting it can do a great deal in protecting the only planet sustainable for human life.

Furthermore, limiting the use of cars in areas of large pedestrian population, such as New York City, would ultimately lead to less tragic car accidents. Approximately 500 car accidents occur daily in the United States and probably upwards of 5000 across the globe. Car accidents are the leading cause of death in many societies which is unfortunate because almost all are preventable. Its when the driver is given too much power behind the wheel that their guard is let down. The rise of cellphones and texting have not helped the situation at all either. The good news is that the programs used worldwide solely for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are also reducing car accidents. "" Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France"" Duffer, paragraph 14. Also in source 3 describing Bogota's Car free day is spreading to other countries of LatinAmerica with the intention of reducing traffic and allowing safer passage for pedestrians.

Ultimately, the importance of limiting carusage across the world is being seen as crucial and is starting to take off. Limiting car usage reduces air pollution which is a serious threat to humanity these days, and also diminishes car related accidents. At the end of my trip to California, I was able to see the real beauty of the nature outside the city, when I got off the highway.",0
07f7dedb,0,"Do you know why the earth has air pollution ? they are many reason from cars. Limiting car usage could have many advances because it can slow down air pollution,save money, and safety. Sit back and relax while I explain.

To begin one of the advantages of limiting car usage is that it can slow down air pollution.

First reason that limiting car usage is that it can slow down air pollution is that because in the passage it says that ""after days of nearrecord pollution,Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" what that quote was basically saying was that the air pollution in paris was so terrible that they had to ban driving in order for the air to get stabilized. Next limiting car usage can slow down car pollution because it will keep major fuel companies from burning coal into the air. Lastly limiting car usage can slow down air pollution by using bikes,walking,taking the bus,riding skate boards,taking the subway,and ect.

Next one of the advantages of limiting car usage is it saves money.

the first reason limiting car usage saves money is because in one of the passages it says that ""The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. violaters are to face 25 fines"". and I dont think any one want to be a part of that. Next one of the advantages of limiting car usage is that it saves money because when a person has a car they spend lots on money to put gas in their car every week and every year gas prices are rising. finally one of the advantages on limiting car usage is it saves money is because people that drive have to be aware of tickets that are very expensive also mantanace for your car like tires, lights,oil and ect if you limit your car usage over time you will see yourself spending less.

Finally one advantage on limiting car usage is safety. The first reason lmiting car usage can raise safety is because in the passage it says ""pedestrian,bicycle,private cars,commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time,conserve resouses,lower emissions and improve safety"". The next reason limiting car usage can bring safety is by stoping traffic jams and droping the percentage of the amount of people dying fron car accidents. The final reason limiting car usage can bring safety keeping motorcyclists,bikers,and pedestrians from getting hit by cars also keeping drunk drivers of the streets.

To sum up they are many advantages of limiting car usage ,my reasons are it can slow down air pollution,save money, and safety I told you my reasons now tell me yours.",0
08157ec0,0,"To access what one needs in the world today, many would think one needs a car. Currently, cars are a big part of transportation for many people. However, they are also major contributes to negative environmental impact as well as the decline of cities public areas and transportation. Contrary to popular belief, limiting car usage can be beneficial to many. Currently, throughout the world several car free systems are operating well. A decrease in the number of cars on streets and highways would lead to positive improvements in public spaces, public transportation, and the environment as a whole.

Automobiles are one of the biggest ailments to the sustainment of a healthy environment. In ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", author Elisabeth Rosenthal shares the story of Vauban, Germany and their efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" The impact of these gas emissions is incredibly negative on cities. They make the environment unstable and unsafe for a large number of people. These numbers could easily be reduced if fewer people chose to rely on cars as their mode of transportation. In some places the pollution caused by automobiles is so high that the government is stepping in to assist in the management of city spaces. In ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", author Robert Duffer explains this specific situation in Paris, France. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day."" The effects of this temporary ban were also shared. ""Congestion was down 60% in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog."" It is easy to see that just a small reduction of vehicles created a significant change.

The reduction of cars also leads to development. In ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky, improvements to Bogota, Colombia as a result of less car usage is expaned upon. ""The day without cars is part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s. It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American city, according to Mockus, the city's mayor. Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have been cropped up."" Cities are beggining to cater to the needs of those who don't use cars. Their negative impact on city streets is finally being recognized, and many are taking action to improve aspects where they live other than roads. In ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, the author discusses the goals of the United States and its major figures to reduce total reliance on cars. In this article Bill Ford, executive chairman of Ford Motor Company shares his hopes. ""He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commerical and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected netowork to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety."" Many are striving to make public spaces more accessable to those who choose more concious methods of transport.

As many begin to see the importance of car reduction, they are becoming less reliant. In ""The End of Car Culutre"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal the decreasing numbers of people getting licenses and cars is discussed. ""But America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. When adjusted for population growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily thereafter, according to an analysis done by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment reseach comapny."" In this article, the disregard full time use of vehichles is also shown. ""The Internet makes telecommunicating possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. The renewal of center cities has made the suburbs less appealing and has drawn epty nesters back in. Likewise the rise in cellphones and carpooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements, including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work. With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may find less reason to resume the habit."" People today can get access to a vehicle on command. Different resources make the constant use of cars unneccesary.

The decrease in usage of and reliance on cars is important and positively impactful. As number of cars on the road continues to go down, so do global issues such as the deterioration of the environment. Communities grow to orient themselves around public spaces accessable to all. Getting a significant number of automobiles off the road plays a huge role in inciting change that benefits a wide array of people in the way of work, time, money, and more, in communities and worldwide.",0
08a01bc5,1,"Though I have not been alive to see most of it, I am sure that the debate on keeping the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote has been going on for ages. Now, the words of a fourteen year old might not mean much to a state senator, especially since it will be four years until I am legally allowed to vote, but please sir, hear me out. I believe that we should keep the Electoral College for many reasons. One, if the president was decided by popular vote, our president might not be the best one for the country. Secondly, if it were up to a popular vote, the president might win, or not win, simply for being a regional favorite.

To start this off, if our president was decided by a popular vote, our president might not be the best thing for our country. As stated in the third article, paragraph 20, ""The winnertakeall method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates... to focus their campaign efforts on the tossup states."" As you know, tossup state's make the final vote. Therefore, people in these states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign, and they will be the ones with the most information. If it were up to popular vote, then anyone over the age of 18 could randomly pick a winner. Let's be honest, the majority of eighteen year old's will vote on whoever their friends or family vote for, or even the candidate representing their group Democratic or Republic. Many people, if the president was decided by popular vote, would make an uneducated decision on one of the candidates, not studying their choices as much as one would with the Electoral College system in place.

Secondly, if it were up to a popular vote, the president might simply win because he or she is a regional favorite. As stated in the third article, paragraph 19, ""...because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."" Also in the paragraph, it states that no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. If the president was decided by popular vote, however, can you imagine what it would be like? Take rodney, for example. He was a solid regional favorite in the South. rodney knew that there was no incentive to campaign heavily in the South, because he would not gain any electoral votes by increasing his plurilaty in states he knew he would win. If popularity decided the president, residents of the other regions might feel like their vote would not count, and that the president would have no regard for their interests. Say that popularity did actually determine a winner. While most regions might vote for a certain presidents, the ones that did not would feel like that the man running the country wasnt really ""their president"". However, Mr. Senator, if the Electoral College was to stay, this problem would never exist. With the system we have now, the people vote for your state's electors when they vote for the president. Most states also have a ""winnertakeall"" system. Therefore, the canidate with the most votes in a state win's that state's electors. This lets the voting be even, fair. A popular vote would make the voting unfair to those who did not want that president.

Now, of course, the other view has to be adressed. As stated in the second article, ""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning... During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all."" This quote shows that the candidates might not go to a state they know they have no chance in winning. I can see how this could support changing to election by popular vote, and how it could be reasonable. If our president was chosen by popular vote, then he would visit all of the states, trying to win them over. However, there are some strong arguments against this. To begin with, one man would have to visit 50 states, and even if he only visited the majority, there is still a posibility that the state will not vote for him anyways, in the end. If we keep the Electoral College, then the majority of votes in a state would count, not his popularity. As a fourteen year old, I can relate this to highschool. A student can be the most popular student in the school, but they can also be the most rude and mean. And while another student may not be popular, they can be the nicest in the school. If the president was chosen by a popular vote, he might just end up being the worst thing that could happen to the country.

In conclusion, Mr. State Senator, I think that keeping the Electoral College is the best thing for our country. If we changed to election by popular vote, the man or woman might not be the best for our country, and the best man might not win because he is not a regional favorite. I hope, sir, that you will take my letter into account when you go to vote on this topic.",0
08cda63e,0,"By limiting car usage you would be making it a healther environment, and a safer one!

there would be less pollution in the air and that would make the air better for us to breath.

Sure by limiting the usage of cars would have an effect on people its also doing us a favor wether we like it or not, because constantly breathing in polluted air is really bad for you it can have major affects on our lungs, and respotory system. Also by limiting car usage you wouldent spend so much money on gas, oil, car parts,ect:, so by saving all that money you could spent it on something else.

When you own a vehicle you put in so much money in just getting your insurance and then you spend so much money on gass every week, dont get me wrong the gas prices have gone down but what will happen when they go back up and how much money will the gas be then?

So is driving worth killing your air and the environment you live in and spend all your money on gas?

Or would it better for us to start imiting our car usage?

But that is up for you to decide what you want to do.

Whe driving have you ever thought how much pollution you vehicle is dishing out while your driving around town? Probably not, probably you where thinking how log till i get there or i need to text someone back but i bet not once did car pollution ever cross you mind and its okay not alot of people think about it when there driving. Actually hardly anyone thinks abot it ever unless its on the news saying that the air pollution is bad again and thats when you start to think about it.

With car pollution ypu dont realse what it is dont to you environment because you never see it happen in a fast pace it always happen really slow.

All of a sudden plants will start to die really fast, people will have areally hard time breathing and will probably have to go to the hospital because of the lack of oxygen they can get.

Imagine saving you money, wouldent that be nice not having to worry about a car paymeny or gas?

alot of people would have so much money that alot of them nedd because there is alot of families struggling to make it by the have to constantly worry if they have enough money to pay the bills and put gass in there vehicle to get to work to make the money to survie.

what if instead of having a vehicle and constantly spending money on gas you walked or took a bike to work, imagine all that money you saved by donig something little as that.",0
0901b3db,1,"Getting rid of the electoral college would be illogical and irrational. The electoral college was established in the Constitution by the founding fathers to compromise between the Congress and the people. It is seen as nondemocratic to the modern day system because the electors elect the president, not the people because when you vote for a presidential election you are actually voting for a slate of electors. Many people say that ""what if they go against your wishes"" but the truth is that it rarely happens. So there is no reason to wory. We must retain the Electoral College despite it being ""nondemocratic"" because we will be certain of our outcome, avoid runoff elections, and Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states have.

""A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College is possible it happened in 2000 but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote."" in paragraph 18 meaning that winning the candidates share of electoral votes over powers his share of popular votes. ""In 2012's election, for example, Obama received 61.7% of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3% of the popular votes cast for him and rodney."" in paragraph 18 shows how almost all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis. So even if there was a slight popularity it creates a land slide in that state.

Having an Electoral College avoids the problem of having an election where no candidate receives the majority of votes. For example in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both only had 43% plurality of popular votes. Which meant they were tied and meant of a run on election. However, having the Electoral College produces a clear winner. In paragraph 23 it says ""It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state Democrats in Texas, for example, or Republicans in California.""paragraph 23 Meaning that they might not even vote if it's not going to count for anything.

Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states have by population. For example in the 2012 election the popular vote was very close in Florida and Obama got the vote with 29 electoral votes. ""So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does..."" because they mean more. paragraph 21 Many say that the electoral college is unfair to voters because of the winnter take all system in each state. However, why would you soend time in a state that you know they have no chance of winning. It would be a waste of time and money. That is why they focus on the swing states.

The Electoral College method of selecting the president could cause potential voters not to vote anymore because they don't see why they would if it doesnt count for anything. However no voter's vote swings a national election. ""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think what a single vote may decide on an election.""paragaph 23 This just shows how we should let the electoral college decide who will be running our country, not the people.",0
09978576,1,"The anachronism that is the electoral college is a system that unfairly represents voters and can possibly lead to catastrophe. The much simpler solution would be election by popular vote where every voter in every state matters rather than the system of the electoral college that discounts many voters opinions. The arguments against popular vote are either illogical or inconsequential and we as a nation should pay no heed.

The biggest and most obvious problem with our current electoral college system is that it unfairly represents voters in the states. An example of this unfairness towards voters propagated by the system is expressed in ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner where it is stated that in the 2012 election between rodney and Obama Florida gave all of its electoral votes towards Obama when he only won 61.7 percent of the vote. This method completely exludes the opinion of the minority, that 48.3 percent of people in Florida who didn't vote for Obama got their say taken away, their opinion no longer mattered to the election because all of the electors were given to Obama by a small majority. A second unfairness to the voters is the attention taken away from any voter not in a swing state. In the article written by Bradford Plumer named ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" it is said that in the 2000 election that seventeen states got no attention from the candidates whatsoever. This system gives undeserved attention to a few swing states which will decide the election because of our outdated system of the electoral college. If popular vote was instituted the attention given to voters of all states would be equal as every vote from every state matters.

A problem with the electoral college that could possibly outshine the unfairness of it would be the potential for catastrophe that it brings. As is stated in ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer the electors presented by the states according to popular vote are not even obliged to vote for the candidate they said they would. Even though this may be a rare occurace a single elector betraying his party could cause misrepresentation of millions of Americans. Another possible disaster would be a tie vote in the electoral college. This situation, as explained in the same article, would cause a vastly unfair election incomparable even to the unfairness of the normal system. This horrible system consists of each state getting one vote for the president which when you consider that some states have many times the population of others means that millions upon millions of people could have the same say a a couple hundred thousands, an injustice unthinkable in our society and one that could be stopped by instituting a popular vote system.

The arguments against popular vote presented in ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner are unrealistic, unsupported, or insignificant. The argument presented as ""Certainty of Outcome"" says that a dispute over popular vote would be much more common but provides no evidence to support the claim, invalidating it. The article's second argument states that candidates would have more incentive to stay in their region if popular vote were implemented but this entire argument relies on the fact that there are not enough electors in any one region in order to elect a president. Although this is true it doesn't matter because the same is true of population, no one region has an overwhelming population advantage over others and population is what matters in popular vote. The third argument is the most illogical stating that the electoral college's tendency of causing only swing states to matter is actually a good thing because it increases the education of the populations of those states by the increased attention by the candidate, therefore the educated would decide the vote, making it more accurate. This is a parochial and shortsighted viewpoint, not considering the fact that the system of popular vote would make candidates pay attention to all populations, making all voters more educated rather than having some elite educated aristocracy in the swing states. The articles fourth argument is possibly even more deluded than the third, stating that large states get more attention because of the electoral college which balances out the fact that states have hugely varying populations but the exact same thing would happen in popular vote because some states have larger populations and candidates need larger populations for election in popular vote. The electoral college in this instance changes nothing meaning that the argument leads nowhere. The only argument presented in ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner that has any merit is the fifth which shows that popular vote could lead to possibly complicated runoff elections. Although that is a disadvantage of popular vote I believe that the vast unfairness and averting disaster is worth the cost of slightly complex runoff elections.

To support the electoral college one must rely on unrealistic or insignificant evidence. This ""evidence"" can be easily refuted and outwieghed by strong evidence from the opposing side. To support the electoral college you are supporting unfairness and catastrophe and to any reasonable person that is not a very intelligent idea, making the need for popular vote irrefutable.",0
0a11dfd8,1,"The United States has been known for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but that's not all. It's also known for the different freedoms made available and its fair government. The electoral college is a system in which states choose representatives to vote on the president. In the past, there was a big debate on whether or not this process was fair. The electoral college is not fair or trustworthy for many reasons.

Imagine that you picked a representative who said they were going to vote for the person you wanted for president. Sadly, they ended up changing their mind. You could end up with a president you don't like or believe in. Voters don't have total control over who their electors vote for. To me, that doesn't sound very fair. If everyone were allowed to vote, the people would be able to ensure that there vote counted towards the person they wanted, and not towards the candidate they were against. Based on multiple polls, a few presidents have won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote. That means that the candidate which was chosen by the people did not become president. Our founding fathers fought hard for our rights, and it's our right to a fair vote.

There are more problems than just an unfair vote. It almost sounds impossible that there could be a tie in a presidential election, but it has almost happened before. In the past, votes have been so close that only a couple thousand have separated the victor from the loser. What would happen if the votes came out to be tied in an election? Who would become president? I'm sure some people could argue that the electoral college could fix this problem, but I don't believe it could. Since there are less people making the decision during the electoral college process, it is even more likely that there could be a tie. If one person were to vote another way, it could be the equivalent of 1,000 people voting the other way. Also, during the electoral college the electors recieve rewards if their candidate wins. The people in that state, or even the whole country supported the electors and helped them make their decision, so they deserve recognition too.

The electoral college is not a fair or trustworthy process. Americans have no control over which candidate their electors choose to vote for. Also, there is a better chance for a catastrophic tie. America is all about being fair and giving people the opportunities they deserve. So, let's give Americans the chance for a fair vote.",0
0a13d187,0,"Have you ever wondered what will happen if we keep using cars as a means of transportation? All the air pollution, killing the atmosphere, wasting valuable resources. The future is going to be a place where we can't even breathe in air without having a mask on our heads due to smog. Going green as in limiting cars is a tremendous idea for the communities, and for the planet for various reasons. No smog in the atmosphere, greener communities, and more beneficial ways of transportation. Once you go green you will go never back.

To start off, Smog is one of the main disadvantages of owning or being in heavily populated area where they use cars frequently. Smog is when the cars emit there gases out of there tailpipe, and get trapped in the atmosphere causing people to have problems breathing. Articles in the city of Paris in France said that they had to ban cars due to the smog in the atmosphere. They hit a near record of air pollution and stopped people form using there cars on certain days to clear the smog from the atmosphere. On that five day period of the intensifying smog actually rivaled the place of Beijing, China which is known to be one of the most polluted cities in the world. Once the smog cleared they rescind the ban of car usage only to be a the same place there are going to be now if they keep on using cars.

In addition, cities around the world are creating new communities where they are not allowed to use cars. In Vauban, Germany the residents there are in a set up where they cannot use cars in there everyday life. 70 percent of the people over there do not own a car and 57 percent sold their car just to move into the community. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrum Walter, a resident of the city. Other places in the world like in Bogota, Colombia is in a program that they cannot use cars in there life. The life were they are no cars is a good life for a community and for everyone else.

Lastly, the end of transportion is not done, but people are finding new ways of transportation. Newer ways of transportation has stared in New York they have a bikesharing program has skyrocketed. As well as car pooling since only one car or van is being used rather than 4 of 5 cars it is more efficient. People in the United states are using these ideas in there everyday life. Sutdies have shown that are less likely to get their drivers liscense and get a car. The world will be in a better place without car usage.

To summerize, limiting car usage is a extrodinary idea to make the world a better place. To cease the air pollution of smog, to make greener communities, and to make efficent ways of transportation.",0
0a4a6c5b,0,"""All of our development since world war II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change."" Mr. Goldberg an official of transportation for America, a growing coalition to promote car frees communities said. The world is changing for the better and one of the machines man created, that is one of the world changing inventions of it's time is coming down for it's throne is the car. So what are the reasons for not getting a car? lets find out.

In Germany, that is coming faster than people think. An idea called ""Smart planning is taking hold in an experimental town built in 2006 named Vauban. A place were cars are a thing of the past. People everyday are not driving to school or work they are walking, bicycling, or taking the tram into the town from the suburb. Smart planning is revolutionary building towns to not be dependent on driving. 70% of vaughn's families do not own car and are much happier to not have the everyday anxiety of driving a motor engine car everyday. 57% sold there car just to move into the small town of Vauban. Car free suburbs and town are a growing trend all across Europe, the united states and many more nations. These efforts have been making cities, towns, and suburbs denser so you don't have to go far to get some milk and eggs.

The global warning is a huge part of the fight to make the earth our home more better and healthier for generations and generations to come. Cars emit gas emissions that make up 12% of the greenhouse gases in our environment, up to 50% percent in carintensive areas in the United States and around the world.

France, Paris having heavy smog decided to have a partial ban on driving making even numbered license plates not drive or fear a fine. Congestion went down after the experiment. What was to blame for the smog was the Diesel fuel being used in most cars because of the fact that a tax policy favors diesel fuel over gasoline. Paris having more smog than the typical capital had a decrease in congestion and the citiy after enormous victory decided to go at it again and do odd numbered license cars.

The car culture is one the has had enormous effect on the everyday lives citizens around the world. In the United states, ""Recent studies suggest that americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" In America where the car culture has turned us into the number one place in the world to find the history of one of the planets world changing innventions. People want a greener earth and benifits of not owning a car because everybody knows the stress of having a car no matter ho much it helps you. The car in which you have to have insurance, life insurance, car payments, you have to keep up with your car, the dangers associated with having a car and stress plus anxiety that comes with a car. The cons outweight the pros but those pros have an enormous effect. People are changing and the percentile of teenagers and young adults have droped ten fold in getting or renewing a license. The new trend is that people are no longer getting cars or licenses so why should you.

The people of planet earth understand the pros or cons of a car the benifits of not diving and are making for that change. One of the worlds greatest innventions is stepping off there throne.",0
0a4bc619,0,"In order to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases, a new fad is being introduced all over the world. The fad is ways to make the world more ""carfree"" or ""carreduced"". This may sound shocking and to complicated to implement, but believe it or not, there are communities and cities that are already showing improvement with decreasing greenhouse gases that cars let off.

Vauban, Germany, is an upscale, fully functional experimental German suburb on the outskirts of Freiburg, without cars. Street parking, driveways and home garages are not found in Vauban, the main form of transportation is a public tram that runs to downtown Freiburg. Heidrun Walter is a media trainer who lives in Vauban with her two kids, Mrs. Walter states, "" I am much happier this way"". Completed in 2006, Vauban is a an example of a growing European and United States trend that separates auto usage from suburban life. Everything that the 5,500 residents of Vauban could need is walking distance away, the community is built in a rectangular square mile with all of the stores on a main street.

Greenhouse gases from Europe contribute to 12 percent of all emissions, the United States is responsible for as much as 50 percent of these emissions. To most people, these numbers would be meaningless, but to the people of Paris, these number clearly showed with their smog covered streets. Paris hit a nearrecord pollution rate which caused the partial driving ban to take place. The partical driving ban in Paris was as follows on Monday, motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to not use their cars, or be forced to pay a fine, on Tuesday, the same instructions were put in place for oddnumbered plates, this ban continued throughout the week. While this did outrage some drivers, public transit was free of charge from Monday through Friday which did help drivers who were restricted.

A national ""Day without cars"" was Bogota, Columbia's way to incorperate car limitations. Millions of Columbian participants found alternative ways to get to and from work. Bogota has a total of 7 million citizens who were promoted to use alternative transportation and reduce smog. Despite gray clouds and random spurts of rain, Mayor or Bogota, Antanas Mockus said, "" The rain hasn't stopped people from participating."" For a first time, during the previous national, ""Day without cars"" two other Columbian cities, Cali and Valledupar joined the event. ""These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders,"" said Enrique Rera, the mayor of Asuncin, Paraguay. Along with the ""Day without cars,"" Columbia has also put out rushhour restrictions, smoothed sidewalks, and cropped new resturants and upscale shopping districts.

All three cities have showed creative and functional ways to cut back on using cars, weather it be offering new ways to have a less complicated life in Vauban, Germany, limiting the number of cars that can drive on certain day in Paris, France, or creating a national holiday which encourages people to find alternative ways of transportation like in Bogoata, Columbia. It is clear that people in places everywhere are ready to make a change to cut down on greenhouse gases. The United States, as a whole has shown cutbacks on the number of vehicles and licenses being issued, in fact the amount of young people driving decreased by 23 percent from 2001 and 2009. Ultimately, the goal for the entire world is to conserve resources, lower emission rates of harmful greenhouse gases and improve safety, with the rate that cities and communities are going now, this goal without a doubt reachable.",0
0a529197,0,"There are several advantages when you limit car usage. One, you will reduce greenhouse gases. Two, you will lower the stress level of people when they thinking about driving. Three, young people will decrease their amount of driving. Overall, limiting car usage can help fellow citizens.

Limiting car usage wil reduce greenhouse gases. In Source 1 the passage states that passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the United States. While we limit car usage you will not only help reduce greenhouse gases,but you will help reduce air pollution. When theres no air pollution there will be a clean atmosphere. Furthermore, limiting car usage can benefit the environment.

Limiting car usage will lower the stress level of people when they are thinking about driving. Everyday people have to plan before they drive. Sometimes when people plan for driving they get stressed thinking about if theirs traffic or what if the road is closed. In Source 3 the passage states that rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic. Furthermore, limiting car usage will limit the stress level of people thinking about driving.

Limiting car usage will decrease young people's amount of driving. In Source 4 the passage states that there has been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39yearolds getting a license. Another study in Source 4 was found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. If their's less young people driving then there will be less accidents occurring. Overall, limiting car usage will keep young drivers from injuring themselves.

Either way limiting car usage will help our fellow citizens in general. This will reduce greenhouse gases. This will lower the stress level of people when they are thinking about driving. Also, limiting car usage will decrease the amount of young people driving. furthermore limiting car usage will help us citizens.",0
0a62093d,0,"Within countries around the world people are coming together, whether it be the politicians or the citizens, they are all beginning to put an end to the use of cars on a daily bases. In Germany there is a suburban city where the majority of its' streets are relatively free of cars and the residents of this ""carfree"" city seem quite content. Germany isn't alone in wanting to rid the world of cars along with the pollution and stress it brings, Paris, France is another of the handful of places that would prefer to begin an anticar revolution. There are days in Paris that, when the smog is too much to bare and the air is hardly breathable, they are forced to enforce a partial driving ban. After about a week the air was noticeably cleaner. While Vauban, Germany and Paris, France have joined the fight in kicking cars to the curb in their own particular ways, three cities in Colombia have also decided to become a member of the ever growing ""carfree"" city club by starting a program that sponsors a carfree day once a year.

Taking a closer look at the suburban city of Vauban, Germany, it is easy to see the reason as to why the country would create a city free from cars along with parking spaces. When thinking of suburban cities most people create a mental image of large buildings spread far apart from public homes or neighborhoods with long winding roads and intersections packed with automobiles. Considering most of the popular suburban cities throughout the world match this description, it is not completely inaccurate, but most people fail to also imagine the abundance of smog and other forms of pollution that invade the cities because of the gaseous fumes released by cars and other vehicles. Vauban has greatly decreased the amount of air pollution in their city by simply eliminating the amount of automobiles out on the roadways. According to the article titled ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal in paragragh 5, cars are the cause for up to twelve percent of greenhouse gases emersed into the air in Europe while in some areas of the United States the amount of gases released into the air is around fifty percent. By eliminating the amount of cars used in Vauban, Germany they are creating friendly air for its' residents to breathe. Going back to the image most people in the world assume a suburb would look like, winding roads seem to take up the majority of space between stores and residential homes. In Vauban they have reconstructed the roadways and car garages into walkways and new stores so the residents have more access to the places they need to be. The elimination of the amount of roads and highways have helped Vauban to also put forth more money into other ways of transportations as opposed to using the majority of money on the contructions of highways and such. When reading the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal in paragragh 9 it states that in most of the previous bills passed has claimed that nearly eighty percent of appropriations have gone to highways while an estimated amount of twenty percent has gone to other forms of transportation.

Next on the list of cities that are attempting to put an end to car use would be Paris, France. Within Paris there are gorgeous sights to see and the majority of them could be seen and reached by a simple bike ride and there is really no need to fill the air with more pollution with an unnessasary car. This is what most of the people in charge of Paris believe which is why they created partial driving bans. The smog within Paris, France can, at times, rival even the amount of air pollution in Beijing, China which is infamous for being the most polluted cities in the entire world as was said in the article titled ""Paris Bans Driving Due To Smog"" by Robert Duffer in paragragh 14. While Paris officials wanted to completely eradicate driving completely so that the smog would disappear, they knew that with the millions of drivers in Paris that it could not be completely banned all at once. To help illiminate the smog and still keep from having too many issues with its' citizens, Paris decided to make it so that one day the drivers with even numbered license plates would not be permitted to drive their vehicles and the next day only drivers with odd numbered license plates were banned from driving. They continued this pattern for a week. Of course, there were some people who decided to drive their cars whether or not it was banned, so the officials came to the conclusion that anyone who broke the partial banning rule would have to suffer a twenty two euro fine. According to the article titled ""Paris Bans Driving Due To Smog"" by Robert Duffer in paragragh 12, nearly four thousand drivers were fined throughout that week. Regardless of the people who went against this rule sixty percent of congestion was illiminated in Paris after that week.

After Paris on the countdown of cities to help the cause of limiting car usage comes Bogota, Colombia. In this heated city nearly seven million people populate, they have a program where one day out of every year that cars are completely banned from use. Everyone in the population participates by hiking, biking, skating, or taking buses wherever they want to go according to the article ""CarFree Day Is Spinning Into A Big hit In Bogota"" by Andrew Selskey in paragragh 20. By this city promoting the use of buses, taxis, and other forms of transportations they're reducing smog and the amount of traffic jams and accidents throughout their city. After three years of this day being made two other Colombian cities have joined in to participate. The cities being Cali and Valledupar, Colombia. The day without cars was part of an improvement plan that began in Bogota in the mid1990s according to the article titled ""CarFree Day Is Spinning Into a Big Hit In Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky in paragrapgh 27. By participating in this day, the people of Bogota have seen the construction of one hundred and eighteen miles of bicyce paths and added parks and sports centers all over the city.

Within the United States of America there are thousands upon thousands of cars used every day, but this may not last forever. Across the span of around eight years the amount of young people driving and obtaining their licenses has drastically decreased according to the article ""The End Of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal in paragraph 32. More people are taking buses or taxis or simply walking or biking to their destinations because with the growth in population over the last few years the traffic jams are unbearable and seem to take more time then to simply bike to work or school. If a car is used and is needed than most people in America seem to take to carpooling with a friend or neighbor which in turn helps to decrease the amount of air pollution in the country.",0
0a8e65ab,1,"Many people are in belief of evaporating the idea of having the Electoral college. A Gallop poll taken in 2000 shows that citizens would rather have a direct election. As a member of the United States you must think of all the possibilities. Yes, the electoral college was once a great process, but now there are some changes are in need of being made.

The electoral college is a process in which we select electors. This long and dragged out procedure is many steps that take months to prepare for. First, there must be a selection of the electors which are chosen by the states. Then the meeting must be planned and taken place. Who and why is a hard aspect to decide on voting day for those who have been chosen to be the electors. Votes for president and Vice President must be made. After voting the counting beings. The Electoral College has a total of 538 members. Over 270 votes must be made to elect the President. This process can easily be shortened by using a direct election.

By having a direct election everyone's voice is heard. This means less arguing in the states. Citizens enjoying believing their thoughts are not being avoided. Having the Electoral College taking place is highly unwanted in the US. This is because the people believe a direct vote is more efficient way for them to show who they believe is worthy of being President and Vice President.

Each candidate running for office retains a group of electors from a state. These electors are normally chosen by the candidate's political party. This means if a person doesn like the electors chosen they feel like they still dont have a say of what is going on in the presidential election.

In conclusion, The Electoral College is no longer a process citizens enjoy. This procedure is too long and citizens dont encourage it. Many people believe that this branch of government feels they will lose more power if the Electoral College is given up on. Using a direct election will spare the arguments and will allow us to have an easy and manageable process in which to vote on our leading man.",0
0a9630a4,0,"Since remotely times, the manhad look for some way to make his life easier, since primitive hunting weapons, to carriages. The carriages were pulled by horses mostly, and on those times, the most that those animals could do for contamination was pooping but the owners had people to clean for it as well assomeone who took care of it. While the times had change, the transportation media has too as well with the cars which it actually result to be a doble sided bladecontaminating with smog.

In Paris the government has banned driving due to smog, the smog has caused a huge impact on this city, giving to it cooler nights and warmer days, many habitats blame Diesel fuel, but it does not matter which fuel you would use, it would burn and produce smog anyways. On the other hand,Vauban, Germany, is offering a new life style that many people has decided to adopt the suburbian community has no cars at the streets, people there does not own a carbecause they do not need it, the public transportation works very well, so it is not a primary need. They can live perfectlywithout cars, then they are not that necessary. Many people even sell their cars in order to move to Vauban, and had said that their lifes are so much less stressful than when they did own a car. Mothers can let their childrens to play in the streets without thinking that a car is going to kill them, and kids can let go technology if their moms want them to play outside most of the kids are so attached to technology because it is a way that parents have to keep them away from the streets. Maybe these changes like in Germany were too radicals, but it can start by a day a year like in Bogot, Colombia where once a year people take a carfree day, being buses and taxis the only ones allowed to produce smog, the violators are charged with 25 dollars fines. Even in the U.S., from 2003 to 2009 young people driving decreased a 23%, young people are considered the most dangerous driving people. There is so much for young people to do that they are not focused on driving, this could be the beginning of a new era, in April 2013 the number of miles per person was equal that in 1995 where the cars where less than right now. There it is even a program in New York promoting carpooling!

But for example, here in Florida the public transportation is not that good, you actually need a car that drives you to the bus station and then take the bus a bus that will let you on a train station, that train station will offer you a ride of an hour to another bus that takes about half an hour to get to your job if you live in Homestead and work in Miami. That is about three hours just arriving to your job, every day for five days in a row that is about thirty hours a week, just to get to your job! But if you have a car, those three hours now are one hour, which seems reasonable and it is still a lot!. If someone lives at Homestead and needs to do something which is generally at downtown Miami or Doral you would have to dedicate a whole day just doing it, if you are going in car because the distance between cities are ridiculous, can you imagine if not having it? For doing something you would have to take two days and do it by parts or wake up at the very morning when it is still dark so you can complete everything by the afternoon. So defenetly the car is a primary need.

Analyzing the life style that people at Vauban have, they are less stressed thanthe average personwhoowns a carpeople starts to be more social with their neighbors because they have to walk everywhere and the faces are the same, so they actually get to know each other. They also got the benefit of a cleaner enviroment because they do not have the daily doses of smog that someone living in a city would have cars cause the 12% of the contamination in Europe and more than a 50% in the United States. That is a problem that Paris maybe would not be facing right now if they had payed attention to contamination levels.Since World War II, science has been centered on developing new and better cars can you imagine what would we have right now if some other would center the science in medicicne or something else?. In the United States an 80% of the budget goes to highways while just a 20% goes to public transportation. But, how can people in Bogot or Vauben survive without cars? The distance between the comercial and suburban areas are close enough so a bus could take you there just one bus. Defenetly, making the change would be hard due to our attachment to our cars, but little by little we can change or life style.",0
0af1d837,0,"Dear fellow citizens of America it has come to my attention that pollution in the United States is getting worse so I have a solution use cars less. It is simple, this will help cut pollution in the U.S as the second biggest polluting factor is gone and can actually help you with a better social life as well as helping rebuild the community.

As mentioned earlier,cars are the second leading cause of pollution in the U.S and cutting that will help stop some pollution by stopping one of the biggest causes. Stopping the use of cars will cut the carbon in the air and this in turn can lead to a healthier lifestyle as well. There are many neighborhoods that are carless and we have received good results from said neighborhoods as well as car free day is becoming a hit in Columbia as well as other parts in central America. This will also make smog a less likely occurrence as no car fumes are getting trapped therefore, cleaner, unpolluted air. This will help prevent the same pollution levels like in Paris pop up here.

A life without cars can also positively affect the social lives of many people. As people are more likely to just walk and talk with friends or just walk or bike to the park. people in carless community like Vauban have even said they feel less stress now that they don't have cars. Young Americans have even started losing interests in cars and would rather take public transport or carpool with friends then just take their own car. And as a result are tighter with their friends and family then before.

People who use cars for transport are less likely to use the sidewalk or ride their bike and as a result sidewalks and bike paths are uneven and ragged. Therefore without cars, things like disrepair sidewalks or roads would come to our attention. For example Car Free Day in Columbia led to the repair of sidewalks and 118 miles of bike roads and more sport centers parks and shopping districts have started to pop up. Getting rid of cars can help us rebuild the community with more parks and public centers and hangouts. This will also lead to better security as less people will get hit by cars, less car accidents and overall better security.

In conclusion my fellow citizens, please consider makeing this community carless. for their are many advantages for doing so in this community from the enviromental, to the social and to the health benefits.",0
0b004ec7,0,"Reducing the usage of cars in today's world could be extremely beneficial. Sure, it is also a hastle having to reroute your commute and also making the time to get there, but the myriad advantages to the reduction of car usage is astonishing. Reducing our usage of cars will reduce the smog in cities, such as Los Angeles, Beijing, and Paris, reduce the stress of many drivers, and also save people money. Now who doesn't love money?

Smogpollution is growing daily in dense, polluted areas. Looking outside of LA, you can see the dirty, polluted air surrounding the city, as well as the toxic blanket the covers Beijing. One of the main sources contributing to this is cars. Greenhouse gases are emitted from tailpipe and go straight into the atmosphere. In Europe, exhaust makes up fifteen percent of greenhouse gas emission, and accounts for fifty percent in the United States, FIFTY PERCENT. That's half of the pollution in our country, and an easy solution is to limit car usage. If your car usage is not limitable, perhaps switching to a hybrid car such as a Toyota Prius will make you feel good about contributing to the cause. Some areas, like Bogota, Colombia, participate in a Carfree Day. This day is widely celebrated in the area and is infectious spreading to nearby areas and potentially the world soon enough. This day allows for smog reduction. Cities such as Paris, however, have to ban car usage sometimes because their smog is so bad. During this ban, hybrid cars and carpooling is allowed. This shows the extreme measures necessary to reduce the smog in populated areas.

As most people know, driving is stressful and is perhaps a top contributor of stress in America. In populated areas, rushhour traffic is annoying and causes many people to change their schedules. When driving during rushhour, you are in constant fear of potentially being cutoff and your risk of being in an accident heightens dramtically. With that being said, what if I told you there was a way to completely cut out this fear? Communities such as Vauban, Germany are helping alleviate stress by making carfree communities. Within these communities, cars are allowed to be owned, but you must park it in a parking garage at the end of the community and also buy a spot... for 40,000. Cars are used rarely, as restaurants, shops, and others are within walking distance of these communities. Cars are only used for longdistance travel and are permitted on highways and on the outer edges of the area. The stress is alleviated because you can walk outside, grab your mail, and listen to the birds if want, all without the worry of cars. You don't need to constant check your rearview mirrors if you're walking to your favorite restaurant. With the introduction of smartphones and the constantly growing usage rate of the internet, people don't need cars to communicate anymore. They can simply go on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, etc. to communicate.

Finally, the reduction of car usage allows for people to save money, and a significant amount too. If you live in a neighborhood such as Vauban, there may be no need for a car at all. In today's world, a good car costs somewhere are 3040 thousand dollars. Imagine what you could do with that much money. You could get a nice house, or travel to your favorite destination, or anything really. You could send your kid to a nice college! And the drawbacks are small, because everything is within a twenty minute walk. That sounds pretty nice to me.",0
0b10ee59,1,"To be fair,both the electoral college and a aoaular vote are good ways to decide an election. Although,a aoaular vote may have more aitfalls than the latter. The electoral college is definitely the best way to aick a candidate without much confusion. The electoral college may have some down falls too but the benefits out weigh them.

A aoaular vote also has some benefits. In Richard A. aoster's aassage In Defence of the Electoral College he states,""The electoral college is not a democratic method it is the electors who elect the aresident not the aeoale""source 3 a15. If this was our voting method the aeoale would be choosing the aresident, not the electors. Plus the aeoale dont even know the electors their voting for. In the aassage The Indefensible Electoral College author Bradford Plumer states,""The state aicks the electors and the voters dont even get to aick who the electors vote for"" source 2 a 10. Basically the aeoale have no control over who they elect.

Indeed there maybe limited control for the aeoale over voting for their candidatebut the electors usually aick whoever the aeoale voted for. The electoral college also is a easier way to decide who wins the election. Theres almost no way there can be a tie in an electoral vote. Richard A.Posner states,""The winning candidates share of the electoral college invariably exceeds his share of the aoalular vote"".""Even if the aoaular vote winner wins by a little he wins all the electoral votes""source 3 a 15.Which means there is no confusion as to who wins.

Not only is the electoral college more organized but it makes the aresident have to aaaeal to many regions of aeoale. Richard A. Posner states,""Not one region has enough votes to win an election so the aresident has to be liked by other regions as well""source 3 a 19.This means that at least half the country must like the candidate for him to win. Swing states are also imaortant in the electoral college. These states are the ones that really care and study who will be the best aresident. Another statement from Richard A.Posner states,""Peoale in swing states decide the election and are the most thoughtful voters""source 3 a 20.So the candidate must be trying to make sure they alease the aeoale.

The aeoale may like a aoaular vote the best,but the most organized and beneficial way to elect candidates is through electoral college. The electoral college not helas with organizing it helas aeoale know the candidate. They know the candidate because the candidate must go to each region and get to know the aeoale.",0
0b1945ec,1,"Dear Rick Scott, Controversial. This is the word that can describe the Electoral College in recent elections. The Electoral College is composed of 538 votes, a presidential candidate must acquire 270 to win the election. States with large populations get more electoral votes so say, Rhode Island. California gets 55 votes while the puny Rhode Island gets a whopping 3 votes. The Electoral College has been debated since the 2000 election, where Al Gore lost even though he got more popularity votes. Many folks believe the Electoral College should be abolished. I believe that the Electoral College should be kept in the presidential elections, because it shows a clear winner, it ensures it is, ""Everyone's President"", educated voters count in the swing states and it avoids RunOff Elections.

Without the Electoral College, some elections may be hard to decide a true winner. No matter the situation, the Electoral College will determine a winner, if the popular vote and electoral vote become tied, which is highly unlikely, the vote will be taken to the senate. Each senator counts as one vote, so no longer do bi states matter. Also, the Electoral College ensures the presidential candidates have transregional appeal. It makes the votes count, the president chose is surely, ""Everyone's President,"" rather than a favorite in just northeastern states. Furthermore, swing states are tremendously important to the outcome of the election. States such as Florida, New York, Texas and California have dozens of votes combined, winning all four of those states pretty much means presidency. The swing states not only have more electoral votes because of population, but because of their voters. On average, there are more educated voters in the swing states, they actually stay up to date, watch the news and know the means of each candidate. The Electoral College also avoids the disaster of which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. A good example of this is when Clinton had only 43% of the popular votes won, yet he got a whopping 370 electoral votes, which made him president. The pressure of having a runoff election is nearly vanished by the Electoral College. Although others say that the Electoral College should be abolished, because in that system, voters vote a slate of electors, not the president. Well tough , the Electoral College ensures a winner, and that is all that matters.

The Electoral College should, for sure, be kept in the Presidential Election system. It consists of 538 total votes, and 270 votes have to go to a candidate to pick a winner. Although the votes may tie up, which is nearly impossible, the Electoral College ensures another method to decide the presidency. The Electoral College produces a sure winner, ""Everyone's President,"" is elected, educated voters are in the swing states and it avoids the disaster of a RunOff Election.",0
0b198045,0,"Many people throughout the world, would agree that car usage plays a significant role in daily lives. Although some may argue it plays an important role or a not so important role, the limitation of car usage would be a very helpful thing for everyone, and the world we are surrounded by. There are many advantages to cities being able to control the amount of cars being used everyday. Advantages such as, less pollution in the environment by creating less smog, making the cities and roads a lot safer, by lowering the risk of getting into or even causing a wreck, or even something as simple as making your life, and the lives around you much more peaceful.

""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States. paragraph 5"" Cars are the number one cause of pollution in most cities, especially ones that have large amounts of drivers on the road in a single day. The author of source one, states in paragraph 8 that ""..some new suburbs may well look more Vaubanlike not only in developed countries, but also in the developing world, where emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle class are choking cities"" All authors state that limiting car usage, is a great way to reduce air pollution. Paragraph 10, of source two, states that ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"" If car usage was limited in cities there would be less smog, and pollution in the air. Not only would it be better for the environment, it would also be better for your health.

Wrecks are things that claim the lives of people each and everyday. Some can be prevented, yet not all can. Think of how many lives are taken each day, due to wrecks because of things like congestion in big cities. Or even things such as someone behind the wheel who is stressed, and driving recklessly. A source from paragraph 3, states ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" Many people, get tense and stressed from the drivers around them. Limiting how much you use a car, can improve things such as stress levels. Imagine how much more at ease you would be if you constantly heard, a bicylest wizzing by you, or hearing children chattering and laughing among themselves, instead of hearing horns honking, loud motors, or even the sound of a car crash.

Roads and streets take up much more space than we think or even realize. With less cars on the road everyday and more people walking, or riding a bike, could only mean one thing less roads and bigger sidewalks. More cities are trying to make limiting car usage a much bigger thing, ""...in attempts to make suburbs more compact..."" Source one, also states that ""In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather that in malls along some distant highway. paragraph 6"" Getting to these places will become safer for everyone.

As you can see, there are many advantages to limiting car usage, such as, limiting the amount of pollution there is, lowering the risks of getting into, or even causing a wreck, and even something as simple as making it a more peaceful environment to live in, not only for yourself, but for others around you. Our world, and daily lives would be affected in great ways, in more cities, and even more countries, participated in lessing the amount of car usage.",0
0b3f580c,0,"Are we using cars too much?

In Source 2 : Paris bans driving due to smog , "" After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" Because that we use cars too much, we are creating pollution that is basically driving the planet we live on downhill. There is a way to change this. Limiting car usage, there are many advantages of limiting car usage.

Life can go on without cars. In VAUBAN,Germany a community has created a carfree city. The streets are completely car free. This is an experimental new district that is seeing if excluding cars can life become better not only physically but also mentally. Many people driving on the roads daily tend to have more stress from overcrowding streets, noise, and most of all crashes. ""As a result, 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move to here. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said heidrun Walter."" Source 1,3 From this evidence it shows that life without a car can actually have a better impact on a person.

Another advantage to limiting car usage is it reduces pollution. Paris enforced a driving ban to clear smog from the global city after a near record pollution. From this ban almost 4,000 drivers were fined, and some even had their cars impounded due to their reactions from the fines. But these fines and bans came out with a positive effect in the end. Congestion went down 60 percent in the capital of France, just after a few days of putting the ban into effect. The smog cleared enough for the French ruling party to rescind the ban for certain days.

Has America's love for cars already started cooling? Or has technology taken the reason why we should drive away? Elisabeth Rosenthal states that , "" the interent makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. the renewal of center cities has made the suburbs less appealing and has drawn empty nesters back in. Likewise the rise in cellphones and carpooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements, including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work"" source 4, 35 I believe that since technology has evolved that people dont feel the need to leave home to meet friends when they can just use apps or call,text,facetime,etc.

These reasons I showed make me believe that limitng car usage can create positive advantages, I hope they make you feel the same way too.",0
0b89ae3e,0,"They come in red, blue, green, black, and white. They beep and honk while they ride on highways and transport people form place to place. Cars are everclear. What would the world be like if we didnt have cars? What are the benefits of life without cars? Life with out cars benefits the environment, and peoples' health.

First of all, the elimination of cars helps the environment. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" 5. In other words, cars are highly responsible for the harmful gases that pollute our atmosphere and cause global warming. In Paris, a partial driving ban was issued to clear the air after days of high air pollution rates. After the driving ban, ""congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France after fivedays of intensifying smog"" 14. By using cars less, citizens can reduce pollution and help keep our earth clean and safe. statistics show that fewer people are using cars around the world. ""A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009"" 41. Sociologists believe that this trend will continue and possibly increase. They believe it will ""have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions"" 34.

Another benefit to limiting car usage is that it will benefit the health of citizens both mentally and physically. In the German suburb of Vauban, citizens have given up their cars. A resident there says ""when i had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" 3. Limiting car use also limits the frequency of traffic jams, accidents, and unfriendly drivers in a hurry along with the stress and frustration that accompany them. In colombians capital, bogota, the Day Without Cars has had many participants. One of whom said ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress"" referring to the event. 24 limiting stress can have major benefits to a persons health and mental wellbeing. limiting the use of cars does'nt just positively effect mental health, it can positively influence physical health. In bogota, Colombia, the carfree day inspired residents to ""hike, bike, skate, or take buses to work "" 20. Excersize releases endorphins which are chemicals in the brain related to pleasure. Many people that excersize regularly are happier then when they don't. By limiting car usage,citizens are more inspired to excersize making them happier and healthier.

In sumation, a life without cars means a healthy, longlasting planet along with a happy, relaxed, and healthy population. Even though cars are conveint, they have many negative side effects. Next time you want to go for a ride, think of all the benefits of limiting them. Rember what a breath of fresh air feels like because the gasses from cars might mean they will be gone soon. Get used to angry faces honking horns, and being given ""the bird"" by angry drivers because with cars come many conveiniences, but also many frustations.",0
0bbff1f5,0,"Why are the streets always so jammed!? Everyone asks that all the time almost everyday around 5:00pm. The reason for is because cars being excessively used nowadays. There are several different advantages that can happen when limiting car usage. The world would be a better place if less cars were used on the roads.

To begin with, why do we the people use cars? The reason is because it can get us from A to B really fast. But that's only 1 positive for the usage of cars. Think about the negatives and disadvantages of using cars. My 1 main reason of the usage of cars is that it make the world less active. Walking or running is a daily form of exercise, and the usage of cars is limiting the numbers of that. In section 1 redrum Walter says that he always was tense when he had a car, he's much happier without one. This is why we should limit the usage of cars. We don't want the people to be tense all the time, we want them to enjoy and relax when using transportation other than cars. Walking will take longer but is better in the long run. You don't have traffic jams, you can go places and areas that cars couldn't fit through and you have many different ways of getting to a particular place rather than just a road. The only repercussion that you have to worry about with walking is the rain. But heres the thing, In section 3 Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus said ""The rain hasn't stopped people from participating."" This means rain isn't a problem when walking on the streets. Cars may offer more protection but its more dangerous than walking. This is why places like Germany, Paris, and Bogota are trying to carry out the experience of a ""carfree"" life.

In addition, another advantage of limiting car use is limiting riots. I know we have all heard of people screaming and arguing in the cars of people in front or behind them. This is a big problem nowadays and it's because of the use of cars. If we can limit the usage of cars than we can hopefully reduce the level of aggrevation on the streets. Alot of accidents happen everyday dealing with the usage of cars. Cars provoke alot of deaths if you think about it. If we could limit the usage of driving cars than this will limit the amount of deaths per year by cars. That's the number 1 disadvantages to the using of cars. Walking and biking are my 2 favorite types of transportation because it's smooth, and it's more conveinant. Less accidents and injurys happen when walking or riding a bike. This can also help the streets be less packed which will allow for easier access to certain places. DUI is the main worst tragic that comes from the usage of cars. Many people die everyday because of drunk drivers and thats not respectable. Just imagine if the same person who caused an accident in the car while drunk was drunk on the streets while walking, he more than likely couldn't of caused an accident if he was walking and not driving a car. Just think about all of the disadvantages that cars promote.

Last but not least, comes the president Barack Obamas most valuable reason to limit car usage. Obama wants to curb the U.S greenhouse gas emissions, and by that he wants to get fewer cars on the road. In section 4 it shows that ""studies suggest that americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" This means that Obama's goal is prevailing. Paris came to a conclusion that they decided to ban driving due to smog. In section 2 it states that Paris air became so polluted that they enforced a parial ""driving ban"" to get rid of the air pollution. They blamed this problem due to the diesel fuel. They figured out that diesels make up 67% of vehicles in France, as to 53% in the rest of Western Eurpoe. In section 2 its pretty much the same reason except Bogota's goal is to ""promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. The violators faced 25 fines."" They figured limiting car usage was a good opportunity to take away stress and reduce air pollution. In section 4 the last paragraph tells you what Bill Ford plan was. He wanted to create cities in which ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial, and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, onserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety."" These are some advantages of less car usage. Many good things will start to happen if everyone could lower the usage of cars nowadays. We don't want the world to have polluted air, we don't want to promote car accidents, and we also don't want under age drivers on the streets. So take in mind the disadvantages of usage of cars and compared the to the the advantages of limiting car usage.",0
0bd440a5,0,"For a long time now we have been fighting against global warming and polution. Some people why we cant just end the fight quickly. And the reason is simply because we still rely so much on cars. All people need to find so type of way to stop using cars as much. There are some places that are already starting to limit uses. Like in Vauban, Germany who has a ban on cars, Paris, France who can use certain cars on certain days, and bogota, Colombia.

One way people could limit their use of cars is if they did something like what Vauban, Germany did. Build cities that had no drive ways and no parking lots. That way people had to buy parking garage spots that cost alot of money. According to source one passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse emissions in Europe. Many will think this is not alot but think about how much polution there is, then find out how twelve percent is it will be alot. But when these types of cities are made there will be a reduce in the emissions because little if any cars we be driven here. In source one Heidrun Walter said ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" This showes that without cars in people life it removes a tremondus amount of stress. People dont have to worry about spending money on gas or they don't have to worry about paying large amounts of money for their car to be fit. When there is not so much money at stake you tent to be a little less tense. Obvously creating a city were you have to buy a parking garage spot to hold your car would be a great idea because it would reduce the amount of polution being released and it would make the people living in the city less stressed.

Another ways people could limit the use of cars is if they do something like Paris, France does. They placed a ban on cars with odd numbered licens plates on Mondays, And placed a ban on cars with even numbered licens plates on Tuesdays. They did this because they were having record breaking amounts of polution being released. They were releasing more polution than Beijing, China who is the leading city in polution. But according to article two Paris found a sixty percent decrease in polution in just five days of this even odd ban. This means they lost more than half of the cities polution by limiting the cars on Monday to only even licens and limiting the cars to only odd licens on Tuesday. Cleary this is a very effective method of reducing the amount of cars being used.

A third way cars could be used less is if you have no car days like bogota, Colombia has. In article three Carlos Arturo Plaza says ""It's a good way to take away stress and lower air polution."" He is saying that cars a cause for polution and doing this day is a good way of lowering polution rates. This source also stated that other cities in Columbia like Cali and Valledpar are joining in this event. It is also said that other country leaders go to Colombia to watch this event. Afterwards they say the event is awesome. This means that not only is the event spreading across Colombia, but it could possibly spread to other countries as well. Without a doubt this is another effective way to limit the use of cars.

It is clear that cars are a problem. But many people use them anyway, but what they don't think about is how much they are contributing to polution. Some ways to limit car usage are create cities where you have to pay for a place to store you car, have and even odd licens day, and have no car days.",0
0c5fc9e7,1,"America is the country of the people, the people are the ones in the country, and are the ones living in the country. The method of which the leader of this country are selected by the people is by popular vote. Therefore, the best way, the right way of selecting the president and vice president are by popular vote.

Starting of with that the electoral college is unfair. The electors might know more about this country and they think they know what is the best for these United states but they do not. The peoplr know best, the people knows what is actually going on. Just as Bradford Plummer stated in his article""the best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality""source 14. All these elector are in the political world, so they know everything political about the country and the best leader politically. These elector dont know about all the small things that thousands of people are suffering from.

People want to have say in their country. If the method of choosing the president was strictly by popular college the people would feel as if the country is not theirs and if they are being controlled. The people who live in the country need to agree because if not then kaos would start to happen. People would protest and this country would fall apart bit by bit. Richard A. Posner said ""to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interest, that he really isn't their president""source 19. If this is how the people feel when the other president running wins instead of the one they selected won, you could just imagine how they would feel if they did not have a part choosing who is going to be the next president of the United States.

The electoral college is just not fair. Richard A. Posner says that on of the reason to retain the electoral college is ""its lack of democratic pedigree""source 17. If this country has been running smoothly with popular vote why would someone want to change it? Well manyy times change is good because it is improving becoming better at something although something like this should not change.

So just to restate that eliminating the popular vote would be unfair, unright, and just plain wrong. Just like in the preamble ""we the people"".",0
0c73c177,1,"There are a lot of things that develop and hold a Electoral College together. There are also a lot of down falls to the Electoral College. Every state has 1 House of Representative plus 2 of your Senators in the Electoral College. There are a total of 538 people but 270 of them is the majority vote that wins. There are a total of 5 reasons why we have to keep this method to choosing the president. The 5 ways are Certainty of outcome,Everyone's President,Swing States,Big States and Avoid RunOff Elections.

The main reason we have a Electoral College is so they have a right way to choose a president. The main reason for this is so that we dont leave our electing in the hands of foreign peopleimmiagrants. The is what the president needs to get elected in the electoral college. There are still a lot of down falls to this method of the electoral college though. One of these issues is ""at the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voter"". This means ""winner takes all"" which is they only focus on the bigger states and not the smaller ones because the bigger states have bigger population which means they have more in the electoral college. Another issue with this method is that the person thats running for president might get the popularity vote but still not win. See everyone that votes isnt really voting directly for the president, the people who really count is the electoral college. In order to win the vote you have to convince the electoral college and thats not always easy. So remember just because you won popular vote doesnt mean you won the majority of the electoral vote.

There are 5 reasons why we keep this method of electing the president. The first reason is Certainty of Outcome. This means ""it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote."" Which really means the candidates share to the other people in the Electoral college there share of the popular vote and thats how they vote. The second reason is Everyone's President. This is basically shows that ""the Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal."" This means that no region such as south,northwest,etc. has enough electoral votes to elect a president. The third resone to keeping these methods is Swing States. This tells me that its the ""winner takes all method."" The fourth method why we should keep these methods is the Big States. This explains that ""the Electoral College restores some of the wieght in the political balance."" this means that the bigger states get a big advantage in the electoral because the people that get elected into office there is based off of population so they have an advantage. THe bigger states get more attention from the candates then the smaller states do. The final reason why we should keep this method of voting is Avoid RunOff Elections. This means ""the Electoral College aviods the problem of Elections in which no candidates recieves a majority of the votes cast"". This means no pressure for candidates when they win majority of the votes cast.

There are many ways to develop and to hold the Electoral College together. There are many ways that it falls apart and has it flaws but its the best way for our econany to vote for president. If you think about it if we just did popularity vote that would be like leading our hands into a world of immigrates who know a very little. There a lot of rules for our Electoral process buyt its the best way and the only way we have to becoming a better place. Dont forget to look at the 5 reasons we keep this the way it is.",0
0cbe426e,1,"Dear State Senator, I think that we should change the election by popular vote for the President of the United States instead of keeping the electoral college. The reasons I think that we should have it changed to the popular vote is because I think the people should be able to choose who should be our next president instead of having the electoral college also voting for the president of the United States.

Its not only me senator, but also these important men of our country all agree with me that we need to abolish the electoral college! These men are Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, and the U.S. Chamber of commerce.""The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor."" I just find all of this unfair because its not just the United states giving there opinion on who should be there next leader but some other men who have favoritism for the opponents also vote too! One example of how i think the electoral college voters are unfair is back in the election of President Obama and Mr. rodney the electoral voters had 29 electoral votes for Obama and rodney only had 3. So, that election could have been more fair if we didnt have so much favoritism for one person to another. When we could have had a fair vote from the people and had the opinions on who should be there next President.

Now, in the defese of the electoral college it does help situations in which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast which can be very helpful when examples happen like Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 when they both had only 43 percent of the popular votes and the electoral college helped not make those elections as complicated. But, they still had a say so on who should be president and who shouldnt be president. I think that question should be answered by our own people!

Thank you so much State Senator for reading my opinion on the electoral college versus the popular vote for the President of the United States.",0
0cfc3580,1,"Dear State Senator, most people in theis country may argue theat the Electoral College is well layed out system in which according to source 3: In Defense of thee Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised metheod of choosing a president ""The winnertakeall metheod of awarding electoral votes induces candidates to focus theeir campaign efforts on thee tossup states"", which means presidents are always looking for support from small states, which is based on population, to be voted for because in thee big states little to no votes are accepted by thee Electoral College. I disagree, I believe theat theis metheod is wrong and unfair for thee peope so I argue against it.

To begin withe, according to source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even thee bestlaid defenses of thee system are wrong ""At thee most basic level, thee electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of thee winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states theey know theey have no chance of winning, focusing only on thee tight races on thee ""swing"" states"", theis means theat in some states one candidate might have a better chance of winning thean thee otheer candidate and even theough a candidate is at disadvantage because thee otheer takes all thee votes because of thee electoral college theat candidate might win and thee people of theat state will not even know who is theis winning candidate until theey see him on tv as an actual president, which probably means theat thee winning candidate won't help theat state because he does not know well enough about it. Additionally, according to source 3 ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as rodney ws in thee Southe, has no incentive to campaign heavily in theose states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plularity in states theat he knows he will win"", theis means theat in order to win thee presidency a candidate must get to know otheer regions but because in theis case Mitt rodney vs. Barrack Obama, Obama was thee regional favorite for thee Northe rodney was at a disadvantage, which is what thee Electoral College ultimately wants.

To conclude withe, I theink theat thee metheod of using thee Electoral College to elect presidents is wrong and unfair. Furtheermore, according to source 2 ""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdate, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions witheout much basis in reality"" theis means theat thee electoral college is just not fit for thee modern democrat world of today and mostly people argue against it.",0
0d1dd9cf,1,"The Electoral College?

Some would say this way of voting is a lack of democratic pedigree and should be abolished. The Electoral College is when the people vote for the electors who are declaring the candidate who recieves the most popular vote. This act is not only unfair but injustice as well. The people should be able to vote directly on who they choose to govern over them. But instead we're using plurality, when a candidate receives more votes than other candidates while not receiving a clear majority of votes. Someone is chosen to speak for them. The Electoral College is very irrational and should be removed from the voting process system.

It's known to be said that those voting for slate of electorss half the time dont know what they're voting for. Some states have reported that they have yet to see campaign ads, or news regarding the election and therefore dont actually know who to pick. The president goes to the states heshe may think have ""swing"" votes and lets himherself be known pubilically to gain more votes. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president. But what about the states who arent caught up to the political races and would like to know more about it. They may feel disenfranchised to feel that their votes don not matter. They may feel the new president may disregard their interest and is not interested in being everyone's president. People may believe by voting it goes directly to the candidate but in fact it goes to the electorss, who vote. When a vote is placed to a certain candidate it doesnt nessicisarly mean they are going to win. They may win the vote but could lose the presidency. It'd be better if everyone just had a say individually of who they wanted to take president. The Electoral College wasnt a very logical idea.

""Electors"" ? the Electors are slate of electorss who parties have selected to make a trusted vote towards the party's nominee.

Source 3, In Defense Of The Elecoral College: Five Reasons T o Keep Our Despised Method Of Choosing The President States that the Electors are rare for the trust to be betrayed, however it is entirely possible that the winner of the electorsal vote will not win the national popular vote. This hasnt happened sense 2000, when Gore had more popular votes then Bush yet fewer electorsal votes, but that was first time since 1888. But who's to say it can happen again. The Electoral College is a chance being taken that you may or may not win the election based on how many popular votes said person may recieve. This is no shocker that there have been disputes over the outcome of an Electoral College vote, its based on winnertakesall basis. Source 3, The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast. This creates pressure for runoff elections, but is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner. Voters in a presidential election are people who want to express a political prefernece rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election, but thats false.

The Electoral College? Its not one of the more favorable elections, and is sought out to be uncanny and unfit. The Electoral College is a way for people to interact with the politics taken place, but are manipulated into something else that takes away from being able to have a say in something that will effect said person. We live in a democracy, which means we vote but how can we vote when we don't know who we're voting for. The voting system should remain how it is, with willing participants placing a ballant and knowing that their vote is actually going to matter.",0
0d208d83,1,"Dear State Senator, I am agreeing in favor of keeping the Electoral College. There is no need to change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. That is because the House of representatives helps elect for us, it helps us to balance our votes, and avoid problems of election. The electoral college helps the people out alot with the voting situation and helps us to better understand and know our new president.

The broader significance of the electoral College is that the House of Representatives helps us vote for our new president. In source One paragraph three it says ""Your state's entitled allotment of electors equal the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each number in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators....""That tells me that we the people are not alone in this process of voting who will be our next president. Also in the same source but paragraph five it states ""The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party."" This informs me that not only the House of representatives is involved in the elections. Tthe government is important to the electoral College because the votes of the government count most to the College.

It is evident that the Electoral College helps us to balance our votes. As stated in Source Three ""The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states by population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution..."" This lets me know that we as the people won't have to worry to much about the voting and selection of the president. Another piece of evidence stated in the same source and paragraph ""So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does..."" That states that not all people and states have to worry about who the president will be. The Electoral College hepls us out alot mostly to the big states in the United States.

Above all the Electoral College avoid problems of the elections. In source Three, paragraph Twentytwo it states ""The Electoral College avoids problems of the elections in which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast."" This lets us know that the Electoral College is doing a good job on keeping the votes clean and simple to understand. Also stated in the same source and paragraph ""There is no pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential electionn process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which ivariably producess a clear winner..."" That tells me that the Electoral College is keeping the votes on point.

There are some people out there who don't agree with the Electoral College and dont like the way the votes are being put in because sometimes the president that they chose wasn't elected. They are wrong to disagree with the Electoral College because the College keeps everything going in order and in a clear path to let us know who our president will be. As stated in Source Two paragraph Ten ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for the slate of electors, who in tur elect the president. This makes them disagree because they think that the Electoral College doesn't vote for their president, but they souldn't worry because they way they vote is by how many states helped the electors to vote for that presient being chosen as the president. Also In Source Two ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning,focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states."" That makes some people diagree also, but the Electoral College doesn't count how many people in each big or small state voted for president. All the college does is help the governmtent elect for the president that they most support and elect for.

I agree that the Electoral College should be kept in favor because of all the help that it gives us and the government. Also the College helps us stay balanced on the votes so that nothing gets missplaced or missunderstood. Most of all it avoids problems during the election so that the people and the government are satisfied with their votes. The Eletroal College is a great way to keep things going at a clear election of the year. The Electoral College doesn't need any changes for me because even if they chose on the elections of the government the votes of the people still count to them as well. The votes of the peopel are important to the Electoral College just as much as the government's votes are.",0
0d8b9898,1,"The Electoral College is best described as outdated and obsolete. It was designed so that, when there were too many states and poor technology, the vote could be fairly and realistically counted, by voting between a few people from each state. This was good and efficient for that time, but, with the technology available to us today, it is impractical and easy to corrupt. if you live in a mostly Democratic state as a Republican, your vote is regarded as nothing, and you would have no reason to vote in the electoral college, instead of throwing your vote into the entire mass of the united states, where it has a chance to even slightly influence the vote. Also, since larger states are given more attention, due to the allornothing attitude of most states, other states are given less information and are forced to make more wild guesses than votes, a result of having less information.

When the idea of the Electoral College was introduced, the telegraph was still pretty hot technology. All votes would be counted by hand by an impartial court, counting off the vote of every single person individually, out of perhaps more than a million voters. Instead of this, each state would record their own numbers and dispatch a group of electors, who could not be influenced away from their vote, while sending a horseman or a few across the hundreds of miles of U.S. territory with a few little scraps of paper with votes on it would be impractical and dangerous. bags could be lost, a rider could have an accident, entire counties would be unaccounted for. The Electoral College was a nessecity as well as a stroke of genius, and I applaud the man who thought of it. However, this was when the telegraph was a stroke of genius, too. Now we have a cell phone the size of a notepad that can store thousands or millions of votes alone. We have processors that can count the number of people that like apples versus oranges and come out with a percentage, verdict, receipt, and the best bussines option as soon as the numbers are input, as soon as we push that little blue ""Enter"" button. We can send the votes through the air in the billions, without as much as wires to conduct them. there is little or no possibility of tampering or miscommunication, and there are records to back up and correct every single little error. it is much smarter, safer, and more accurate to initiate a simple counting program on the computer, with each individual terminal sending all of it's results and information to a higher terminal until all of the information is scored, backed up, double checked, counted, percentaged, and a final verdict is reached. This can even be done in a way to run the information separately to different computers, to minimize tampering. The electoral college is obsolete, a small parasite of politicians who just dont want this to end. we dont still use the telegraph, do we?

The electoral college is not only obsolete, unnesessary and parasitic, but also unfair to many voters. The main ways this unfairness can be identified are extreme, and each really deserve a paragraph of their own. Let us imagine a scenario: a democrat lives in a mostly republican state. He goes to vote. His vote is passed along, checked off, and placed aside for a time. When all of the votes are in, the republican votes outweigh the democrats. Now, our democrat's vote, his wife's vote, the democratic guy who works at 711 down the street's vote, Joe's vote, Bob's vote, Billy's vote, ""That girl Suzie's"" vote and ALL THE DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN THE STATE are all, essentially, thrown into the furnace, and will do so next election, the election after, and essentially every mostly republican election after that. In a popular vote without the barrier of the Electoral College, all those votes would flow into the pile for whichever canidate they voted for. Then the pile would be counted, divided into the total votes, and percentaged. then, at lest the votes could count for SOMETHING, other than a waste of time. But wait! there's more. Most states have an allornothing ideal, meaning if politician A got 51% of the votes in California, while politician B still got 49%, Politician A gets 55 votes in the Electoral College, while politician B gets squat. This does not represent the best interests of many of the people in that state. this is unfair. It also means that larger states have the advantage, because they get more votes, like California 55, Texas 38, and Florida 29, while smaller states get less, such as Alaska 3, Rhode Island 3, and Hawaii 4. Just to add insult to injury, this means that larger states are more fought over by politicians, leaving smaller states practically ignored. This is unfair to people in the Dakotas or Montana have no information to base their votes on, instead just picking a canidate by mainly party affiliation. the biggest political battles are in fact fought over the biggest states, in the forms of advertisements and propaganda. Although the propaganda is truely just that: propaganda, there is some truth in them, and the voters in bigger states are more well versed in the political and practical advantages of one canidate over the other. Article 3, while defending the Electoral College, in fact condems itself, by saying that voters in so called ""swing states,"" where there is no true dominant party, are likely to be given the most information on the canidates as they battle over who will get that state's votes in the college. The same thing can be said for the bigger states, because neither politician can really afford to let the other gain the upper hand in that state. Therefore smaller states, or states that are basicly marooned on one party are ignored or disregarded as worthless and unattainable in any case, so they widthold information from them, forcing them to vote blindly in favor of whichever party they choose, which votes may be discarded anyway. With an uncensored popular vote, the political canidates will be forced to advertise for all of the united states, instead of just the bigger or indevisive states. this will also remove all of the unfair advantages from the larger states, including more information as well as an unfairly weighted voting system.

In conclusion, the electoral college was the most efficient and sucessful way to vote, back in the 17001800. However, with current communication and transportation technologies, the College has become obsolete, to the point where it should be buried at a crossroads with a stake through it's heart. It is unfair, biased, impractical, and just overall worthless. We should put our newfound technology and knowledge to use and do away with the electoral College, once and for all.",0
0d9b0568,0,"Car usage all over the world has reduced and been reducing slowly. Some of the advantages of limiting car usage may be the reducing of pollution or just to save money. Also due to many different reasons, even if it's for their own needs, or to just minimize the pollution going on in different parts of the world. In many places car usage has been being limited for countries all over. If it's China, Spain, Columbia, Paris, Germany, or even the United States of America. Not all countries have taken part in trying to reduce the use of cars to an all time low. That may just be their own choice. While other countries are sure trying to cut the usage of car for a variety of reasons. Some places in the world are doing it so they can cut some of the pollution done to the world. And if you think about it if half of the world tryed as hard as they possibly could to try and minimize pollution the world wouldnt be so pulloted. I know cars aren't the only things that cause pollution, but its a pretty big part of the daily life for any person no matter where they are.

In Vauban, Germany a suburban area has almost completely given up driving and even owning a car. ""Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park"" Rosenthal 2 but it cost a lot of money to even own a parking space. ""Carowners can buy a space, for 40,000, along with a home."" Rosenthal 2 That price may just be enough to keep people from owning a car all together. According to the article "" In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars "" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, 70 percent of vaughn's Families don't even own a car and 57 percent sold a car just to move there. Isn't that crazy? Imagine life without cars, it has advantages and disadvantages of course but advantages can lead to a positive outcome no matter what the reason is. By people in Vauban not owning cars they are most likely saving a lot of money because they don't have to buy the car, pay the ridiculous amount for a parking spot, and pay for the gas thats going to end up pollution the world anyway. Just a few of the many advantages in reducing or cutting out car usage completely.

Due to all the terrible and mass amounts of smog in Paris, France, they enforced a ""partial driving ban to clear the air or global city"" Duffer 10. For example, in this article called "" "" by Robert Duffer, on monday motorist with even numbered license plates were told to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22 euro fine which turns out to be 31 U.S. Dollars. And then the same thing would happen to those whose license plates ended in an odd number the following day. This had to have cut pollution a huge amount. If you think about how many people are living in Paris, and you think about them all staying off the road due to a ban then you may be able to understand the amount of pollution that wasn't produced during this ban. Now Paris, did this for the advantage purpose of reducing the amount of pollution they had in their air and by not adding more to it. It couldn't have a negative impact they were doing something good for the enviornment even if it didn't really help that much. Out of the whole city of Paris about ""4,000 drivers were fined,"" and ""27 people had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine"" Duffer 12. Another advantage that Paris had due to them banning car usage was that ""Congestion was down 60 percent"" Duffer 14. The ruling French lifted the ban when the smog cleared up enough.

Bogota, Columbia turned what they did as a tradition, into a big hit to tons of poeple in other countries. "" Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota "" by Andrew Selsky informed the public about what was started a few years ago back in Columbia.

For a day cars except for buses and taxis were banned. In the city of ""7 million, the goal is to promote alternative transportation and also reduce smog. Violators faced 25 fines."" Selsky 21 Due the day without cars, the city of Bogotas has ""118 MILES of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American City."" Selsky 27 One advantage they had was that because of the day with out cars the parks and sports centers have been in the best shape they could possibly be in. They also did have to reduced the amount of pollution that was being put into the air, because it was such a big hit to other cities and countries.

Yet another article by Elisabeth Rosenthal called "" "", is stating the advantages in the United States and what has happened with the reducing of cars. ""Recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" Rosenthal 29 The minimizing of cars in The U.S. has some advantages those being, ""Obama's ambitious goals to curb the United States' greenhouse gas emissions"" Rosenthal 29. New York City for example is home to the heart of public transportation due to all the taxis and the subway. Not many people in New York city drive or even own a car due to the congested streets, and the ridiculous amount of money you have to have just to park it like it was in Germany. Crazy amounts of money to park a car is just an outrage. The advantage here would be the money saved by not even owning a car and storing it. Another one would be the traffic is bad but not as bad as it would be if more people had cars. Public transportation is huge in New York. It's already expensive enough to live in New York imagine if there werent as many taxis and if the subway wasn't there at all. Picture all the pollution there would be.

To wrap up everything, as stated there are many advantages to reducing car usage all around the world. If it was to reduce smog or pollution of just to save money they are still advantages to decreasing the amount of times you use a car. If something is in walking distances why not just walk instead of taking a car and wasting money and also polluting the air unless it's a hybrid. The limiting of car usage is slowly but surely growing all over the world. Yes, cars are faster to get places, but why waste the money and clean air to be somewhere quickly? Think of all the advantages there are in reducing car usage not the disadvantages.",0
0e03e65c,0,"Society has made the car industry accelerate rapidly and over the years the amount of money these automobile company's make only increases. However, its time to look into the advantages of limiting such car usage in our communities. Studies have shown that the use of cars only increases the amount of stress we have. Without the usage of cars we're able to release such stressors Carlos Arturo Plaza stated in Andrew Selsky's article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"". Its one thing to make the decision to start this movement on our own, but when a community becomes involved it makes a stronger impact. Car usage in America has only grown since it began however, the amount of cars being bought is beginning to show decrease. Many people are realizing that there are numerous amounts of ways to get around their city. Some are even carpooling. Although choosing other options such as the bus may take time it is still well worth the wait. We will find that many other options and opportunities come into play when we cut down on and get rid of the use of cars in our communities.

Various factors come into play when it comes to world pollution. One of the factors being the use of automobiles which increases the amount of air pollution thus damaging the ozone layer. The use of cars is second nature to us. We love the sense of indepence we get at the age of 16 when we can finally get our license. To point out, no one thinks on whats happening as we purchase cars. Instead, we rely on diesel gas to do the trick. Imagine cutting out the use of cars. With this detuction of car usage the amount of destruction done to the ozone layer will diminish tremendously. We will be able to experience clearer air just like the communities that participate in this action. For instance, in an article done by Robert Duffer titled ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" we can witness through testimony the wonders done by banning car usage. Normally Paris has high amounts of pollution but in order to change this the city enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air temporarily. The fact that the city had cold nights and warm days doesn't do anything to help because these nights and days only allow for the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions. After the banning of car usage Paris was finally able to experience clear air. ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals... Last week Paris had 147 ,micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with the 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London... "" excerpt from source 2 ""Paris bans driving due to smog"".

To be clear, no one's against car usage, but after considering the costs of using cars you'd realize its not worth it. Residents of Vanban, Germany find this statement to be true and have therefore regulated their lives around it. Elizabeth Rosenthal created an article on the residents from Germany titled ""In German Suburb, Life Goesn On Without Cars"". Here she discussed what the community has done in their no car movement. Residents here do not regret their decision to get rid of their cars and actually like it better than dealing with the uncontrollable and frustrating traffic jams. Not to mention the countless amount of car wrecks that come along with it. In this particular part of Germany the government has assisted in the movement. There are no street parking spots, driveways or home garages. Some might think its absurd but when theres no cars theres no need for such things. They have even improved sidewalks and made the city commute friendly with stores only a walk distance away. A mother from Germany gives her account of living in Vauban and states the following: ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" She is a media trainer and a mother of two. In previous bills, 80 percent of the money from the government had gone to highways and 20 percent to other transports, but with the smart planning movement that will change within the next 6 years.

All in all, many factors come into play when discussing transportation within a city. However with the deduction of car use a city can recieve many benefits including an increase in money for other government spending, clearer air, happiness, more money in their pockets among many other things. We just have to decide whether enough is enough.",0
0e7ec031,0,"The majority of Americans have the luxury of owning a car. A car of course, seems like a useful innovation. It gets you places quickly and efficiently, and is easier than walking. Yet so many people drive cars that the roads get congested and clogged easily as the cars just idle in the road waiting for the traffic jam to loosen up. Car usage causes the environment to decline and an increase in air pollution, it would be a great idea to lower car usage since it is so detrimental to the health of the environment and the health of the populace.

An advantage to reducing car usage is a more beneficial environment and a better overall health standard. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some... areas in the United States."" Source 1. Personal cars directly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and by cutting down personal car usage and encouraging the use of car pooling and public transportation we can decrease greenhouse gas emmmisions. Also walking and biking to your destination instead of driving helps encourage healthy living and habits as well as exercise.

Cars also cause pollution and smog to hang over cities causing the air to be full of harmful chemicals, endagering peoples health and also causing a rise in asthma for the populace that lives inside the city. In places like Beijing,China smog and pollution from cars cause the air to be so foggy and dirty that you cannot even see the sky. ""Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city.""Source 2. When Paris was accosted by the same problem they solved it by a temporary ban on driving to clear the air. Without so many people driving cars we wouldn't have these many issues with smog and it's effect on the environment. With less car usage smog and pollution would drop.

Driving not only creates an issue with air pollution but also with water pollution and the contamination of the earth. Cars run on gasoline, a fossil fuel. Which is brought up from underground by drilling into the earth. Fracking often has a negative effect on the earth, often causing oil spills into the ocean or earth. The effect of the oil spill is pollution and mass death of wildlife in that area. By using alternative methods of transportation such as trains,buses,taxis,subways, walking and biking we reduce the amount of gas used and also the amount of car emmissons released into the air. Cars guzzle gasoline and this causes a huge need for fossil fuel, by using cars less we lessen the need for gasoline.

Many people agree with the statment that without cars their lives are easier and less stressful due to the fact that they no longer have to worry about traffic jams and car crashes as well as any other dangerous event that can happen while driving. This excerpt from the third source, shows a man's reply to the event Day Without Cars that takes place in Bogota,Colombia once a year. ""'It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,' said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza.""Source 3. This excerpt only furthers my point that less car usage causes people to be more calm and less worried or stressed. ""'When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter"" Source 1. This quote from source 1 which discusses a suburb in Germany that is carfree. This blurb shows another example of someone who became happier without a car. Another advantage to reducing car usage is less stress.

Also to some people a car is just a backup for when public transportation falls through. ""They organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transporation or carpool with friends."" Source 4 By reducing uneeded car usage we cause a more effiecent society less dependent on cars and more dependent on better types of alternative transportation. ""'A car is just a means of getting from A to B when BART type of public transport doesn't work.'"" Source 4. By improving public transport we reduce car usage which improves the environment and quality of life.

Less car usage will help the environment as well as lower stress. ""Transportation is the second largest source of America's emmisons."" Source 4. By eliminating uneeded car usage and introducing more public transportation and alternate means of transport we will be eliminating one of the greatest causes of greenhouse gas emissions in America. The advantages of eliminating car usage is less pollution, healthier living and a less stressful life.",0
0f235c4f,0,"There are many advantages to limiting car usage and many people are starting to see it. In the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" By Elisabeth Rosenthal She goes to explain that in Vauban, Germany there is a community that have given up on cars. Without a car on the streets you can tell its more lively with the quote ""Heidrun walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked berdants streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."" With that quote from the article you can tell that the streets are filled with the sound of people rather than the sound of motors and smoke from the vehicles.

certainly not having cars is a great advantage to suburbs, in Rosenthal article it said "" there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking... in attempt to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation... in this new approach, stores are placed a walk away..."" Instead of wasting gas and filling the air with disgusting gas, stores could be just around the corner. Which in return would be easier for everyone around. Even the united states, environmental protection agency is promoting""car reduced"" communities.

Another advantage to limiting car usage is to reduce smog and air pollution, in the article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robery duffer he informs us that paris actually enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. It stated "" Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog... the smog rivaled Bejing,china, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" By banning driving they not only were able to reduce the smog and air pollution, They obviously reduced car traffic!

Also In the article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in bogota"" by Andrew Selsky, they banned car in an effort to promote alternative transportation and reduce spog. In the article is said ""parks and sports center also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad , smooth sidewalks rushhouse restrictins have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants andupscale shopping districts have cropped up."" The day also is said to help lower stress, "" It's a good oppurtunity to take away stress and lower air population,""said buisnessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife.

As you can tell from the facts within this essay, there are definitly many advantages with limiting car usage, from reducing smog and pollution, to having stores built closer to home. These advantages not only help the citzens but also the planet we live on, and our future children and their children and so on...",0
0f8bd702,0,"The wheel was the first step that took society into the making of the mobile car. Today millions of cars are made each year to help humans transport around the cities and streets around the world. Every vehicle that is powered by gasoline emits carbon dioxide, this gas is very harmful for the environment, it causes the ozone later to slowly dissolve and it also causes acid rains. Traffic jams is one of the many effects of having too many cars in a certain populated area. Debt has also been an influential part in the quantity of cars around the globe. Car usage and production should be drastically reduced to ensure a better future for all living things in the Planet Earth.

Furthermore, Global warming has slowly made its toll on Earth, most of which has been produced by the Carbon Dioxide gases in the atmosphere, this gas is a mayor green house gas. Over the years cars have been more extensively used and have a great percentage in world contamination, As stated in article 1 paragraph 5 ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of green house gas emissions in europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the united states"". This being, if car production and usage are reduced, Earth will have positive reactions to this change. The levels of global warming will also be reduced all around, this will help us conserve our north and south poles for a longer period of time, keeping safe all the animals related to that area like penguinzs and polar bears.

In addition, Traffic jams arent the most pleasant place to be, due to the fact that they're unpredictable and in most cases highly annoying. Information from passage 2 paragraph 14 states that ""congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of france"", this was due to oderly assigning days in which certain cars with certain license plates can drive through the cities of france. Less congestion means higher percent in mobility all around, this can greatly effect a 3 hour traffic jam to a simple 20 minute ride. Coming and going from places can be a brease, and this will also facilitate extra time for other potential activities. Reducing car usage and congestion can also lead to less accidents and car crashes.

Moreover, Leasing or buying a new car can come heavy on the pocket. Financial debt has been trounced ever since a currency started, debt is unpredictable sometimes and can happen to any individual. Having the latest model of a car can be a luxury only some can afford, the individuals who try and cant afford it ussually end up in debt, as reinforced in article 4 paragraph 32 ""Cash Strapped americans could not afford new cars, and the unemployed werent going to work anyway"". Ussually some individuals ""bite more than they can chew"" and this can harm not only one indivual, but the economy as a whole. Reducing the mayor debt that can come from car leasing can improve a counrtys economy and benift milliones of individuals.

Concluding, many reasons show society to reduce the usage of cars. One being that gasoline and petrolium powered cars can contaminate the planet Earth, melt our poles, destroy the ozone layer and cause harmful weather effects. Also, the reduction of cars can lead to the decongestion of cities in which indiviuals can more easily and freely move around adding time for them to use as they like. Lastly, the economy can have a mayor boost if car reduction and usage from leasing can occur. In conclusion, the reduction of car usage and production is a great benefit for every individual who lives on Earth, and can lead to many great outcomes that will help members of society enjoy a better life style and have a safer future.",0
10235460,1,"While many may argue for it, the Electoral College has proved to be an obsolete way of electing the President. It is, essentially, an indirect way for voters to choose their candidates, by voting for electors whose loyalty is not guaranteed. The Electoral College vote can override the popular vote, as seen in the 2000 Presidential Election. Some say that the Electoral College is a system worth keeping, because it provides a certain outcome and avoids runoff elections, yet these arguments are founded on little reason.

Undoubtedly outdated, this system is a catastrophe in the works, the 2000 election only a glimpse of the chaos that could result from the Electoral College. The disaster factor is a strong argument against the Electoral College. Consider 1960, when Louisiana segregationists came close to replacing Democratic electors with ones who wouldn't support Kennedy 11. Also along those lines, electors are bound by nothing but obligation to vote for the candidate of their party, and sometimes change their decision upon voting. Even if it only happens occasionally, it is yet another fault in this system.

Not only is the Electoral College irrational, it is also simply unfair. Each state can only cast a single vote, so the one representative in Wyoming, who represents only 500 thousand, would have as much say as California's 55 representatives, who represent 35 million voters 12. Other sources say a tie would be unlikely. However, in 1979 in Ohio, it would have only taken a few thousand voters to vote the other way 12. Because of the ""winnertakeall"" system, certain states are left untouched by candidates who know they won't win them. In 2000, certain states didn't even see the candidates, and didn't air campaign ads, denying voters of a chance to further favor or favor them 13.

It is simple, the Electoral College system is a turnoff for many voters, especially after the incident in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Voters can be discouraged if they have no hope of carrying their state, like Democrats in Texas, or Republicans in Cali 23. Assuming that ""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election 23"" is rather incorrect. Single votes could absolutely sway an election, as mentioned earlier. Relying on the popular vote may make a tie more likely, but it would free voters from an obsolete and untrustworthy system. Over 60 percent of voters oppose the Electoral College 9 which is enough to bring attention to these facts and, hopefully, address them before another controversial occurance.

The evidence is all layed out, mishaps and nearmishaps, an impending catastrophe all too possible for comfort, unfair to potential voters. The Electoral College doesn't deserve its defenders. 2000 proved it, the voters have spoken up, and it is indisputably irrational to continue to rely on it. The system has been around for a while, and it will stay in place for the next few years, most likely. However, because of the light now being shined on its faults, it could have a chance to be reformed for the better.",0
10674384,0,"By limiting car usage, research has shown there is less greenhouse gas emissions, a promotion in alternative transportation, and can result in a new and improved safe society.

To begin, the advantages of limiting car usage reduces the amount of pollution that is emitted into the air, resulting in a more environmental friendly neighborhood. According to research in Vauban, Germany, ""...Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the United States."" Source 1 Many locations around the world are taking this act into perspectiveincluding not only Vauban,Germanybut also Paris,France, Bogota,Colombia, and even cities in the United States that are reducing these numbers drastically and making a beneficial change in the environment. ""If the pattern persistsand many sociologists believe it willit will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions."" Next, with the declining usage of cars, citizens are left with alternative transportation that are beneficial. Many people have gone from driving carsgetting from point A to point Bto visiting parks and sports centers, which can lead to an increase in physical activity. Another advantage to giving up your car can also lead to less traffic. According to the new routine in Colombia, ""Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during a carfree day...leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams.""Source 3 In Paris, officials are enforcing drivers to clear the air of the global city with a partial driving ban. With this new ban in play, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France."" Source 2 Since the change, public transit from Friday to Monday was free of charge. As you can see, these changes are coming into effect and are changing the world in various positive ways.

Heidrun Walter said, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this wayreferring to giving her car up. Source 3 Businessman Carls arturo Plaza also says, ""This is a good opportunity to reduce stress and lower air pollution."" Source 3 In addition, the reduction of car usage leads to a safer environment. According to my. Sivak's research, ""There has been a large drop in the pecentage of 16 to 39yearolds getting a license, while older people are likely to retain their licenses as they age.""Source 4 A study found that driving by young people decreased by 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. With this evolutionary change in peoples everyday lives, many large numbers are drastically going down, revealing numerous advantages. The number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak, the rates of car ownership per household and per person has started to come down two to three years before the downturn, and demographic shifts in the driving population all reveal that people may find less reason to resume to their cardriven habits.

To conclude, the limiting of car usage can improve the environent, can result in numerous transportation opportunities, and can lead to a safer society.",0
10f007a0,0,"Whether we have our license or not, we can all relate to the stress of the daily commute. As of the past century, cars have been one of the most efficient ways to get from point A to point B. Now, mainly due to air pollution, there has been a noticeable decline in the amount of cars used for travel. The advantages of limiting car usage include less stress, less air pollution, and an overall improved society.

The stress of traffic and the constant pressure to be on time would be significantly reduced if people chose other means of transportation such as riding a bike, taking public transportation such as the subway or bus, or walking. Source 1 shows just how effective decreased car usage can be. It describes Vauban, Germany, a small suburb community in which there is virtually no car usage. Many citizens report being less tense, as everything is made within means of walking distance.

Another cause of stress from car usage is the effects it has on the atmosphere. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the United States.Source 1 Paris is an excellent example of just how much car usage has had such negative effects on the atmosphere. Source 2 explains how Paris was so smog ridden it rivaled Bejing, China. Paris then placed limits on car usage until the smog cleared enough for the ban to be lifted.

Not only does decreased car usage help the planet, it helps society as a whole. Source 3 describes Bogota, Columbia and how it celebrates one day a year of no car usage. The city has found that not only has this policy helped clear the smog, but it is enthusiastically endorsed by the citizens. Most people turned out to see the bike races, despite the occasional rain showers. This has caused two other Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar to join the event. Bogota has seen the construction of 118 bike paths, the most of any Latin American city. It is not just the government endorsing decreased car usage but people themselves. Source 4 points out how the number of miles driven per person was 9 percent below the peak. There are various explanation for why people are driving less, one might be that the internet makes increased telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without having to drive to them.

It is evident that we are witnessing a major cultural shift, possible degressing, but in the best possible way. The decreased incline to drive has resulted in less air pollution, a less stressed population, and an improved society overall.",0
115bceb1,1,"In the westminster system, the head of state and or government is elected by the majority of both houses of their respective national legislature. In the popular vote system, the head of state and or government is elected by the majority of the nation. Unlike the westminster system, the popular vote system has a vast array of ways to carryout the elections. Tyrants sway the people and if the people are sovereign we can't let them hold all the power when they can easily be misguided. For the safety of freedom against tyranny and for the safety of the people's sovereignty the United States must ensure the continuity of the Electoral College.

The united states of america is the oldest surviving republic in modern day times. This is because our founding fathers were some of the greatest thinkers in american history. the idea of the electoral college was heavily influenced by the English system of government and also the Iriqouis Confederacy though it is usually unrecognized due to the fact that many americans, at the time, thought Native Americans were savages. One of the principles of English government the founding fathers used was the idea of electing heads of the nation. in the United Kingdom the Prime Minister, i. e. the head of government, was elected by the majority of the house of commons and then approval by some higher authority to ensure the vote was valid and legitimate. Our founding fathers were afraid of a popularly elected dictator who would bring down the principles of republicans and democratic institutions. So the Founding Fathers decided to create a system where the head of state and his office where responsible and questionable to the Federal legislature the United States Congress. He could be impeached by congress if he had committed crimes and removed from office if he was unfit to carry out the duties he was entrusted with. The electoral college was made to ensure that despotism never happens in the United States. Adolf Hitler was never elected to any office, he was appointed to the chancellorship of Germany by President Hindenburg because Hitler held the people's trust and approval. Benito Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister of Italy by the King because he had the people on his side. This cannot happen in the United States because we have the Electoral College. the electors of the President are ordinary people that no one really knows whom they are. the electoral college is not democratic and it was not supposed to be. This is representative democracy or republicans. According to Richard A. Posner,""...the electoral college method is not democratic in a modern sense... it is the electors who elect the president, not the people."" Governments are flawed and some are so corrupt and abusive that their extremitites cannot be mentioned. The United States government and congress have always had the interests of the people in their mind. However, there is a rising faction of people of the united states that want to remove the electoral college, one of whom was Richard Milhouse Nixon who was the 37th president of the united states and was the only person to resign the office due to unconstitutional scandals. this growing faction states that because the Electoral College is not democratic enough that it should be done away with. According to Bradford Plumer,""The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational."" What many forget to realize is that the Electoral College is a Presidium for the elections, it presides over and gives the real vote in the elections because it comprises of random people representing both the states and the states' populations. This is representation in the election process.

The Electoral College is the people's representation. It was made by the Founding Fathers of the united States for a purpose. though many not approve of the Electoral College, many of our nation's greatest presidents were elected by it like John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. To ensure the safety of freedom against tyranny and for the safety of the people's sovereignty the United States must ensure the continuity of the Electoral College.",0
11619ff1,1,"Dear Senator, The electoral college was a perfect way of electing, in the 1900's. Now, we should be allowing the people of the United States decide who they want to be their president. Not only is this inequality, but it is deceiving and unfair. I know people say ""Life's unfair."" and while it is, we should be doing our best to keep our country in line. We are already in a steep pile of debt. Obama has only made this worse. Why was he elected? Mostly because he is part of a minority. Inequality much?

U.S. citizens are being put to shame by every elector in the electoral college. We have the right to vote, for electors. And these electors barely ever follow suit. Not only do they stray from what the people want, they also take away our authority in the government. If we have the right to vote, then let us vote on wether or not to keep the electoral college. I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one who has these thoughts. I understand that I am simply a child and that you have no reason to listen to me, but if not me, listen to the rest of our country.

Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president.

passage 2, paragraph 10 As stated by Bradford Plumer, we do not elect our president. If we did, Al Gore would have been our president in 2000. If all men are equal, then why are you choosing certain people over the U.S. population. It is utterly deceiving to take our votes and throw them away, to make us think that our votes matter when they really don't. If this is who you want to choose our president, then don't have us vote.

Although people say that the electoral college takes away the chance of majority, that's how the system works. How do you think the president wins? They like to call it winnertakesall. That is a nice way to put it. The president is decided by the majority of votes in the electoral college. What puts these electors above me? I am young, but I have a working mind just like my parents. Why do my parents votes get pushed to the side and ignored? The reason is because the U.S. is a lying and unfair country. They tell us that we are the ones who control the government, yet they put our own people above us.

America has been going downhill and that is all that will continue if we dont change something. Getting rid of the electoral college will allow us to prosper. Why listen to a young teenager? Well, I know how it feels to be put on the bottom of the ladder, even if you are the smartest. America knows what is best for us. Not a few people chosen in each state to represent what they themselves want. Let us choose the president once, and if it doesn't work out, then you can continue your way. Just remember, if you never shoot for the moon, you will never reach the stars.",0
11892b17,0,"Cars are a luxury, but others take them for granted. Many people around the world operate cars every single day! Very few people around the world do not own a car, or have never operated one. In Vauban, Germany, residents of an upscale, high class community have decided to give up on cars. vaughn's streets are entirely ""carfree"" except the in the city where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community. Don't get Germany wrong, you are allowed to own a car, but there's very few places to park the car you own. The only placed you can park are large garages at the end of your neighborhood or development, but parking isn't free here. You must buy a space for 40,000, along with the price of your home. 70 percent of vaughn's citizens do not own cars, and 57 percent alone sold their car to move there. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and a mother of two. Vauban, Germany completed in 2006, is an excellent example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States, and other places to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called ""smart planning."" According to Elisabeth Rosenthal who wrote, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars."" Cars can either be a blessing or a mistake. Cars can tend to put out polluting gases, and endanger our earth. In Paris, all driving was banned due to smog. On a Monday, motorisits with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 31 fine. The same would apply to the oddnumbered plates the following day. The car emissions were trapped by a warmer layer of air, because of cold nights and warm days. Congestion in Paris, France wa down 60 percent after just fivedays of intensifying snog. This caused the smog to rival Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world. That's pretty bad to be competing with China. The Monday where all cars were banned, the smog cleared enough for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates the following day.

Now, what about a car free day? In Bogota, Colombia, there was a car free day. Every citizen either had to hike, bike, skate, or take buses to work during this carfree day. This car free day caused the city to not have any traffic jams, and no accidents at all. This isn't just the first year that Colombia decided to do this, but it was the third! This day is specifically called, ""Day Without Cars."" 7 million citizens were expected to find a different way to go to the destinations they needed to reach, without their trusty cars. Bogota receives a vast amount of rain storms each day, but the turnout was still at large. ""The rain hasn't stopped people from participating,"" said Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus. Many citizens of Bogota said that this day takes away not only their stress, but also a ton of pollution. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he and his wife rode a twoseat bicycle.

Almost every single citizen in the United States of America owns or drives a car every single day. This has left researchers pondering a fundamental question: Has America passed the peak of driving? The United States is known for its broad expanses and suburban ideals, and has long been known for one of the world's prime car cultures. It is indeed the birthplace of Model T the home of Detroit the place where Wilson Pickett immortalized ""Mustang Sally."" Lately America's love addiction with motor vehicles seems to be settling down. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 8 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995. Most of the explanation to this certainly comes from recession, because broke Americans could not afford new cars, and the unemployed weren't going to work anyway. ""What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person started to come down two to three years before the downturn,"" said Michael Sivak, who studies the trend and who is a research professor at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. ""I think that means something more fundamental is going on,"" he also said. All of these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession need to find reasons NOT to resume the habit of driving and spending stupid amounts of money on gasoline. The state of New York has a new bikesharing programs and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls refelct those new priorities, as do a proliferation of carsharing programs across the nation. A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009.

Many people around the world have cut driving out of their life for many reasons. Some being safety, money, and pollution.",0
119d35c6,0,"Think about how many times a week we get in a car to drive somewhere. I know I drive to school, to lacrosse practice, and to spend time with friends on a weekly basis. Some people may claim that driving is a positive aspect of our culture because it allows us to get from one place to another and accomplish tasks in a timely fashion, but driving in excess has some serious consequences. Although some may argue that it is impossible to completely cut out an action that is essential to our daily lives, and that cutting down on driving would not be advantageous, limiting the amount of time we spend driving has many advantages. Cutting down on automobile use will decrease pollution in our air, and make us healthier and happier, which is why many legislators and cities are reducing automobile use.

Beijing, China, is the most polluted city in the world according to Robert Duffer of the Chicago Tribune in 2014. source 2 paragraph 14 This is due to the fact that being's automobile use is extremely high. When the city of Paris was faced with a similar crisis, it issued a partial driving ban that allowed people to only drive on days that the government said they could in accordance to their licence plate number, or they would face a fine. source 2 paragraph 1019. This revolutionary ban caused the air pollution in Paris to drop so much that the ban was lifted after only one day. The drop in air pollution clearly refutes the claim that cutting down on driving is not advantageous. Cutting down on automobile use is beneficial to the environment because, according to Elizabeth Rosenthal of the New York Times in 2009 source 1 paragraph 5, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50% in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Limiting automobile use is crucial to cleaning our air and stopping the burning of fossil fuels, thus explains why is beneficial to limit our car use.

Although some might argue that driving a car to work is easier, evidence shows that people who limit their car use are happier and healthier. Rosenthal writes about the city of Vauban, Germany, where ""70% of vaughn's families do not own a car."" source 1 paragraph 3 Heidrum Walter, a carless citizen from Vauban, states that, ""When I had a car, I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" source 1 paragraph 3 The concept of people being happier and healthier without cars is further proved in Bogota, Columbia, where, according to Andrew Selsky of the Seattle Times in 2002, ""For the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the Day Without Cars in the capital city of 7 million."" source 3 paragraph 21 Carlos Arturo Plaza stated, ""It's a good opprotunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,""as he rode his bike with his wife. The statements from Walter of Vauban and Plaza of Bogota show how limiting automobile use is advantageous to the overall wellbeing and happiness of people, thus we should limit our automotive use.

Limiting automobile use is so beneficial, that many groups and legislators are supporting a society with less cars. The EPA in the United States is promoting ""car reduced"" communities, and legislators are starting to act. source 1 paragraph 9 David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America, states that, ""All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change."" Sociology proffesor at Drecel University, Mimi Sheller, further elaborates, stating, ""Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a longterm cultural shift."" source 4 paragraph 35 The support for a ""car reduced"" society by the US government and the EPA is the cherry on top to all of the benefits associated with driving less, thus we should limit our automobile use.

Society is changing. A study last year found that driving by young people decreased by 23% between 2001 and 2009. source 4 paragraph 41 Now is the time to turn off the engine, get out of the car, and take a bus, bike, or train to work. By limiting our automobile use, we keep our air clean by burning less fossil fuels, and we are happier and healthier, which is why organizations like the EPA support the reduction of car use. We need to act today to save the next generation of citizens from ecological destruction. The benefits of reducing car use are countless, which explains why we should limit our automobile use.",0
121160b9,1,"Dear Florida senator, I'm a young student, and no I don't haye much of a background in political ideas or things, but I know we should keep the Electoral College. This old process was created to make electing a President easier and faster, which I belieye it does.

Now, the Electoral College has 538 electors, but a majority of 270 electoral yotes is required to elect the President. Some will argue that we aren't yoting for a President but we're yoting for the people, or electors, behind them. I would say that they aren't wrong, but we aren't just yoting for those electors, we are yoting for the whole idea behind their campaigning. We don't yote for the person, we yote for the idea that person agrees to carry out. By haying this process, we can focus on getting swing states yotes. The yotes of these states matter the most, in my opinion, because they are likely to swing at any minute. As said in "" In Defense of the Electoral College: Fiye reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President "", ""swing states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign, to really listen to the competing candidates, knowing that the are going to decide the election."" This helps ayoid runon elections because the small states are likey to just yote for the most popular President, knowing their yote won't really make a difference.

Most states haye a ""winnertakeall"" system that giyes all of the electors to the winning candidate. Howeyer, there are a few states that haye yariation with the ""proportional representation"" idea. The ""winnertakeall"" system actually works really well. Other parts of the Electoral College has it's problems but not this one. With this process it makes it easy to giye all of the yotes to one person, this means all of the state will be on the same page and not fighting with itself. This process y. proportional representation, is better in my opinion because it's quicker and helps make the presidential process one step easier.

And lastly, it's a tradition to use the Electoral College. The pedigree for this process was created a really long time ago by some of the most outstanding leaders in our country. The article "" What Is the Electoral College?

"" states that, ""The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a yote in Congress and election of the President by a popular yote of qualified citizens."" The process we created as the United States, has its up and downs but it is one of the longest standing traditions we haye. Hopefully you take my letter in to consideration. Thank you for reading.",0
1261e212,1,"Dear state senator, There should be a change in the Electoral College. It should be changed to electing presidents by popular vote. It is our right to vote for someone who would actually make changes in our society and make our lives different. The fact that we have to vote electors for those electors to choose our president, it seems unfair. Also, the purpose of voting for president is for everybody to vote not just citizens. Therefore, there should be some changes for voting.

To continue, election of presidents by popular vote should be used in the United States. If we are voting for presidents, then why should us ,citizens, vote for electors in order for them to vote for our president? As stated in source 2 ""The indefensible Electoral College"",""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state,candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing""states."" In addition, it states in source 3 ""In defense of the Electoral College"","" No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president."" This shows that with the Electoral College, not every region is going to have electoral votes. Therefore, it would not be fair for those regions. Perhaps their votes would not count and basically the chosen president would not pay attention to them.

Furthermore, everyone should be allowed to vote not just citizens. The fact that not everybody are qualified citizens to vote, then the amount of votes would be vague. This process is similar to not having enough electoral votes. The votes would not be popular or in a great amount for that specific place. For example, as it mentions in source 3, ""Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaignto really listen to the competing candidatesknowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average..."" There should not be any thoughtful voters deciding on the election. It makes it unfair for those who want to vote but are not allowed.

On the other hand, Electoral College could have benefits. In this process it is easier for the electors who are voting. If there is a tie in votes, then they can pass it on to the House of Representatives in which state delegations take care of the voting. At least with this process, they have their own system set up and if any problems, they know in what way it can be fixed. Unlike voting by popular vote, it can cause some problems because not everyone is allowed to vote and there could be few votes for candidates which would have a negative outcome. However, it would be the same for the Electoral College because there would be not enough electors in regions.

In conclusion, election by popular vote for the president of the United States should be used. It could change society and it will allow us to have a better living. This could give us a chance to vote and feel part of the election.",0
1299cd27,0,"The automobile is a production commonly used by individuals all over the world. But utilization of this transportation vehicle arouses environmental damage as well as stress. Limiting car usage around the world would be greatly beneficial.

Limiting automobile usage would decrease hazardous rates of air pollution in regions at which cars are commonly driven. The tailpipe of cars release toxins, often produced by the automobiles fuel, that severely pollute the environment once in the air. According to experts, ""passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50%...in the United States""Source 1. This amplifies the dangerous impact automobiles have on the environment. Paris, a carusing country, reached extreme levels of smog due to automobile emissions. According to Reuters, ""Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic matter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London""Source 2. Due to this, a ban was made on car usage and the smog eventually cleared. automobiles emissions of greenhouse gases are utterly harmful for the environment.

Decreasing the utilization of automobiles would also ease stress levels among the community. In Vauban, Germany, cars are practically forbidden causing the suburbs streets to be free of the persistent humming of a motor. ""When I had a car I was actually tense. I'm much happier this way,""Source 1 says Heidrun Walter, a citizen of the carfree city. This illustrates how the loss of automobiles can bring tranquility to a region. Bogota, Columbia hosts the Day Without Cars, a day where the driving of an automobile is not permitted. According to Andrew Selsky, due to this occasion, ""pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks"" and ""rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic""Source 3. Lowering the usage of automobiles would relieve individuals of density caused by driving.

Automobiles are an exemplary form of transportation but their impact isn't as beneficial for other purposes. Car emissions of greenhouse gases promote global warming and traffic only tenses drivers. Limiting the utilization of these vehicles would decrease if not diminish their negative impacts on the world.",0
12c5160e,1,"Dear Senator, I would like to bring to your attention the matter of the electoral college, and the unjust way that presidents are elected in our country. While there are benefits, more of the negative effects come to play when reviewing and contemplating on whether this system is effect or not. The Electoral College is very unfair, and should be subject for abolishment.

The number of electors in the Electoral College consist of 538 electors in total, which makes a tie completely possible, although it has never happened, in the past only a few more votes were required to create this unlikely problem. According to source 3, paragraph 18, Richard A. Posner claims that, ""A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes538 is an even number, but it is highly unlikely..."" There's a shockingly short amount of votes required to turn an election into a situation where both candidates have an even number of votes, a problem almost occurred in 1976, that were if, according to source 2, paragraph 12, Bradford Plumer, ""a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way."" Those may look as if they are big numbers, however in comparison to the amount of voters in each state, these are not large amounts of people who needed to vote the other way. In comparison, the number of representatives is determined by the number of members in your congressional delegation, the amount of electors per state is fair. Still, however, the event of a tie would cause a lot of issues within our country, and would be relieved if the winner was elected by popular vote.

In addition, electors are United States citizens, and are entitled to their own vote based on the Constitution, while they are allotted their own vote, this gives opportunity for problems to arise. Politics are very lowkey orders of business, and in 1960, the legislatures in Louisiana almost used the disaster factor to swing the election in their favor, by electing people who were more likley to vote for the opposer of John F. Kennedy, because they preferred the other candidate. According to source 3, paragraph 16, Posner addresses, ""..each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nomie and that trust is rarely betrayed""... however, it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote."" Since the electors can technically vote for whoever they desire, it can cause an unfair advantage to the electors sent who vote for the other candiate. The other factor tying in is that the voters feel as if their direct vote does not count. While it is true one vote cannot sway the election, it becomes apparent that candidates must have transregional appeal, meaning that they're favored in that region of the U.S. The candidates hold off on campaigning in states they already know they have dominated the votes in, because there is no one region that can elect a president. This makes voter feel inferior, and discourage them from ""wasting"" their time voting. If we use the majority of votes way to establish the new president, it is more likely that they will decide to vote once again, since they feel as if their opinion once again matters.

As you may recall, the 2000 election had a dispute between the popular vote. Confusion with the votes in a state that decides which kind of electors to send to vote creates issues, because it is unclear which the majority goes to, a candidate may recieve more votes than the others. This creates an advantage to a candiate, and makes a problem for the people who voted for the other candidate. Also, in source 3, paragraph 22, Posner expresses the issues when a runoff election occurs. Some candidates will not win a majority of casted votes, the pressure complicates the presidential election, leaving the true, clear descion to the Electoral College.

In conclusion, the Electoral College seems unconstitutional, since a variety of issues can occur due to the many problems that could potentially occur. The United States should shift into a more reasonable and logical means of electing our president in our Republic, where everybody is equal. The Electoral College should no longer decide the president based on the possibility of a tie, the possibility for betrayal of trust and disputes due to how close the votes are. The system should change to where the popular opinion should decide on the president of the United States of America, making people believe that their vote will be fairly counted. Thank you for your time.",0
12e92895,1,"Dear Senator, I along with many other citizens have came to the conclusion that the Electoral College worth keeping. Though, the process itself has loose ends, overall it benefits the state and national election. The system uses general influence and a representative style of voting that makes the ballot more stable and dependable.

As a start, Electoral College electors are decided upon by the people. This means an elector with similar beliefs to the citizens will be chosen and most likely decide their vote in consideration of popular demand. Each state is given representatives in proportion to the population of the state. These people can be anyone who does not work in office and maybe a regular American who is probably going to empathize with the needs of the public and if chosen correctly will stand by the option of the state. Electoral College gives a more concentrated form of voting.

In addition, some may argue that the Electoral College is risky and a representative may not always stay true to their word, but isn't this the case with all types of voting? A presidential candidate makes many a promise during their race for Chief Executive and there is no way to be completely certain that these oaths will hold true. The same goes for the Electoral College. Citizens must have faith in the candidate as they would in the presidential election that they will put their country or state before personal wants and carry out their responsibilities honestly. The Electoral College process requires trust like any other form of election.

Lastly, though people may not want to believe it, the Electoral College brings a certainty to the ballot that popular vote could not do alone. Having a presidential tie could be the messiest turnout of an election, but with representative voting we can tip the scale in either way, in the interest of any state or party. It's a game of chance, but sure enough works better than flipping a coin! The Electoral College makes the voting system more reliable.

In conclusion, the Electoral College should be kept as a part of the voting system because it gives a more concentrated form of voting, it only needs the same amount of trust betweencitizen and candidate as every other election style, and overall makes the voting system more reliable.",0
130199b7,0,"Cars have been the main use for transportation from one distant destination to another. The population is relying on cars more often to get them to were they need to be. Everyone in the communities are becoming lazier and cannot bother to grab a bike or even a pair of skates to help them get where they need to go. More and more of the population do not want to walk to the store which is usually down the street. Cars have even been polluting the atmosphere causing numerous issues, such as health problems and even a rise in the temperature of the planet. The purpose of this essay is to inform fellow citizens of the advantages of limiting car usage.

By limiting the amount of cars we have in the country or even by reducing the days one can use their car, can dramatically reduce the pollution in the atmosphere and also cause citizens to become more active and healthy. ""Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders.""Source 1, Paragraph 2. Vauban is one community to begin their journey to becoming a car reduced area. ""As a result, seventy percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and fiftyseven percent sold a car to move here.""Source 1, paragraph 3. As said by one of the residents, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heindrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.""Source 1, paragraph 3.

Paris is another city to take on the challenge of limiting the use of cars. Paris is a city where there is an abundance od smog and pollution. ""After days of nearrecord pollution Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" Source 2, paragraph 10. Because of such effort, ""Congestion was down sixty percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog...""Source 2, paragraph 14. By limiting car usage citizens have only one option, to get up find a bike or running shoes and set out for the day. By doing this the peoples can become very healthy and reduce the chances of life threatening illnesses, such as cancer and others such as diabetes and lung and heart problems. Just think of the environment, by using less cars we can lower of even completely stop the effects of global warming which can lower the the rising of the sea and help to stop the destruction of the ozone.

""BOGOTA, ColombiaIn a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or even took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of trafic jams.""Source 3, paragraph 20. These simple and energizing activities can get you to where you need to be and also gets and keep you active and moving. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife.""Source 3, paragraph 24. ""Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a longterm cultural shift, "" said Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University and director of its Mobilities Research and Policy Center.""Source 4, paragraph 35. The world is changing and with it the health of the people and the condition of the environment.

By taking time from using motor vehicles we can lower the pollution of the world and improve the health of the people who live in it. By lowering the production of cars, citizens will have no choice but to grab their bikes or skates or even running shoes and begin to move. The time is now for the community to change. Many different cities have already started their change with cars and now is the time for you to join in the movement. One step at a time.",0
1341e8d1,1,"The Electoral College is a controversial topic in the US. This is the system used to elect the president of the United States, but most people 60% of Americans, according to source 1 believe that we shouldn't use this particular system and that we should go with the popular vote instead, while all others are strong in their stance that we should continue its use. Under the Electoral College, it is entirely possible for a Presidential Candidate to win presidency, even with the majority of voters voting for the opposing candidate. We should discard the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote.

The Electoral College is a system that allows a certain amount of electoral votes to each state. Each state is given 2 electoral votes plus another amount of votes which depends on that state's population. The amount of votes ranges from 3 to 55 source 3. A candidate must receive 270 out of 538 possible votes. The candidate the electoral votes of a state go to is decided by the majority vote of each individual state. In all states but Maine and Nebraska give a candidate the entirety of their votes if the majority of its citizen votes for them source 1. Some people don't even bother voting due to the fact that their vote will not contribute to their favored candidate's election. This happens often when a democratic voter lives in a republican state, and vice versa source 3 Many people stand by the Electoral College as the best course of action. They argue that the certainty of the winner is better, a candidate can't win the election due to regional favor, and this system ensures that there will still be a clear winner even when each candidate receives the same percentage of votes.

We began using the Electoral College in order to ensure that states with low populations weren't ignored by presidential campaigns. However, it fails to do just that. Presidential candidates focus their attention to swing states, in order to win their electoral votes. Candidates have little to no need to campaign in states that have a majority of one party, because their vote is either a lost cause or all but garunteed. If this system does not do the job that it was originally intended for, then why do we continue to use it?

In conclusion, the electoral college is ineffective and outdated. we should no longer use this as a system of defining our president. Even though a winner is often more clear, there is still a possibility of a tie between candidates. People who support the Electoral College also argue that its a good thing due to swing states having more attention payed to them and therefore being more careful in their decision. However, this reasoning is flawed in that it assumes that citizens of a state are more likely to inform theirselves thouroughly simply because their vote holds more value, in a sense. Also, candidates would no longer pay special attention to swing states if the electoral college weren't in place so the votes of these citizens wouldn't be held above the rest. Increased value of votes is not a good thing, which this argument also assume. It is the best decision to abolish the Electoral College.",0
134e57ff,1,"Dear Senator, The debate regarding the necessity of the Electoral College and it's validity has aroused some tension among the citizens of America, and the government as well. This process is not only used to decide the President of our nation, but to ensure the equality of the voting. By establishing our county as a democracy, we made a promise to maintain a systematic balance between the government and it's people. Without the existence of the Electoral College, where would this balance be? The Electoral College is the basis upon which our country is built, and is vital to uphold the balance and equality between government and people.

The Electoral College has many benefits towards the nation that many people are unaware of. For example, in order to do well, a candidate must have connections nationwide. In source 3, line 19, it states ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal."" This means that no candidate is guaranteed a win if they only appeal to one area or region. This creates an overall balance throughout the nation, and makes sure only a portion of the country doesn't have all the power. Also, this allows the people to have a clear understanding of who they're voting for, and what this means.

Equality is key, and without this equality, where would our nation be? By continuing the use of the Electoral College, we have decided to be the best we can be. It says in Source 1, line 1 ""The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and the election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" This provides valid information to support the necessary balance of people and government.

The Electoral College also produces a winner arguably qualified due to the amount of votes received. This is clearly described in Source 3, line 22, ""The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."" Due to the use of this process, the election of a President can be efficient and simple. The President can now be Some may argue that this process does not clearly represent the people or their votes. This is because some may vote for a ""slate of electors"" as opposed to the president. However, this belief can be decidedly rejected due to the lack of valid evidence to support the claim. How are voters expected to vote fairly if they are not given the support to do so?

Overall, it can be declared that the Electoral College plays a vital role in maintaining the internal balance of our nation that the citizens inhabiting it are so reliant on. Choosing to reject this process would be deciding to injure our nation, its future, and its people.",0
134f0445,1,"I believe that we should get rid of Electoral College because it seems like that it causes more problems then it does with popular vote. So i think that we should use elections to popular vote over electoral voting. For example, the disaster affect which the state legislatures took responsibilty for picking electors, and those electors could always defy the will of the people. Even though that the electoral college has some pros it has more cons.

There are a couple things wrong with the Electoral college. In the electoral college system you dont vote for your president you vote a state of electors who in turn elect the president. If your vote won then the state that you live in would get that amount of electoral votes. For example, if you live in florida and your slate of electors won then your president would get 29 electoral votes. But in there has been a few instances where this system has not worked because of how close the votes were to each other. If there was a tie then it would be sent to the house of representatives where the state delegations vote on the president. This is one of the reasons why I dont like the electoral college because its one big long process when actually it could only take a couple days if we used popular vote instead of electoral college.

At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner take all system in each state candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. It is not fair to lot of people in our country that they have to be put into this long process of determining who our president is going to be when they could just vote and then they'll be done if they use the popular vote system. If we get rid of the electoral college then the popular vote system will be a more quick and efficient way of voting for our president. Also, there will be less tension in our country and less arguments going on.

It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best. Even though there might some reasons why you believe that we should still have the electoral college there are more dangers and risks if we keep the electoral collge. But if we get rid of the electoral college and put in our popular vote system then choosing our president will a lot easier and it will take away controversy in our counrty.",0
135b769a,1,"To the State Senate, Addressing my ultimate opinion, I believe should change the vote of the Electoral College into a popularbased vote. Examining a large number of articles which has fulfilled my understanding of the Electoral College including the process and diverse opinions of the Electoral College. This essay will propose the counterclaim the opposing side of why we should not change the process of vote in the United States and address the counterclaim of why the Electoral College should be changed to a popular vote. In order to understand each side, we must first comprehend the process behind the Electoral College. Posner stated, ""...it is the electors who elect the president, not the people. When you vote for a presidential candidate you're actually voting for a slate of electors"" 3. This is the one of the most important concepts to understand in the process of the Electoral College, for we must know that each vote you compose, you vote for a slate of electors, who will basically vote for their candidate. ""The Electoral College is a process, not a place"" Office of the Federal Register, 1. This lets us put down a foundation of the Electoral College as well.

According to Plumer, ""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote"" 2. This indicates how the tie could carry the vote to the House of Representatives, where the federal judgement takes place of voting for the president. Not only this, but Plumer also stated,""Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters"" 2. This statement from Plumer strongly imposes the knowledge that this tie carried to the House of Representatives would hardly reflect the will of the people due to census of the population. This article highlighted that the vote in 2000 where the system actually seemed to flaw when Gore recieved a higher popular vote than Bush, however, Bush received a higher electoral vote. In this situation, is this truly fair? This example dipicts how the vote is truly determined on a group of people from the population rather than a vote depending upon the entire nation itself. Plumer stated, ""...the electoral college is unfair to voters...swing states..."" 2. This brings us the idea of the swing states and how the candidates in the winnertakeall system do not bother to go to states they know that they have no chance of winning, which harshly reveals that some votes may be biased from the electors ignoring other states. ""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational"" Plumer,2. This concludes how biased the Electoral College can be when it comes to ties, representatives, the disaster factor, and a great multitude of concepts and situations where the Electoral College has flawed.

Now, I have also read articles that contained letters that emphasized why the Electoral College should not be changed in any way, due to the ""...Certainty of Outcome...Everyone's President...Swing States...Big States... Avoid RunOff Elections..."" Posner, 3. These subtitles are points that Posner focused on that he believes can persuade why the Electoral College is somewhat efficient. In each of these points, I can counter that the certainty of the vote is false due to the fiasco of Gore and Bush in 2000, as well as the concept of the House of Representatives that I mentioned earlier as well. In the factor that Posner mentioned in his point of everyone's president, I do not find this very accurate due to the reason that our vote relies on a slate of electors, not us entirely, as it would in a popular vote. In swing states, it mentions in the article of Plumer that a winnertakesall method is unfair to voters because electors ignore states that they do not have confidence in winning the vote. A major point that I disagree with would be the point that Posner pointed out with Big States, where he mentioned that,""The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states by population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution..."" 3. In this, I would argue that this is unfair, because of the inequality of representatives due to population, which is not the voter's decision. In the statement of Avoid Runoff Elections, Posner states that, ""The Electoral College avoids that problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast"" 3. I find this false due to the reason that the Electoral College is based on a different amount of voters and electors in each state, which in turn is viewed unfair because there is a factor of the swing states once again, explains that some electors choose states over another which lets us show how unfair the Electoral College is, generally speaking.

In conclusion, we have established our opinion on why the vote should be changed into a popular vote instead of the Electoral College due to a myriad of concepts, such as the disaster factor in 2000, why swingstates are unfair, the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote, just to reveal the tip of the iceberg in our arguments of understanding why the Electoral College is biased, irrational, and unfair. We have also covered the counterclaims and reasoned them with logic, reality, and true rationality of why the Electoral College shoud be abolished in the vote of the President of the United States of America.",0
13a35506,0,"Nearly everyone in the United States has a car, if they're of age. Many people would probably argue that they need cars. How else would you get somewhere? Well, there are plenty of alternatives to driving, and other ways to just cut back. Limiting car usage has become rather popular recently. Even though there are some disadvantages from limiting car usage, there are so many more advantages that are extremely beneficial.

Pollution has always been a big problem almost everywhere in the world, and cars have a huge influence on it. Pollution can affect people's health and damages the environment. In Paris they put up a partial driving ban to clear up horrible smog. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" Source 2. It only took one day of a driving ban to clear up the smog. Imagine how much less pollution there would be if people limited driving for multiple days, even maybe weeks, or months? It's not like you have to permanently give up driving, just limit it when you can.

Limiting car usage can also help reduce stress levels and make you happier. It might sound crazy at first because, well how would you get places? Wouldn't that cause more stress? Vauban, a city in Germany, is a city that ""forbids"" parking, driveways, and houses with garages. They strategically put stores and buildings within an idealistic walking distance. ""when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two"" Source 1. If a working mother can do it, so can you. When you're always inside and juggling your kids and their needs, you'll most likely be tense and always feel busy. When you have no other option, besides paying over fourty grand for a space in a parking garage, than to walk somewhere, you'll get to be outside and experience socialization and the fresh air. In my opinion that sounds way better than being confined to a little car when you have to go somewhere.

Obviously there are uncountable benefits that come from limiting car usage. I don't know about you, but honestly I would prefer limited car usage. Until someone takes action to start making it easier to access places we would normally need our car to get to, limiting car usage is not going to be easy.",0
13f3429a,0,"Ever since their creation, cars have been the main method of transportation. However, in recent times cars have become less popular because of the issues that they cause. Limited car use would be very advantageous because vehicles discourage physical activity, make pollution, and cost everyone money.

An advantage of limiting the use of cars is that they discourage physical activity. Reliance on a motorized vehicle for transportation from place to place results in little to no physical activity. Cars have replaced the use of bicycles, skateboards, and regular walking, their use seemingly reserved only for the youth. In a car free society such as Vaunban, Germany, the ""swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children"" can be heard by anyone walking down the street Source 1. This clearly shows that when cars are used less, people engage in more physical activity. This is the same case for Bogota, Columbia where the Day Without Cars is a big hit. Just in the third year of this event, over 118 miles of bicycle paths have been constructed in the city Source 3. Limiting the use of cars is definetely advantageous because they discourage physical activity.

Limiting the use of cars would be incredibly beneficial because they make pollution. The billions of vehicles in the world create unbelievable amounts of pollution. In Europe, ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions"" and ""up to 50 percent... in the United States"" Source 1. The pollution from the increasing amounts of cars in compacted areas ""are chocking cities"" Source 1. Nearly nothing else creates that much pollution. The only thing that cars are second to in the pollution rates are the monstrous power plants that continuously belch smoke into the atmosphere Source 4. If the use of vehicles decreases, then ""it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment"" Source 4. This evidence clearly supports that the use of vehicles is causing a huge amount of pollution. Thus, limiting the use of cars would be incredibly beneficial because they make pollution.

Decreased use of automobiles would be extremely advantageous because the they cost everyone money. Expenses such as constant maintanance and fuel cost the average car owner a large chunk of their salary. In April 2013, the average miles driven per person was down by 9 percent, equivalent to the rate in January 1995 Source 4. The most likely cause is that ""cashstrapped Americans could not afford new cars"" Source 4. The high cost of cars and their maintanace is a huge burden on the backs of the average vehicle owner. Not only does vehicles cost the individual person, but they have large effects on the government. In the sixyear federal transportation bill, the cost of the highways was 80 percent, and only 20 percent was available to all other forms of transportation Source 1. This issue has caused the legislators to get involved with the problem. Obviously, decreasing the amount of automobiles would be extremely advantageous because they cost everyone money.

Limited car use would be very advantageous because vehicles discourage physical activity, make pollution, and cost everyone money.",0
147c66a0,0,"Imagine a life without cars. All those paved roads completely empty with no traffic and no honking horns. Sounds like a peaceful community to me. Limiting cars could be a huge advantage to our world. Reducing these big pieces of metal flying all over our roads could help our environment, save tons of money, and improve our safety.

Recently, I've heard about all the well known car dealers pushing hybrid cars and trying to design a environment friendly vehicle. But in reality, the only big step to helping our planet is to reduce cars overall. Studies shown that green house gases are ""... up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"". Not only is the green house gas rate going up, but pollution, carbon emissions, and smog are as well. In Paris, France they had to ban driving for a couple of days as the pollution produced smog. ""Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London..."". The numbers keep rising in Europe and the USA. Picture what our environment is going to be like in 20 years if we keep this pace up. Without these machines we could reduce the number of micrograms, produce the harmful gases from affecting the environment, and stop polluting the air we breathe.

Everyone likes to save money, whether it's with coupons or getting the best prices possible. So how would you feel if you had the ability to save thousands of dollars a year? With reducing cars, you can save your money by public transportation, not paying for a car insurance, and not paying for a car in general. Not getting a car may seem strange as you need to get to location A and B. But in Vauban, Germany cars are not allowed and they seem to be doing just fine. Reports say ""Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile may be the most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life"". Even though they aren't aloud personal cars, they can walk, bike, or take a tram anywhere they need to go! Also in most parts of America they now have carpooling apps, public transportation, and shared vans! So instead of paying huge amounts of money for gas, a car, and car insurance, why not just tag along for a ride or get some excersize!

As you watch somebody drive off, dont you worry about their safety? Every year there are more percentages of deaths and injuries in cars then there is in any other motor accident. We can prevent drunk driving, car crashes, and the amount of injures and deaths by reducing cars. I hate hearing those unbearable stories about teenagers getting behind the wheel under the influence causing crazy car wrecks. To avoid that we can allow public transportation, removing any crashes and improving the safety of our generation. Also, the traffic jams that make people stressful and angry increase the crash rates as aggresive driving is very dangerous. To prevent that we can just walk, allowing us to enjoy our clean air and get excersize.

In conclusion, cars have changed our way of life for the good and the bad. Even though they help us get to our destination, they affect our environment, our money, and our safety. If we reduce the amount of cars driven we can help our environment by lowering the rate of greenhouse gases, pollution, and carbon emissions. Also we save tons of money as we dont spend thousands of dollars on cars, and their needs. And finally, reducing cars saves tons of lifes as drunk driving and car crashes are avoided allowing the death and injury rates to decrease. So next time you're walking down the street, think about how your community would be without these machines.",0
149867fb,0,"Many countries and places are starting to reduce their usage of cars. In multiple places they are to considered ""carfree"" or they have ensued partial car bans, even going as far as setting a specific day to ""Carfree Day"". The issues in most of these places is the reduction of the smog that is thought to be produced by diesel vehicle. The fights against pollution are really starting to take effect in a multitude of places, such as, Vauban, Germany. Paris, France and bogota, Colombia. And their efforts against pollution is really starting to take ahold and become popular.

In Vauban, Germany The people of this high class community have completely given up their vehicle. In Vauban, street parking and other car related items are forbidden in the ""experimental new district"". The main thoroughfare however, is one of the few places on the edge of the city where car ownership is allowed. But, there are only ever two places to park. A large set of garages at the very edge of the development. Where said car owner would be required to but a space and a home for 40,000. Just for a parking lot.

Resulting factors from this CarFree suburban, people seem to be happier without their vehicle. vaughn's residents seem to rather enjoy ""the swish of bicycle tires, the chatter and laugter of the wandering children, drown out the occasional distant motor."" Vauban is to be considered a main component of a movement called ""smart planning"". When finished in 2006 57 percent of it's residents sold their vehicle to move into the residence.

Germany's efforts in the past two decades have never been as successful as Vauban has been. With its 5,500 residents withing a rectangualr square mile, it is considered to be on of the most advanced experiments in lowcarcarless suburban life. Germany has been attempting to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transport. Whether it be bikes, walking, skates or some form of physical transport. Near by these carless suburbs, they place stores along a main street near the suburb and not in some mall miles away on a interstatehighway.

Even though Germany is trying to create a utopia of carless suburbs there are still places that still thrive on the dream of large New Yorkian style suburbs, private garages and spread out homes. These were the deam towns of the 1950's. Granted some of these ideas are still highly appealing to most places, places are staring to look more and more Vaubanlike.

In Paris, France Paris enforced a partial driving ban on it's residents to help clear out the choking smog, which is rival to that of Beijing, China. Paris officials ordered motorists with evennumbered license plates to keep their cars at home or they will be fined 22 euros or 31 in American currency. The same ensued for those with oddnumbered plates the next day.

Due to this ban and fine on automobiles, almost 4,000 people had their cars impounded due to their reactions to getting a fine. Granted in the same token street congestion was down nearly 60% in France's capital. France, and Paris officials blammed diesel vehicle for their abundance of smog, although there is a tax that favors diesal gas instead of regular gasoline. So in turn to this gas tax, diesal made up 67% of all vehicle in France.

Unfortunately due to the high percentage of diesal vehicle the Paris has more smog that any other European capital. Although this ban did have a few consiquences, delivery companies complained of lost revenue. While people with plugin cars, hybrids, and cares carrying three or more passangers. People found that public transit was completely free of charge during the experimental period of this car ban. The smog thankfully cleared just enough that the ruling French party to rescind the car ban for oddnumbered plates a few days later.

In bogota Colombia Colombian officials set to spread a program across to ohther countries. Millions of Colombians hiked, skated, biked, and or took buses to work durring carfree day. For a period of three years Colombia has dedicated one day to carfree day, all violators would be fined 25. In a city of 7 million. The goal is to reduce and promote alternative tranportations to and from work, school, home, and to reduce smog levels umungst the city.

Despite the heavy rains and grey skies, the turnout was more than expeced. And for the first time, two other Colombian cities joined into the event, spreading it further than ever. Officials from other countries came to bogota to see the carfree event and were exstatic. Claming that the people of Colombia were generating a revolutionary change, and it's crossing borders.

This day has been a work in progress ever since the mid 1990's. bogota has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths. The most any Latin American city has ever seen in years past. An abundance of parks and sports centers have popped up, sidewalks that were small, worn and pitted have been completely replaced with smooth broad sidewalks and paths. Even new upscale dining and shopping districts have popped up due to this carfree day.

Goals set by President Obama are seemingly being unveiled as time passes due to studies suggesting that Americans are buying fewer cars, and all together driving less and less as time passes by. With the United States being one of the worlds largest car capitals, it seems that love for cars is dwindleing with efforts to keep down pollution and smog levels.

The most accurate assumption today as to why the US's love and total buying of cars has dwindled so drastically is due to the recession that we had experienced. Cashstapped Americans couldnt afford to buy new vehicle and that seems to be a persistant happening as the years pass. Unfortunately major car companies are starting to suffer due to this fall of people indulging in a car purchase.

Companies such as Ford and Mercedes are already starting to ""rebrand"" themselves as mobility companies and reorganising their product with wider varieties. Not only has car buying dropped, so has the rate of people between the ages of 1639 getting a license. Most people are turning to carpooling, walking or public transportation to get to their jobs, or other places, so in turn, getting a license is in not in the forefront of their mind.

Many countries are getting on the bandwaggon of fighting against pollution, ensueing laws against driving all together, creating temporaty or partial bans. And they see a difference in their smog, pollution levels. These peoplecountries are taking the innitiative to take care of the major underlying problems to much bigger problems such as global warming and problems of that nature. There are changes happening, and these changes are benefiting everyone.",0
14e82744,1,"Dear senator, the Electoral College has always been a good way to elect our leaders, and it is the best way to do it. It has the ability to use swing states for better voting, larger and smaller states get different amounts of electoral votes, and presidents cannot be elected by a region alone.

The effect of having swing states because of the Electoral College is a positive one because when a state feels like they have a chance of having their candidate win, they put more thought into the vote they cast knowing that their vote counts. Having voters put more thought into their votes instead of not caring as much gives the better candidate a greater chance of winning, if one candidate was truly better than the other. The more thoughtfull candidates in a swing state will pull more information from the candidates campaigns. Popular vote does not use the winner takes all method so the idea of swing states will no longer have any effect in the election.

Another great reason why the Electoral College is better than popular vote is because depending on the size of the states a certain amount of votes is given to the electors. Larger states get more attention from presidential candidates because of the majority vote in the particular state. if there was only popular vote then presidential candidates could waste their time on smaller states when they could of been winning larger states. The varying amount of electoral votes for each state depending on its size also allows for a more equal and fair election, due to the less populated states not being able to have more electoral votes then the more populated states.

The Electoral College allows that presidential candidates cannot win the election by regional appeal. This means that if a particular region favors a candidate they cannot win by only a single regions votes. This makes the candidates campaign less in regions that are more likely to be won and more in other regions. But with the Electoral College this makes it harder for a candidate with only regional appeal to win because other regions feel like their votes will not be as effective towards the election. With popular vote a presidential candidate will not know where to campaign and where not because there is no winner take all method.

This is why I belive that having the Electoral College is superior to popular vote when we the people vote for presidential candidates.",0
14fd1521,1,"The Electoral College is an outdated system of voting. There are few weak reasons why it should be carried out as the nations voting process. The United States of America should change to election by popular vote for the presidency.

Admmitedely, the winner take all system is a fair way of deciding the votes. In the first article ""What Is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the Federal Register, the author asserts, ""Most states have a winnertakeall system that awards all the electors to the winning presidential candidate."" If a presidential candidate spends lot of time, effort, and money in a campaign for a ""swing"" state he should be awarded all the votes for winning that state. It is a high risk but high reward to spend all that time and money to only earn sixty percent of the votes. That is why a ""winnertakeall"" is crucial. To add on, the author of the first article mentions, ""Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are..."" This is saying that a candidate chooses his or her electors, and you vote for the electors to then choose the candidate you voted for. However the people should have the right to directly choose the candidate of his or her choice. Therefore, the electoral college is outdated and must be eliminated.

To start off, Bradford Plumer the author of ""The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" states, ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" Every vote counts. But why make a vote more powerful than another. Citizens shouldn't be given a special vote just because they were chosen by the candidates party. Additionally, Plumer explains, ""If you lived in texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for John Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry."" Why should kerry earn 34 electoral votes. He should earn the amount of voters in that state he persuaded to vote for him. He should not earn the electoral votes of all the people that did not think he was the best presidential candidate. Every vote should count, and that is why the electoral college should be eliminated.

Secondly, Plumer claims ""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. The senate would choose the vicepresident. Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represnt 35million voters."" This method is rediculous. A state with one representative should not have the equal amount of power as a state with 55. If popular vote is made the way of electing then the odds of a tie would be nearly impossible. Also Plumer adds, ""Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency."" This means more people thought he was better suited to be the President of the United States, but Bush won because of the ""quirks"" of the electoral college. All in all, the electoral college is unfair, and creates more problems then popular vote.

The United States of america should change from the electoral college to popular vote. The outcome would be better for the country, and fairer to the candidates. That is why the electoral college should be eliminated.",0
1539183b,0,"In the world we live in today, cars are used by people nearly everyday. To some they are looked at as a need such as water, food, or shelter rather something we want to improve our life. Although, it may improve our lives in the particular moment to some degree, we fail to see the greater and more longterm effects from everyday car usage. The following sources reviews these effects and reveals the problems and solutions we may have to fix them.

One of the more serious and more recognized problems from car usage is the steady increase of greenhouse gas emissions produced from vehicles all over the world. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. Vauban, Germany is an example of the effort being made to reduce these greenhouse gas emissions, this experimental city is trying to remain ""carfree"" and in doing so the city itself has to make its own changes. This basic precept is being adopted around the world by trying to compact suburbs and make them more accessible by public transportation.""When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" said by heidrun waltersource 1. With this new experiment, people are finding ways to adapt and live the changed life while others actually feel better off.

Another serious and impacting issue from car usage is the increase in smog over big named cities. In paris, after days of a near record breaking pollution, paris bans driving throughout the city in attempt to clear up the skies. Diesel fuel is looked at as main problem paris faced in cleaning out the intensifying smog, since a france tax act favors diesel over gasoline it displays an issue the france government must correct in their own wrong doings. A different look towards car usage is that recent studies show americans buying fewer cars, getting fewer and fewer licenses, and also driving less overall. If this pattern continues there will be positive reinforcements for carbon emissions and the environment, since its the and largest emission producer in America. The internet brings a whole other chess piece to the game allowing kids to feel more connected with people without driving anywhere. ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety."" said by Bill Ford executive chairman of the Ford Motor Companysource 4.

A program set up in bogota, colombia is a program developed to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. ""its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" said businessman carlos arturosource 3. Sports centers and parks have also increased throughout the citybad conditioned sidewalks have been replaced with smooth onesrush hour restictions have been cut largely and high class shopping districts have also been created. This program is already looked at by many countries and is being observed by the world like an exciting experiment.

There are many advantages to limiting car use and these are just few of them. Overall, the advantages observed are just from the few examples of less car use that we have, if more people look towards this problem of over used cars.",0
15eaf968,1,"When electing the president of the United States, you must vote in favor of the president you want. However, instead of coming down to popular vote, the system uses the Electrolar College to decide. The electoral Vote works in that the people of a certain states votes for their candidate and the majority of people who vote for a certain president give their votes to a slate of voters. What this means is that the popular vote within a state wins the electoral votes of the electors who then vote for the president. Many people dislike this system including myself. I disaprove of this system because it limits representation, permits the disinterest of voters, and reduces a candidates interest in a state.

One major problem with the Electoral College voting system is that it limits representation of the people. The Electoral COllege votes work so that the population of a state directly effects the amount of votes that states receives. For example, Wyoming only has about 500,000 voters so it only receives one electoral college vote. Because there is only one vote for wyoming, the 500,000 voters do not have acurate representation in a vote that has a total of 270 electoral votes. There have also been times in which a president has won the piopular vote but lost the Electoral College vote. This was seen in the 2000 vote of Bush versus Gore when Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the electoral vote.

One might claim that because the amount of electoral votes for a state is based of the population, it is fair. However, I believe that the popular vote is more fair because it expresses the opinion of the majority. In some states, there is a large majority of people running for a single party. This can be observed primarily in Texas where an overwhelming majority of voters are Republican. Therefore, the Republican president wins Texas almost every election period. This can be frustrating for Democrats who live in Texas because they know that their vote does not matter causing them to lose interest in voting in the first place. This is not fair for those people nor is it particularly good to express as an American trait.

As stated before, the larger the population of a states, the more Electoral College votes that state gets. This leads to a small group of ""big states"" that have such a large amount of votes, they are the target for candidates to try to persuade to vote for them. On the opposite side of the spectrum, most of the other 50 states have a smaller amount of votes and are less of an objective for candidates to acquire. In many states throughout an election preiod the period in which candidates move to diferent states giving speeches the candidates never make an appearance in their state at all. This is observed in the 2000 election in which seventeen states did not have the candidate make an appearance at all. This also can lower interest in voting for the president.

The Electoral college voting system is not fair in the way the present system works. The system does not show proper representation of the people, does not promote interest in voting, and causes a candidate to ignore the states in which do not have a large amount of electoral votes. Moving to popular vote will fix all of these problems and will improve the way we vote for our president.",0
15f7ea58,1,"Dear Senator, Concerning the topic of the merits and demerits of the Electoral College, herein abbreviated as EC. The Electoral College, through which our president and vice presidents currently are selected, is an institution that concerns many people in the United States. Some claim that the Electoral College is ""an anachronism, a nondemocratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner."" Posner Though the lack of control over the president of the United states election is disconcerting, the Electoral College, as you are aware is beneficial to elections, for example, it allows disputes to be settled over ties and complications in the popular voting process to be reduced, and minimises the amount of votes necessary for tallying, the Electoral College also provides accurate representation to citizens in certain areas. However, is this appropriate? Can the single justification for the disconnection from citizens of a nation to their president be justified on convenience? From what most sources suggest, the Electoral College is a safety system, in place to minimize the risk of complications arising from the voting process. The use of the Electoral College in this manner is unsettling to the American voter, and poses many risks for the basis of the United States. Therefore, the Electoral College should not be allowed to continue in its current manner.

Foremost, the EC as a method of backup to reduce risk of complications in popular voting is inappropriate. In theory, the EC is not invalid however, the way in which it is implemented is prone to error, or lack thereof, for reasons that harms the voter's representation. As each citizen votes, heshe votes for an EC slate, with each party selecting a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee. Richard Posner in his publication ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President,"" states that, ""it is entirely possible the the winner of the electoral vote will nto win the national popular vote."" However, Posner, immediately states thereafter, ""yet, that has happened very rarely."" Posner is correct in this case that this phenomena does happen rarely. The reason for this happening rarely is the fact that the EC adopts a ""winnertakeall"" voting scheme, where the majority candidate wins all of the EC votes for a specific state. To understand how this is a poor way of electing a president, a view into one's ethicality is necessary. The president of the United States is meant to represent the largest amount of the population, inevitably, there will be many that are unhappy with their president. Representing the largest amount of the US population requires that the candidate in question, theoretically, receives the most votes by popular polling. An informed American studies the resolutions and principles of potential candidates, and makes an informed decision as to which one represents their resolutions and principles. Upon deciding which candidate suits their needs, this example citizen casts hisher vote. This vote is a marker which signifies that a certain candadate will, if elected, represent this voter most. Should more than 50% of Americans decide that a certain candidate suits them best, that candidate will represent the largest amount of the American population. The EC, in comparison, awards the full amount of votes possible to the winner of the majority of electors. If 55% of the electors vote one way, and 45% in the opposite direction, the 55% will take precedence, and win the total possible votes for that state. Unfortunately, certain citizens who would have been represented accurately by popular polling may be deprived of the representation by the EC. The disconnect between the American citizen and the president of the United States is detrimental to the whole nation, including the executive body.

The Electoral College is criticized to have disconnected the United States citizen from hisher presidential candidates. However, this has been justified with the claim that ""the EC saves the complications of polling the entire American population."" There are inherent risks with polling the entire population: the fact that there are too many votes to keep an accurate count of. Keeping accurate track of said votes, however, is the responsibility of the current president, who, even during the end of his term, must represent the people who voted for him in providing them with a way to elect their president of choice. In this case, ""practical"" justification signifies the lack of interest in allowing the United States citizen to vote. A dispute of outcome in popular vote is high, the possibility of dispute in the EC is less, due to less electors being polled. The EC attempts to provide an accurate representation of the population, ensuring that the candidate selected is a candidate that suits most of each region, not one in specific. Unfortunately, despite efforts, this system is not accurate. Posner states in his publication that, ""the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election,"" morally, his reasoning is spoton. An uneducated voter is dangerous to the society heshe lives in, regardless of country. By contrast, the United States guarantees every citizen a right to vote for hisher representatives pursuant to this mandate, a person of great power cannot be allowed to arbitrate that ""only educated voters should decide the election,"" simply because an educated voter is not defined, and cannot be defined.

Large states also play a role in the EC's inaccuracies. While one may argue that larger states have more citizens, therefore, a candidate chosen by popular vote represents those citizens, regardless of their geographic location, smaller states, argue, conversely, that states, as defined entities, should have the power to have equal representation in congress, and the EC. Reflecting back to the resolution of malapportionment of the Senate, two senators were granted to each state, regardless of size. The Electoral College, however, does not apportion this representation evenly for smaller states. Popular vote, obviously, depends on the population of a certain state for a candidate to be elected. The EC also depends on a state's population. Smaller states who do not have many EC votes arguably should have a chance for an equal vote, as the Senate provides for in the United States congress. The EC does not represent this opposite side to representation.

Understanding the root of this argument is crucial to being able to make a difference. Where accuracy is possible, it should be achieved, where accuracy is seemingly impossible, it should be striven for. Allowing the EC to continue in its current manner is inaccurate, by any standard, and sacrifices accuracy and representation for convenience of election. The EC should, when properly instituted, regard itself as a body where the people are further supplemented in their popular representation, not opposed. Senator, I have left the personal remarks to the ending of this letter, but would like to stress my discontent with the EC as it stands today. I understand there are practical limitations that cannot be met, I understand that the EC may be more convenient when it comes to hiring employees to track votes, and coordinate the process as a whole, but it is something that must be done, and striven for, in the most accurate way possible. You, Senator, were elected by popluar vote because the population chose you as the candidate that best suited our interests, and were most likely to defend our interests in the face of opposition. Where we have benefitted you from voting as we have, we request you now represent us in the election of our presidential candidate that best suits our interests nationally. For the reasons provided theretofore, we strongly urge a negation of the Electoral college in favour of a more accurate voting method.",0
162be3e7,0,"Sometimes you don't need a car to go some place, you have choices like take the bus, or use your bike, but sometimes you need a car to go some place far away. I will discuss about the advantages of limiting car usage. I feel that the cars are important but we can live without the because we have others sources to transported and don't expent to much money.

First of all, commercial and public transportation are woven through a connection of network to save time, to conserve resources, lower emissions and to improve safety. Theres a lot of accidents that people commit because a car, sometimes they are tired and don't pay attention to the road, they get distracted by something, and sometimes theres no parking lad for a car. A car is a responsibility. When you have a car you can get tense because, you have to expent you money filling the tank of gas, and repair something if is broken, but sometimes you don't have the money for do that and you take the bus or the subway because is less expensive. People have their cars impounded fot their reaction to the fine, cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions. people sometimes said that they can't live without a car, if you get to think, they're sometime wrong because there's many public transportation.

In addition, if people don't have a car it would be a impact to people because everybody would be on the streets, and everything would be full of people, but without a car we can get to safe more the atmosphere. Sometimes we have carfree days to save the environment of our world, it's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution and the turnout was large. The day without cars is part of an improvement campaign. parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city, pitted sidewalks have beed replaced bye broas, smooth sidewalks, arushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic, and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up. The united states, with its broad expanses and suburban ideals, had long been one of the world's prime car culture. With all these canges, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recessin may find less reasons to resume the habit.

In Conclusion, have a car it's a responsibility that people have to have, we don't need a car sometimes, but sometimes we do. I feel that the cars are importants, its fine that we get to save the environment but without a car we don't get to go to place we want to go everytime we want.",0
163853c5,0,"Car alarms, car horns, and engines are basically the only thing people hear nowadays. The number of cars in the streets are simply beginning to get out of hand.

Citizens all around the world, we all should really try to limit the amount of time that we are spending using our vehicle.

If you really take a moment to think about it, this could honestly turn out to be a really good thing.

Cars are not necessarily a need, they are a want. I can undertand if you are going to be traveling a far distance that two feet cant get you, but certianlty and ten minute walk to the grocery storemarket cant hurt.

Limiting car usage is very important. Most families tend to spend about about 2050.00 on gas a week. One advantage to limiting car usage is saving a ton of money on gas that could easily be spent of food, to feed your family.

"" "" When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" "" People who have decided to limit the amount of time they spent using their car, are much happier.

One advantage to limiting the use of cars is that the air would become much more fresh and clean, and it would become alot more healthier for us citizens.

"" "" Its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said a businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseated bicycle with his wife."" "" Most people that have decided to stop using cars or have significantly limited their car usage, have nothing but positive things to say.

If more people became aware that not spending so much time driving was a good thing, and simply limited their care usage, the air would become so much more clean, and alot more of us would be happy.

A former citizen has shared with us that one advantage to limiting car usage for her is that her children have ""... organized their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or car pool with friends."" She has also mentioned that her children were not in any rush to get their drivers license, even though where they live a car would would definetely ""...come in handy."" Most people have really been able to enjoy walking and not using their cars.

Driving your car is not intirely a bad thing, but simply limiting your car usage is a wonderfull thing, and many advantages come to limitng car usage. You save a great deal of money on gas when you decide to walk rather than to drive, the air become a lot more clean and heathy for our lungs, and many people are able to focus more on the important things in life, like jobs and friends and family.

If you decide to park your car in the garage and put away the keys, you'd really be able to see how nice it is to just walk to your destination rather than drive, it's a great way to realx and to just enjoy yourself.",0
1648c117,1,"Dear Senator, I am a student writing to you that we should be changing the Electoral College, to the election by popular vote. If you change the voting system to the election by popular vote, then people are able to vote for who they want to vote, rather than having someone for president as a mistake during the voting. I believe that people should have the right to vote based on the president, not the slate of electors. Also because of the ""disaster factor,"" and because of the ""winnertakeall"" system.

First off, you should change the system to the election by popular vote, because people should be able to vote based on the president and not the slate of electors. It is not fair that the people who pick the electors are people from the states convention, party's central committee or the candidates themselves. The voters should be allowed to control who their electors vote for. Since they are part of the country, they should have a say in the country too. We should not be confused about the voting for the ""wrong"" electors, but be able to know what we are doing.

Secondly, may I recall the ""disaster factor,"" the biggest crisis the century? The Louisiana legislature back in the 1960's, they had some trouble in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors. In fact, they almost did not succeed in doing this. The state's legislatures are probably the ones who are responsible for this incident, because of picking the electors themselves. By keeping the electoral college, you could probably make the same mistakes again.

Lastly, another reason why we should change the voting system to the election by popular vote is, because of the ""winnertakeall"" system. Candidates running for president know they have no chance in winning, if they spend their time in the wrong states. So instead they spend all their time in states are probably going to vote for them.

All in all, we should not be keeping the electoral college, because its unfair to voters who don't know the real reason why they voted for a candidate, people also do not want to make the mistakes they made in the past, and the ""winnertakeall"" system is just irrational.",0
16652a46,1,"The electoral college is a bad thing because voters aren't voting directly for the candidates. Voters are only voting for a slate of electors that then vote for a president. Uninformed people might be mislead as to what they are actually voting for. The election should be changed to popular vote because the electoral college is not voting directly on a matter.

While big states have more say in what happens, small states were created to have just as much power. There are few states with over twenty electoral votes, and twenty votes is a lot. But, there are far more small statesin terms of population than big states. Having many states with only 716 beats few big states with 2055. Some candidates won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote due to what states they were popular in. This sways the actual results of voting and messes up what should be based on raw voting numbers. Having electors making the desision for the state is another reason why certain candidates lose.

Some people in America don't know the difference between the popular vote and electoral vote. This can result in people being mislead. If a candidate were to visit California and make a good impression, that state would have a higher chance of being in that candidates favor. If another candidate were to go to Montana, make a good impression just like the first one, he would have the advantage for that state. Both candidates put in the same effort, but the first one would have many more electoral votes than the second mainly because of how electoral votes work.

The winner takes all rule is also in some way bad. Candidates would be competing over larger states like California and New York, If the voting within that state came down to a 49 to 51 percent vote, one candidate would be so close but acheive absoloutly nothing. Each candidate SHOULD get whatever votes they earned to make the voting the way it should be and more fair.

The electoral college is in many ways imperfect, which is why popular vote would be more efficient and more of an actual competition. Popular vote is also a way to make voting simple.",0
1669258f,0,"In the recent years the state of the country has been a major issue. The environment is a growing concern and the economic condition of the citizens is a pressing matter. One way the alleviate the stress on these factors is to limit car use. Doing so will help the environment by limiting greenhouse incisions, and not having a car all together or limiting car use will save money for those who are economicly weak. Limited car use would alleviate all these problems.

The environment houses us along with everything that supplies us with the means to live. In recent years that has been under attack by pollution. according to Robert Duffer one of the major issues of Paris, France is the increasing smog and pollution that has decended upon the city. The level of pollution rivaled the most polluted cities in the world: Beijing China. In order to combat the smog French officials have placed a ban on drving, and for those that chose to disobey recived a fine. The smog then cleared up to allow the ruling French party to rescind the ban. This should be an example for highly poluted areas everywhere. Not only does this preserves the environment but it also takes the health and well being of citizens into account.

The limited use of cars would help those who are finacialy weak to strengthen themselves, because not having to use money to pay for the expenses of a car would leave you money to take care of other necessities. Elisabeth Rosenthal wrote that in some German suburbs there is 70% of the people residing there that do not have cars. And there is only a few places where they can be parked, and for the places that allow parked must be purchased for 40,000 dollars, along with a house. Just not having a car itself would be much more affordable! 57% of the people who live in that suburban area sold their cars to move there. As shown by Rosenthal's report, not having a car would prove to be more economicaly sound and benifital especially to those who are struggling.

There are many advantages to the limiting of the usage of cars. For one thing it aids the environment by adding less pollutants into the air, which harm the environment and the people in it. Also people that use their cars less save money, which would benifit those whoa rent in the best possible economic situation. Many say that limiting the use of acars would prevent many from going to work, school and other obligagtions, but there are other means of transportaion including bikes, buses, subways and monorails. Think of the disadvantages to excessive car use, high pollution, expensive expenses such as gasoline and maintence of the car. Limited car use would remove all these burdens.",0
16a0afd8,1,"Dear Senator, The Electoral College was created many, many years ago in the Constitution by our founding fathers, and now it is finally its time to retire. The Electoral College should be taken away and replaced by election by popular vote, in order to determine the president of the United States. The Electoral college should be abolished, because citizens are not correctly represented, and states are not treated fairly in this process. The United States strives to be a place of freedom and equality, but we as a country can not achieve this goals with this process in place.

The United States of America, is all about people protecting their rights, but how can that be if citizens are not even allowed to represent themselves with their own votes. According to the Office of the Federal Register's article,""What is the Electoral College?,""you help choose your state's electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors."" Which means that our votes just choose people to represent our state and vote for us. So whats the whole point of voting in the first place? Is it just to make citizens feel like they are actually choosing the president. This process would not be a problem if the electors actually represented us correctly. According to,""The Indefensible Electoral College:Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" by Bradford Plumer, ""in 2000...Al Gore... won the popular vote but lost the presidency,"" because of the electoral college. Plumer went on to quote a Gallop poll recorded after Al Gore lost which reported,"" over 60 percent of voters would perfer a direct election to kind we have now."" Thats over half of the people voting! But the incident with Al Gore was not the only one, also according to Bradford Plumer's article,"" in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy."" In other words, they were trying to cheat and make sure the out come of the vote was what they wanted. People may argue that there have only been few instances of the Electoral College making mistakes, but how many more mistakes are they going to make in the future. Will there be so many, that our entire political system becomes corrupt. The citizens of the United States should be allowed to represent themselves with their own vote, and choose their own leaders.

How can the U.S. strive for equality, if states are not treated fairly through the process of the electoral college? The Electoral College process, is a winnertakesall system, because of this, candidates spend their time only focused on specific states. States that are most populated, or that they think will be a ""swing"" state, basically any state that has a specific insterest to them and that will help their campaign. According to,""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" written by Bradford Plumer,""during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all."" This is a result of the faulty system, how are people suppossed to know who they want to vote for, if candidates won't even take the time to make a pitch to them? If the United States really wants equality, they need to start by having a equal state voting process.

At the end of it all, the Electoral College should be abolished because citizens are not correctly represented, and states are treated unfairly in the process. Help the United States continue to reach its goal of freedom and equality by abolishing the Electoral College.

Sincerely, United States Citizen.",0
16b2bb2b,0,"As our atmosphere constantly changes, so do our habits. With greenhouse emissions rising, our efforts towards changing it are too. Even outside of the United States there are efforts being made in Germany, France, and Colombia. In Gernamy, some people have ended up selling their cars, and started living a whole new lifestyle. Moved into carless communities with others, and now live supposedly happier lives. A city in Columbia, officially has a car free day, to try and cut down on emissions and help reduce the stress of driving, also those who do not go along with it are fined. So, maybe life with less cars can actually be beneficial to many of us.

In the city of Vauban, Germany there is a suburb that was finished around 2006. Its goal was to limit the use of cars. So far it seems successful in its purpose where 70% of the families living there do not have cars, and at least 57% sold a car to live in that suburb. For the most part, there is no driveways, garages, or street parking so it is mainly carfree except for the ""main thoroughfare"" being the tram to downtown. Proof that not only the idea was beneficial, but it was also ""inspirational"" is that places like Vauban, are growing more and more in Europe, and the U.S. has the EPA environmental Protection Agency promoting these car reduced communities, and legislators are now starting to act upon it. It is also becoming a part of a movement called ""smart planning"". The idea also is to make cities denser so more people can live, and easier for walking. To make things closer, so getting there is not such a hassle especially if you don't have a car.

After nearrecord pollution in Paris, the city enforced a partial ban on car use to help clear the city's air. On Monday, morotorists with an even numbered plate were told to leave their car come, or be fined. and on that Tuesday, people with odd numbered plates would have to do the same. Because of that, nearly 4,000 people were fined. And 27 people had their cars impounded due to the way they acted upon being fined. Though it left some unhappy people, it did help the congestion was down by 30% in the city.

The City of Bogota, Colombia has started a carfree day. And apparently it's a big hit. Its goal is to promote alternate transportation, and reduce smog, with the exception of buses and taxis. That day, millions of Colombians either walked, hiked, biked, or skated. And even though there was some gray clouds with a bit of rain, it didn't stop many people. It is also seen as an opportunity to help lower stress and air pollution. And to show its popularity, two other cities in the county Cali and Velledupar have joined in on the event. Even the mayor of Asuncion, Paraguay came to the county to say how great of an idea it was. More parks, sports centers have been buit, and 118 miles of bike paths have been created. On top of that, new sidewalks have been built to help people in general.

With all of the effort that so many countries have put out towards making a better environment for themselves, I hope you would be able to see why they did it, because I do. When it comes to making communities with car restrictions, or a day or two when use in limited it all helps. So Maybe I could convince you to reduce your car use, and improve your life.",0
16d9d064,1,"Dear Mr. State Senator, I am writing this letter to talk about how the Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational. First, the Electoral College is unfair to voters. Second, there could be a tie in the electorsal vote. Last, the voters are merely voting for the slate of electorss rather than the president. Those are my points on why to take away the Electoral College.

To start this off the Electoral College is unfair to the voters. Because of the ""winnertakeall system in each state"", the candidates don't take time to go to other states that they know they will lose, they only really focus on the ""swing"" states. For example, during the 2000 campaign, seventeen statesdidn't see the candidates in their state at all, also 25 of the largest media markets had not seen a single campaign ad from a candidate. Also it's unfair because voters don't really know who to vote for because they see no campaign ads and candidates don't show up to their state and tell them what heshe is running for. That's why the Electoral College is unfair to voters of the presidential election.

Second, there could be a tie in the electorsal vote. In the case of the tie it would go straight to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote for the president. By this the House's decision is no where close to that of the people in their state. The election is omly a few swing voters away from catastrophe. That's why it is bad if the vote ends in a tie.

Lastly, the voters are merely voting for the slate of electorss rather than the president. For instance, if you ""lived in Texas and wanted to vote for John Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electorss pledged to Kerry."" The worst part is that the electorss could be anyone you don't even have to hold a political position to be an electors, they could be very biased and narrowminded. That's why the Electoral College is unfair.

In conclusion Mr. Senator the Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational because it is unfair to voters, there could be a tie in the electorsal vote and the voters are merely voting for a slate of electorss and not there president. So Mr.",0
17177aef,0,"There are many advantages to limiting car usage. It is better for the environment, it limits time spent sitting in traffic, and saves money.

The main cause of people wanting to limit driving is to protect the environment. According to an article by Elizabeth Rosenthal, ""passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gasses in Europe... and up to 50% in some car intensive areas in the United States."" Emissions from car exhaust is polluting the air and creating smog in large cities. According to Robert Duffer, Paris had to enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air of smog. Some people want new suburbs to be built specifically to encourage the limiting of driving. Limiting driving does lower the amount of smog and air pollution in cities.

Another benefit of limiting driving is that it limits time spent sitting in traffic. In Bogota, Colombia, a ""carfree day"" was issued. The goal was to reduce smog as well as reduce traffic jams around the city. The reduction of these traffic jams also reduced stress and promoted excessive. People could stop worrying about being late for work because of the traffic. It caused many people to walk or bike to work instead of driving or taking the bus. Another advantage of this is that parks and sports centers have thrived across Bogota. Limiting the use of cars isn't only healthier for the environment but also for us.

One final advantage to limiting the use of cars is that it saves money. Citizens save money by not having to buy cars or the gas they require. Also, citizens don't have to pay taxes for roads, parking lots, or traffic lights. Another way limiting driving saves money is on the materials and equipment needed to pave roads and parking lots. Since many people who live in dense cities take the subway or bus to work anyway because of the recent recession, limiting car use would be an easy way to clean up some pollution in that city.

In conclusion, limiting driving has many big advantages. It protects the environment while limiting traffic in cities, encouraging excessive, and saving money. I'm not sure how it would work out here because of how spread out everything is, but it sounds like a great idea in a dense city.",0
17340273,0,"In the United States of America, and all over the world, cars are used every day. People use them to get to work, to go see family, and to get simply, from A to B, but a new idea is sprouting up in Europe, the U.S., and elsewhere where people are doing something unheard of.... giving up their cars. According to Source 1, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", Vauban, Germany is a city that is almost completely car free. Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two says, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" THis shows that living without cars is not only possible, but could have some great consequences.

Living car free could seem like something impossible, but it has great effects. In the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", there is a study revealing that passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe....and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States. Without cars, we could lower pollution, which is a huge problem for some places. In the second article, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" Paris has to enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air of the city after days of nearrecord pollution. Motorist with even number licence plates were ordered to leave their cars on day and motorists with odd numbered plates were ordered to the next day. This enforcement had positive consequences along with it. Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital and the smog hanging over the city eventually cleared. This shows almost immediate benefits to the decline in driving. Can you imagine the benefits after a long term period of carfree cities? The possibilities are limitless.

Carfree periods of time don't have to be long term. In Bogota, Colombia, a carfree day takes place every year and it is a ""big hit"" with millions of Colombians according to the article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"". For the third straight year, cars have been banned only excluding busses and taxis. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog in the city of 7 million. Anyone who violated the rules were fined 25 dollars. For the first time ever, two other cities, Cali and Valledupar, have joined in the event. Businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza says ""It's a good oppurtunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" This should show that car free periods of time are possible, not matter how long, and that they have great consequences that come along with them.

You might say that it would be extremely difficult to make America a car free country. Well, according to a report in the fourth article ""The End of Car Culture"" America may be on it's way. Research studues show that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by. The nummber of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily thereafter according to a analysis by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment research company. In April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak. Thsi shows that there is a steady decline in driving and autiomotive transport in America. Also found in the fourth article, if the pattern persists, it will have beneficial impliactions for carbon emissions and the enviorment. Many sociologists believe the pattern will continue. Alternate sources of transportation have popped up also. In New York, a new bike sharing program has popped up and in San Fransisco, Bay Arear Rapid Transit is another viable option of transport. With all of these options, doesn't one fit you?

In conclusion, alternate transport oppurtunities and car free periods of time are the solution. With so many ways to lower how much and how you drive. The switch to a more economic means of transport would be easier than you think. The possibilities are endless and multiple studies show that the good consequences outweigh the bad ones.",0
175003c6,1,"Dear Senator Adams, Voting for a president is not what it seems to be. The electoral college makes the people's votes so that the electors are actually voted. These electors vote for the president in favor of their party which is not always trustworthy or reliable. The popularity winner can also lose, due to lack in electoral votes. Many voters are still confused or don't know how the system works. In reality, electoral system is outdated and should be tweaked of how it would work today.

To begin with, Electors that are voted for by the people are not always trustworthy. They're hand picked by their political party but sometimes,""state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are...""Does The Electoral. Voters can't control who their electors vote for president. The electoral college should be changed to popularity votes because, ""the electors could always defy the will of people""The Indefensible Electoral. This is unreliable and the way of voting by the people can be easily swayed by the electors.

Additionally, the popularity winner can lose by having less electoral votes. Voters can be discouraged to elect their president when really the electors do the job. This situation has happened when,""Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes""In Defense Of. Any election, voters can expect another close election in which the popular winner could again lose the presidency. The electoral college is unstable and this major downside is a factor.

More over, many voters are still confused or don't know how the system works. In this article it states that, ""voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate""The Indefensible Electoral. The electoral college does not clarify to voters on what the people are actually voting for. In another article it explains that people actually voted for a slate of electors. This would mean that the author had to reassure the right understanding. Readers of that article who've voted are now in disbelief or shocked.

In conclusion, the electoral college should be addressed to a win by popularity. The electors in favor of their political party are not always trustworthy. The popularity winner can lose due to lack in electoral votes. Also, many voters are confused or don't know how the electoral college works in presidential elections. These facts add on to more cons than pros of the idea of electoral college.",0
1776be2c,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, As you are most likely aware, the Electoral College is a longdebated, controversial process. I believe that it is in the best interest for the citizens of America that the Electoral College be abolished. Under the Electoral College system, voters do not vote for the president but rather for a slate of electorss who will vote for the president. Voters cannot control who the electorss vote for and it is not unheard of that any given electors may be ""faithless"" and refuse to vote for their party's candidate and instead cast their deciding vote for whomever they want. The people of the United States of America are speaking up. According to a gallop poll conducted shortly after Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency in 2000, over 60% a majority of voters prefer to have a direct election over an election through the Electoral College.

Bush Vs. Kerry election is rare, but nevertheless, it happened, are we going to wait until it happens again to make a change? We take pride in being a democracy, we take pride in living in such a place that was created by the people and for the people , but is the power really in the hands of the people? The power may be in the hands of the people, but only the 538 people who belong to the Electoral College. The system in place is flawed and the outcome can be manipulated to favor one political party over the other. In 1960, segregationists in Louisiana nearly successfully replaced the Democratic electorss with different electorss who would deceive the voters and then oppose Kennedy when voting.

Another con of The Electoral College is a dilemma that has to do with the number of electorsal votes given to each state. The Electoral College works in the same way that The House of Representatives does. The number of electorss alloted to each state is subjective to the population number of that state. Take a state such as California for example. California is alloted 55 electorss. States such as South Dakota and Alaska cant compete with the great power coming from the larger states. In the Congress, the Senate was created to balance it out, but there is nothing in place to balance the importance between large high density states and small low density states. Even more worrying is the situation in which there is a tie. In the case of a tie in the electorsal college, the election would be given to the House of Representatives, where state delegations would then have the deciding vote.

The Electoral College is outdated, unfair and impractical. The citizens of The United States are more than capable of making descisions for themselves and do not need electorss to make it for them. It is a nondemocratic method of selecting a president and should be abolished.

Thank You.",0
1780720a,1,"""The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.""1 This process where a selection of electors meet and vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes in Congress is a way of election that has been in the roots of this great and prosperous country since its beginning. Is this way of electing really all that fair? Does it let the entire population get a fair say in who thay want to run the country? While some people may argue that this system allows the people on the commity of electors that actually want to have their fair say in who becomes president, but first you need to think about they whole american population barely has any say at all in the election and we change this tradition.

It is time for a change, because when a United States citizen votes, they actually arent even voting for president at all. They are mearly voting for a commity of electors to elect the next president for them. Also, is the the commity of electors that actaully wins the elections, and not the popular vote. This is why they call this commity of electors the swing vote because you could win the popular vote by 78.9 percent and still lose the election because you lost the commity of electors votes. This senerio has happened a few times in our history. For instance in 2000 candidate Al Gore won there popluar vote but lost the presidency thanks to the commity of electons from the electoral college. Some people may argue that this is a long tradtion in our country and must be kept. Yes this is true, but there are some very crusial factors against this.

I understand that this election process was put forth but our founding father and some people do not want to just throw it away. While I understand this however, there are flaws in this process that must not be over looked. It does not include and take into count the whole population and it can lead some canadits to lose even when the whole country voted for them. So we need to do something about this process of election. We must find a new way that included and takes into count the population of the United States. Not just a commity of electors.

The Elector College has been is the building blocks of this country since its beginning, but because of some of it's flaws it must be changed. This process does not include the entire count of the votes by american citizens. It is like our thoughts and ideas of who should be president do not even matter in the votting process. The Electoral College may be a deep tradition in our country since its beginning, it must be changed if our great nation is going to be able to prosper and grow.",0
17c38d19,1,"Dear State Senator, I believe that something should be brought to your attention. I'm concerned about the way we are handling the current election process of presidency. You see, at the moment weus Americansuse the Electoral College. But it is becoming a major issue. I understand that ""the founding fathers established it in the Constitution."" But ""The Electoral College consists of 538 electors."" Why focus all of our time choosing Electors, when we could be allowing citizens to vote directly for their President themselves. Office of the Federal Register states,""The Electoral College consists of the selection of the electors."" Did you realize that ""a majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President""? We have millions of people in our country that could be doing the work themselves.

I understand that life is not always fair, but I do believe that as a State Senator you could use a hand. ""The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party."" They could use a helping hand as well! ""The presidential election is held every four years."" In those four years, American citizens wait eagerly and anxiously to choose a potential new president. Why don't we give the people what they want? ""Most states have a winnertakesall system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of proportional representation.'"" These complications could be avoided if we listened to what the citizens have to say and allowed them the freedom to vote for their president directly. America is the land of freedom after all, is it not Senator?

""According to a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60% of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" A recent article by Bradford Plumer says,""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best.",0
17f6638a,1,"As one of the people living in Florida I am honor to have the opportunity to write you this letter telling you about what I think about keeping the Electoral collegee. For numerous reasons I think we have a better outcome of getting the candidate we want if we keep the Electoral collegee method to vote for our candidates.Does reasons are : certainty of outcome, Everyone's president, and swing states.

Problems over Electoral collegee is possible but not as much as problems over popular vote. ""The reason is that winning candidate's share of the winning candidate's share of the Electoral college invariably exceeds his share of popular vote"".This also benefits small states. In addition the is a possibility to have a tie in nationwide electoral vote "" because the total number of votes538is an even number, but it is highly unlikely.."" Everyone's president The candidate have to be neutral, it cannot have favorite religion or section of the country because ""The residents of the other regions ae likely to feel disenfranchisedto feel that their votes do not count,that the new president will have no regard for their interests,that he really isn't their president"".

candidates most of the time choose to focused more on the tossup states because they are ""the most thoughtful voters and should be the ones to decide the election"".

""The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor"".People are worried that the government will choose for them. They do not realise that if we don't have the electoral college than that is is more than likely to happen because the electoral college is what allows us to have a voice, a say, in what we want in our future president.

Keeping the electoral colloge gives the peope the opportunity to choose wisely who they want taking care of them for the next four years.",0
17fd4b1d,1,"The electoral college is an institution that has always guided the presidential elections. The electoral college is tradition and shouldn't be changed because it has balanced delegation of power within the states, there is almost always a definite winner, and it is able to hold a set timeline for the elections. The college has always been able to choose a president that is able to lead our country well, the electoral college is a representation of the people of the United States of America. As the president's constituents, we have the power to choose our leader, and they make it a little easier for us.

The electoral college takes into account the populations of each state within its calculations. This is why Wyoming has only three votes and Florida has twenty nine. It's nothing to complain about, because it's the same number of people each state has in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, meaning each state has at least three votes, decided by its population. This is not a very bad system because the states with huge populations have a bit of their power curbed by the number of electors. So if Wyoming increases its population, and Florida has its population decreased, one of the electors could be removed from Florida and added to Wyoming, balancing the scale of power between them. It's only fair for a populous state like Florida to have more electors anyway, there are many opinions that are yearning to be heard within the ginormous population, and there must be enough electors who can take it upon themselves to voice them. The Electoral College protects us from the probability of voting just because the candidate is from the same state. A majority of people will vote because of a close association with a candidate if the electoral college is abolished. This is why the electoral college only contains 538 people, because nobody wants millions of voters in California voting for the same candidate just because they are the Governor of California.

Due to the even amount of votes in the electoral college, there is a slight chance of a tie. However, with all but two states being part of the ""winnertakeall"" system, the chance of that happening are astronomically low. This is why swing states are so important to the candidates, they know that the chances of them winning the votes in the other party's states are almost impossible, so they must gather all of the votes they can from the states that are known for their swinglike tendencies. It also goes the other way, each candidate trusts that their own party's states will vote for them, so there is no need to waste the money and campaign. Unless its the primary elections, candidates don't typically campaign where they know that the votes are all but set in stone. It's like going grocery shopping, if you know that you are allergic to peanut butter and you already have all the jam you need, you will only go for the special bread that everybody fights for right? The candidates are the same, they don't go after what they already have and what they can't have, only what they might earn, or else it's just a waste of money, so nobody should be able to complain about a candidates campaigning.

A president has always been inaugrated on either January 20th or March 4th, to change that would be blasphemous to both the people and to the United States of America. So it is imperitive that the decision is made early, so that tradition and will not be broken. Contrary to popular belief, there is a set timeline that the election process goes through, and without the electoral college, it is highly possible and probable that the timeline will be broken. The election process is guided by this timeline, for example, voting starts on the second Thursday of the month of November every single time. The Electoral College is a huge part of this process also, and to destroy that would be heartbreaking for the nuerotics that can't stand any change in routine. If the Electoral College were to be abolished, and popular vote was to be instigated throughout the country, any semblance of a schedule would be torn away. Problems would spring up all over the place, and everything would all go to hell. Instead of recounts for counties, whole states would need recounts. If a populous state like Texas were to need a recount, never mind a week, a month wouldn't be enough time to recount it all perfectly. The government would be stuck without a leader, and worst case scenario, the United States of America could be put in a state of anarchy by the end of the decade. Then, we wouldn't be United anymore.

The Electoral College has been there from the beginning, and the without it the United States of America could be thrown into chaos. Traditions shouldn't be broken and the Electoral College represents the biggest one of them all, it balances power between each of the states, defines a true winner, and guides the U.S. on a set timeline. It wouldn't be a far stretch to say that the Electoral College helps keep the order of the country. Truthfully, everyone needs some semblance of order, and the Electoral College provides that and more.",0
182ec0e4,0,"""With less cars we have less accidents and less problems "". As a teenager i should be getting prepare to get my learner license but i do not bother because thats not my priority that doesn't mean i'm not interesting in driving but everything i need are close by like the mall , restaurants and a lot of other thing so i dont really see the need to be driving. By limiting our car usage we prevent accident and we payless bill such as car insurance and gas money.

""After a day of nearrecord pollution , Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city "". Every country should have more than one day where we are carfree because that will protect the air we breath by bringing the congestion down and also we will have less car accident. where everyone can take the bus or we can just walk to wherever we need to go. it would be a good opportunity to lower the cars accidents and the pollution.""All of our development since World War 2 has been centered on the car , and that will have to change "" we can centered that development on something better , on something that will be on our benefit and that will help us to move forward not that the cars doesn't help us but it also pollute the air we breath and we need the air more then we need the cars , might as well reduce the development of car to protect ourselves. ""In previous bills , 80 percent of appropriations have by law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport "".

buying a car and still have to pay all those extra money is a a pain and a waste money. Those money could got to your kids college funds or for vacations , putting yourself in a situation to have too much in your plate is not worth it ,why be always tense when we can be happier. That is too much money just on cars who will bring more trouble then anyone deserve. ""A study last year found hat driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009 "" young people have found out its not that fun having to drive around. Most likely as soon as you can drive your parents leave all the responsibilities on you ,starting with the groceries then dropping your young sibling somewhere to others thing. There's also the gas money , the car accidents and if you take a light the tickets bills and the money for when you taking the highway. People shouldn't have all those trouble coming with the car , thats why the percentage reduce because most people now just take the bus or walk.

Many times my aunt had complained about the problems that come with the car but she still use her car for simple reason such as going to walmart by the house when she could just walk there.The advantages of limiting our cars usages such as less accidents and a better air to breathe are way better then the disavantages which are polluted air , having to pay cars insurances with gas and otherso why not stick to what's better for our environment.",0
186231b2,1,"Dear Senator, The topic of the Electoral college is a hot one, and the idea of whether of not to adjust it is controversial. Many citizen disagree with the process while many are in favor. What should we do? We should change the Electoral College. The voting is based more on quantity instead of quality, and the voting is not coming from the citizen's directly, making the risk of an unfaithful candidate too high and the actual voting less popular and more electoral. When one stateor even one person could change the whole ball game that is the Presidential Election, then what does that mean for our democracy?

While many will argue that it is a fair way to vote, the Electoral College has many flaws. First off, the candidates are focusing on more power and higher tallying states to get them through the election than everyone as a whole. For example, if you were a presidential candidate would you spend more time trying to sway California, with its whopping 55 electoral votes, or montana, with a teeny tiny 3 electoral votes? The candidates are not being considerate of ALL the American citizens, but instead the ones that they think will lead them to victory. This is not what the election is all about. The election is more focused on the popular vote of few states with many inhabitants than it is on many states with few citizens.

""Under the Electoral College system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" As stated in ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong"" . Being that this true, why do we call it the ""Presidential Election"" instead of the ""Electors Election?"" Electors claim to be faithful to their candidates but sometimes this is not the case. If a member of the group is unfaithful to their candidate, it could unsettle the whole election, meaning that the United States as a whole would have to pay for the electors actions. This is not how voting was meant to be. Our slogan is ""We the People,"" not ""We the Electors."" Now, I know what you're thinking, ""Why would we change this system? It is already established and has worked for many years."" In order to move forward as a nation we as a whole need to make changes sometimes. Just think what it would be like today if segregationan established rule and law was not questioned. Or even if the settlers of the United States had not questioned our former mother country and broke away. We would not even be the establishment we are today if we did not question established rules or traditions. The Electoral College is nothing more than a system that needs to be reevaluated, putting the popularity if the candidate in clearer perspective.

To recap, The Electoral College does not include the popularity of the candidates over official influences. The states are not being counted equally and electors control the electon overall. In order to have a more successful government and a more included population, the Electoral College simply needs to be reevaluated and changed to meet the popularity standards of our country if we are to ever advance.",0
187aa67c,1,""" What's wrong with the Electoral College?"" To be honest, have you ever thought where our vote goes. Just in case you forgot, when we vote we're not voting for the President. We're voting for slate electors who would vote for the President, but how could we be sure that they make the right decision for all Americn Citizens.

I write this letter in favor to inform you that the electoral college is an unfair advantage for American citizens. I see how from a stand point you may trust the electoral college due to abundance of knowledge and critique they have. Yes, I can tell why you'd chose them in a way that they may have strong critique. But how can you trust them with a decision held in their hands with willing citizens to think about. "" At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner take all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "" swing"" states"". Why is it continuing base it off of this knowing how American's feel about this matter? Which brings me back to why Americans have to feel like they have an unfair say on who the President can or could be? Perhaps reasoning is the EC Electoral College knows whats best for the American future. Thinking about the effects of the EC voting for the President could possibly vary in results and mat be right. But shine a little light on the situation, it should be in America's people hands and hearts who the president should be.""... candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning..."" Why should we feel like that? American's sould have the right to vote for our leader not people who vote for our leader.

Hold on, I'm not finished yet. Another reason why is when American's vote how could we be sure who to vote for. I agree that Americans can make and exercise their decisions when voting for the Eletoral College. American's are depended on voting , another fact I agree on. But American's sometimes dont know better when voting. "" The American people should consider themselves lucky that the two thousand fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse. Consider the state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors , and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" Sometimes it would be the Americans that throw off the vote for the EC, but in other perspective that wouldn't be the case. Americans should vote wisly upon the information given. but yet the electoral college shouldn't vote for the citizens of the United States, Info should be viewed. I can visaulize someone else perspective it could be with different electorsl parties. But in reverse think about the the biggest election crisis in 2000."" Consider the state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people"". Keeping in mind that we should still vote for our President but at the same keep in mind who citizens are voting for so another voting crisis wouldn't happen again.

In conclusion, I hope you clearly thought it through and thorough. Its hard to rely on other's with a big responsiblity like this. So the Government should let us trust our instincts and but at the same time think them out.",0
18801dcf,0,"Imagine getting off work on a Friday at five o'clock, there's no bumper to bumper traffic, no horns honking at each other, and no stressful commutes home. This is unimaginable for people who reside in the U.S., but people in parts of Europe live like that every day. There are many advantages to cutting down on car usage.

One advantage to this cut would be that you would be saving money. Many people who drive tend to get in accidents or get pulled over by police for speeding. These incidents are very costly and come with repercussions if you don't pay them. Another way you would be saving money is not having to pay for gas. Gas may be only 2.00 for now, but when those prices go on that incline again it becomes very costly to fill up the tank. If you can't afford to fill up your tank then you will be putting wear and tear on the car which leads to more more money being spent to maintenance it. Alternate transportation that's more cost efficient is taking the city bus. It costs about 1 to get from point A to point B where it would cost you about 6 in gas to get you to the same place. You could also purchase a bicycle to take you where you need to go. Maintnancing a bike is a lot cheaper than a car.

A second advantage that limiting car usage has is that it eliminates pollution. A car gives off sound, light, and air pollution which all effect our ecosystem whether you notice it or not. The U.S may not have as much air pollution as other countries but with the increase in car purchases it could get worse. I'm not saying youn have to completely get rid of your vehicles, but maybe the license plate bill may work. Every other day only license plates that begin or end with odd numbers could drive, and on the days the odds can't drive we allow the plates with the even numbers to drive. People could car pool with coworkers on the days that whoever has those plates can drive. We just need to start taking percausions on our car usage.

In the car free test cities people are overall happier because they aren't so stressed worrying about being late due to traffic or getting in an accident. Driving can be extremely stressful especially with the many things that can distract people so easily. These distractions can lead to accidents or just more stress. "" when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way' said Heidrun Walter, mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children driwn out the distant motor.""Source 1, Paragraph 3, Lines 411 This quote puts an image in my mind that is happy and stress free. Imagine how happy you would be if everything was conviently close to youer home and you could enjoy walks or biek rides places with your kids.

People should take a moment and think about ehat life without depending on cars would be like. Would you be healthier, happier, or not? Just take into consideration how you would live and be if we didn't have to rely on cars.",0
18ba9eda,0,"Everyday a great many people drive their cars to commute to work, run errands, and sometimes drive their cars for career related purposes. Little do they know that the greenhousee gas emissions that their automobiles create are damaging the environment and creating large amounts of pollution in metropolitan areas. To help reduce the gas emmisions caused by automobiles many countries around the world have created programs and communities that are designed to lessen the amount of car usage in the areas that they are employed in. In doing so they have reduced the amount of greenhousee gasses in Earth's atmosphere along with producing many other benefits.

Of all the advantages of limited car usage the most attractive one would definetely have to be reduced pollution and greenhousee gas emissions. Not only will people save money on fuel in communities that forbid the usage of cars but they will save the planet as well. According to the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" The information shows that a large amount of gas emissions can be produced by automobiles. Assume that there were a lot of cities that had incredibly low rates of car usage. If those city's greenhouse gas emission levels were compared to those of an average car filled city then it would be logical that the carfree city produced less greenhousee gasses.

Another positive change that has the ability to happen in cities and communities that limit their car usage is that municipal development can occur. When people start to use cars less and less then businesses would most likely move to more accessible locations which in turn may give the businesses more customers. Due to the increased business in certain stores, stores from different companies will likely move in to areas in and around the one the other businesses reside in to drum up their sales as well. The article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" supports my statement in the with the sentence, ""Parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" The sentence shows the correlation between lessening car usage and municipal development.

In the end, the advantages of limiting car usage are as bountiful as fish in the ocean. From lessening the amount of pollution in cities to aiding the development of cities, limiting car usage can do great things.",0
18eaa2f8,0,"In a society where things are always changing and schedules are always busy, cars and other personal motor vehicles have become a necessity. It seems as if cars have become a necessary mean for survival, rendering as important as something imperative like oxygen or water. Many families even have multiple cars in order to get to where the need to go. Even though cars have been so convenient and beneficial for people all over the world, there are some factors of cars that produce a negative effect. By eliminating or largly reducing car usage, the world would be more safe, more ecofriendly, and save the precious natural gases that the Earth provides.

For years people have been driving, and while most do it safely, some do it recklessly and do not abide by the rules, sometimes leading to fatal outcomes. Reckless driving, careless driving, and driving under the influence has become one of the leading causes of death among young people, making many very skeptical or cautious about driving. Millions of people are lost each year in car accidents, leaving behind family members and loved ones to grieve in their place. If cars were to be eliminated from the equation, all of these deaths could easily be avoided. By walking, riding bicycles, taking the bus or subway, or even a trolley or ferry, there will be an ensured reduction of accidents and an increase in safety and peace of mind.

In addition to increased safety, there would also be a significant reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases and smog have been polluting the atmosphere especially since the coming about of cars. It says in source four that transportation produces half of America's carbon emission. If car usage were to be limited or eliminated, there would be a noticeable and significant decrease in the amount of carbon emissions in the air. Similarly, source one states that, "" passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" If cars were to be ridden of, there would be much less green house gas poluting the atmosphere, therefore creating a cleaner environment and a brighter and longer future for the generations to come.

Similarly, the removal of cars from the world would mean the preservation of nonrenewable resources. Since cars run on gasoline, diesel, and other natural gases, the resources are being burned up faster than they can replenish themselves. There are other things that rely on the natural gases to work, cars included. If cars were to be eliminated, and not use the gases at the rapid rate that they do, there would be a huge reduction in the usage for fossil fuels, therefore preserving the remaining resources and only using them when mandatory. This would allow the natural gases to slowly increase and be able for use in the future.

In conclusion, the limitations of car usage would make a significant change in the way the world runs, however there would be many positive outcomes to it. Not only would it ensure a brighter, longer, and more promising future for the coming generations, but it would also relieve stress and worrying and grant peace of mind to many. Although there is no way to take back the damage already done to the Earth, this would greatly reduce the potential damage that could be done, and protect the future. It would provide oppurtunities for a a cleaner atmosphere, safer life, living in harmony with the ecosystem, and a chance to respect and protect the Earth we live on.",0
18f68659,0,"All around the world, cars have influence our lives for the good or for the bad. Whether that is getting people to their jobs or getting into an accident. Cars have altered our lives and are doing it constantly. Although for a century cars have benefited humans greatly, cars have negative effects and banning cars can help decrease the pollution all over the world, it saves the little resoucers the planet has, and car accidents will occur less.

To elaborate more, countries all over the world are trying new ways to decrease the air pollution as much as possible, whether that is banning cars or restricting them. In Vauban, German cars are restricted and if you have a car it is very expensive to use. In Vauban, 70 percent of families do not have cars, and inorder to move in to the town 57 percent sold their cars. The idea of restricted areas are getting big ,and for Vuaban has 5,500 residents, that shows that people like the idea and will support it. People in the town have claim to enjoy it alot and are happier. In Paris, France their idea to help low the pollution in the air was to have specific licenses plats restricted on certain days of the week. France had very bad smog and within 5 days the smog decrease 60 percent. In Bogota, Columbia they had similar goals as other countries like Germany. Carlos Arturo Plaza said,""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" In Europe cars make up 12 percent of the greenhouse gas and air pollution. In the United States Americans are driving less and the pollution in the air is decreasing, benefiting the environment. Throughout the world, countries are tring to help the world, by decreasing the pollution.

Moreover, throughout the century cars have been using non renewable resoucers and now that alot of the people have cars, it has taken a toll on the environment. The world has only so much resoucers and once its gone it is gone, it takes time for them to come back and it willl not be in our life time. Using these resoucers have a negative effect they emit carbon in to the atmosphere creating greenhouse gas, that is bad. saving the resoucers and not using them can help with keeping the atmopshere cleaner.

Now people are banning and restricting cars for various reasons, but one reason is that for the past century cars have killed alot of people. It is one of the top reasons for deaths in the United States and possibly in the world. If banning cars can save thousands of lifes why not do it. Banning cars or restricting cars means less cars which can result to less car accidents. Having less accidents results to less people getting hurt and potenially dying. Less cars can also mean that the goverment does have to focuse on roads and stuff like that ,but can focuse on improving the safty of the people on the sidewalks or at playgrounds. the funds can go to better causes.

The world we live has changed enormously and now inorder to save the plant and the people in it, we must make changes as a society, inorder to live long and healthy. Banning cars might be one of the many choices we must make inorder to live. Banning cars can help decrease the greenhouse gases, conserve the resoucers, and less people will die from car accidents. Who knows cars may be a thing in the past int he next decade or two.",0
194d4097,1,"Do you want to elect the president? The electoral college doesn't allow that unless you're an elector. Voting for president should be done with a popular vote rather than an electoral college. An electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational.

An electoral college is unfair. In source two, it says, ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know have no chance of winning..."" This shows that candidates don't treat everyone the same. They spend more time in states that have a chance of winning. Some states never even get to see who the candidates are.

Not only are electoral colleges unfair, they're also outdated. The electoral college has been being used since 1960. In source two, it says, "" It happened in Hawaii in 1960."" This proves that the electoral college has been around for many years, and it's time for something new. Things change along with time, a new system would improve voting.

The electoral college is irrational. In an electoral college, you don't vote for the president, you vote for a slate of electors that then vote for the president. In source two, it says, ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" This proves that the system doesn't make sense and citizens should be able to directly vote for the president of their country.

To conclude, the electoral college system should be abolished. It is unfair, outdated, and irrational. Abolishing the electoral college would improve voting and make citizens want to vote.",0
198f74bf,0,"As crazy as living without a car sounds, more and more people are doing it. One popular reason for it is for a healthier and happier lifestyle. In Elisabeth Rosenthal's short story titled In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars Heidrun Walter reports ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Her and many others like her in the town of Vauban, Germany have experienced the difference and felt stress go away. The city has banned driveways and home garages, encouraging the rule of living ""carfree."" The people rely on public transit, bicycles and their own two legs. While many people are stressing to get a car, the people of the town feel stressed if they have a car. Over half the population sold their cars to move there, and don't regret a thing. In the article titled Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota , Andrew Selsky quotes Carlos Arturo Plaza as saying ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress"" as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife.

Also Carlos Arturo Plaza goes on to say ""it's a good opportunity to lower air pollution."" People are realizing how many pollutants that cars emitt into the atmosphere. One example place is Paris, known for their terrible smog, has finally done something to clean it up. Robert Duffer wrote in ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" The law stated even numbered license plates couldn't drive one day, and the other, odd license plates couldn't. A little thing like this had a big effect. Duffer then reported ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog."" Elizabeth Rosenthal in the article The End of Car Culture showed the idea "" if these patterns persists...it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions."" Americans are partically to blame for pollution. Our need for the newest, biggest, best things, has come at a cost, and more than money. Greenhouse gases are stacking up, and we have to take a stand some time. Rosenthal goes on to describe political leaders are working to fix this too, ""President Obama's abitious goals to curb the United States' greenhouse gas emissions were unveiled last week."" In places already practicing the no car rule, environments have improved more than pollution wise. Andrew Selsky reported of ""the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths"" and ""uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks."" These two additions of Bogota, Colombia have inspired many people to turn in their keys, and take a hike instead. Not only have these changes made people more happy, but it makes their city more beautiful and they are starting to get outdoors and see it. The author reports that ""municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the event carfree day and were enthuriastic,"" amung the people visiting was the Mayor of Paraguay's capital city. When more people see the effects, they want to do the same thing. Columbia's one day event has brought about much talk in neighboring towns and even ""two other Colombian cities, Calli and Valledupar, joined the event."" On the other side of the argument, many car industries are trying to compete with these new ideas and technology. Rosenthal quotes in ""But it could have negative implications for the car industry. Indeed, companies like Ford and Mercedes are already rebranding themselves ""mobility"" companies with broader product range beyond the personal vehicle"" As humans advance into the ideas of walking, biking, or taking public transportation, car companies strive to become known for things other than cars. They want to be able to sell you things still, even if you don't want or need a car. Later she writes how Bill Ford proposed the fresh idea at the Mobile World Congress that car dealers should ""partner with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which 'pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety."" This long quote simply means having all forms of transportion and the new technology in communications to be one, for the better of the people.

With or without cars, we all are always on the move. Some cities have adapted new ideas to get from place to place, or simply old ideas, being put back into action. Although Henry Ford would probably be dissapointed at his invention being faded out, Mother Nature would be pleased of us taking care of Earth. We never know what the future holds, but we do know, we'll always only have one home, so we better take care of it.",0
1992c36b,1,"Many people agree in abolishing the Electoral College. Electoral Collage caused a dispute in the year 2000. The Electoral College is a irrational system and it should be banned.

Certainly the Electoral College has some benefits. In the passage ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our sidpised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner the author states that the Electoral College ""avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of votes cast."" With the Electoral College there is no issue of a candidate getting the most votes, so there wont have to be any runoff elections. Runoff elections complicated the election process. Posner asserts that the ""winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote."" It is because of this that the possibility of an argument over the outcome of an Electoral College is lesser then an argument over the popular vote. Although this is true, the people should have the say on who their president will be. The Electoral College is a broken voting system that causes confusion and dispute. Therefore, the Electoral College should not be used as a way of voting for America's President.

A key issue is that the candidate with the most popular vote does not have the certainty of winning. This is a problem because America can not have the leader she wants and deserves. Bradford Plumer from the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" argues that the Electoral College causes "" the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency."" If the people can not chose who they want as their leader then where is their freedom? Plumer also states that the voters can not always ""control whom their electors vote for,"" We dont get to chose who the electors are voting for. This way the value of the people's opinion is being diminished into nothing. The reasonable solution to this problem is to just end the Electoral College imidiatly.

Another factor is that the electors have to much power over the election. Palmer writes ""that the electors could always defy the will of the people,"" The electors are the only people who have decent amount of power to chose a president. The people should have that kind of power. The author asserts that the electors "" have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please,"" The electors are able to just change their mind when wver they like. The popular vote must decide on who should win. The future of america should depend only on the will of the people. The people has to finally stand up and fight for their right to chose their own President.

In final consideration, the Electoral College is unfair to the American people. We should have freedom to chose whom our country's leader should be. The popular vote should stay and the Electoral College should be banned once and for all.",0
19fb1cce,0,"Every day people wake up, get ready, and go to work or school. The way they get there can vary but for the most part, people drive cars. That's about to change. Helping the environment and becoming more relaxed are advantages for limiting car usage.

By reducing car usage, emmitions produced from automobiles can be reduced and help the environment. When cars release gas into the air, it causes smog which traps the gases and inhibits them from being able to escape the atmosphere. In largely congested cities smog can be as harmful as 147 micrograms of particulate matter as seen in Paris, France paragraph 17. Paris enforced a partial driving ban due the amount of smog and just after one day of reduced driving, the smog clears enough so they didn't have to enforce the ban another day paragraph 19. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in the United States. paragraph 5. This staggering statistic can open your eyes to how much cars really effect the environment. If just once a week you didn't use your car, you could reduce greenhouse gases drastically. In the United States today, recent studies have shown that Americans are buying fewer cars, and are driving less. paragraph 29. Since 1995, the number of miles driven per person dropped almost 9 percent paragraph 32. With lesser people buying and driving new cars, gas emissions could change drastically within a few years and could help our evrioment exonentialy.

When you do not drive a car to from places every day, you become a more relaxed person. In Vauban, Germany residents have given up cars almost all together, only 30 percent of residents owning cars. In this Suburban town, it seems comman for mothers to own a minivan to ship children back and forth all throughout town Heidrun Walter feels other wise. She has given up her automobile to get around town and ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Walter states. paragraph 3. For the past three years in Bogota, Colombia they take a day out of the year where only taxis and buses are permitted, the Day Without Cars. Even when dark clouds circled around the city and rain splattered down onto the heads of people, they didn't revert back to their cars. A businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza states that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" paragraph 24. This day has become so popular, two other cities in Columbia joined in as well the celebrate the day where people do not use their cars. People do not need to meet with other people in order to go to work or hangout with friends anymore they can be in their own homes using the technology they access see their friends and continue to do their work.paragraph 35. Without having to commute to an office, people feel less stressed and more relaxed being able to do their work in the comfort of their own home.

People used to accossicate cars as the best way to get from place A to B without thinking about the consequences it can have on the planet or on yourself. You have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.",0
1a205da4,1,"The electoral college is an unfair and outdated system. It is unfair to voters. A states electoral votes often do not tell what that state truly wants. And no candidate should face what Gore did in 2000, with a winning popular vote, but less electoral votes losing him the election. It is an outdated system that should not be used in today's modern society.

When we vote for a specific president, we are actually voting for a slate of electors. The chosen electors are supposed to support the winning candidate, but they can easily decide to ignore that and cast their vote toward whomever the please. This can cause a president to get the greatest popular vote, and still lose because they did not get as many electoral college votes once all states' votes have been combined. This should certainly not happen. Whatever candidate is preferred by the most people to take office should win the election, period. In the past, maybe it would have been good to let the more educated electors choose the president rather than any citizen, but in this modern age of knowledge, people can be trusted to choose a leader that shares in the best interests of our country. Al Gore in 2000 lost the election after winning the most popular votes. That shows us that this electoral system does not work effectively, and should not be used today.

Perhaps more worrying is the electoral college's winnertakeall system. If a candidate wins a state's election by a tiny amount, they get every electoral vote for that state. This allows candidates to ignore smaller states, or states they know they will win, and focus on larger states and ones that have a very tight election could be easily persuaded for advertisements and campaigns. Ohio is known as a state that looks at their candidates closely, and can be persuaded to choose one based on what they know about them. Candidates tend to focus more resources here or in other similar states. It makes some sense to focus more on larger populations, and states like Ohio that are more interested in the election, but during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, and could not make educated decisions during the election. In a close election, half the people in the state's views will be ignored, and will not matter to the election. That means half of California's 35 million voters would not matter at all in the election. The fate of the election should not be put in the hands of Ohio or other ""swing"" states, just ignoring less important ones.

Today's society needs a more fair system of electing a president. A popular vote from everyone is the most fair way to make sure the most popular candidate wins the election, and will cause candidates to focus on all citizens, focusing on large populations, but still trying to gain popularity with rural areas as well. America's citizens deserve a fair, proper election, that satisfies the most people possible.",0
1a2a2034,1,"The Electoral College is America's current method of election. A process created by our founding fathers that consists of the selection of electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for president and vice president, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. Many Americans believe that this method is crucial because it's certainty of outcomes and the way it avoids runoff elections. However many people believe it creates more of a problem than a solution. Problems created under the electoral college system include, big states recieving more attention than small states, the disaster factor, and the winnertakeall method which causes unfairness among voters.

Each state has a different number of electors based on the number of members in it's congressional delegation. A lot of the time bigger states tend to have a larger amount of electors, for example the state of Hawaii has four while the state of texas has 38. This causes more attention to go towards the big states. Another example of this dilemma is shown by an excerpt from Bradford Plumer which says ""each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to represent the will of the people"".

The current system of election leaves room for multiple disasters to occur. Disasters such as the 2000 fiasco in which Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency. Another issue caused is a question of the electors loyalty to their candidate. Perhaps the Elector of a certain state decides against the election of their party and casts a deciding vote for whoever they please. This creates an unreliable system they could change the fate of an election in an instant. Even more serious issues could arise such as a state sending two slates of electors which Hawaii did in 1960.

Lastly, the Electoral College is a faulty system because of it's winnertakeall method. Most states have this method in which the winning presidential candidate is awarded all the electors. Due to this the candidates don't spend time int he states they know have no chance of winning, and only focus on tight races in the ""swing states"". As stated in an article by Richard A. Posner ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single ad.

All in all, the Electoral College is an unreliable system of election. It causes many issues to arise and is all around unfair to voters. Many important people such as Richard Nixon, and Jimmy carter agree that America should abolish it all together. The issues caused such as unequal attention on states based on size, unfaithfulness of electors, and an unfair winnertakesall method prove the the Electoral College undeniably, causes more problems than solutions.",0
1a4eba9e,0,"""I'm much happier this way,"" What caused someone to say this? Simply no longer owning a car! Based on how car dependant mostly everyone's life is and how badly most people that don't have a car want one you'd think that going from having one to lacking one must be terrible. Well statistically speaking we might all be moving towards this idea and it might not be such a bad thing!

In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars Vauban, Germany is home to people that have chosen to give life without cars a shot, many of which love the life style. 70% of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57% sold a car just to go there. Although this has mostly only been done here many have started slowly adopting the idea. As the author, Elisabeth Rosenthal, of this article pointed out passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse emissions in Europe, and in more car populated areas such as the United States up to 50%. Robert Duffer stated in Paris bans driving due to smog that in Paris Driving had been limited by their government due to extreme levels of pollution and after a short amount of time the ban was called off because the smogpollution had lowered. Just one of the advantages of limiting the usage of cars would be cutting down these huge numbers and getting rid of these issues, and if you asked anyone im pretty sure they'd say that this one advantage is plenty reason already to look into this. Imagine how drastically improved the planet would be if others adopted what Vauban is already doing!

Want a holiday to promote the limiting of cars? Well there actually is one in Bogota, Colombia! Millions of colombians hike, bike, skate, or take buses to places like work on this day. It already has three years running so far, even if its raining that day, the mayor claims that it doesnt stop people from participating. This day is starting to also branch out to other colombian cities such as Cali and Valledupar, imagine if eventually it becomes an international holiday, the advantages are everywhere. Due to the limiting of car usage there are more people walking on the sidewalks and this has caused the government to improve those sidewalks by making new smooth ones and getting rid of the old cracked ones. More restaurants, parks, sports centers, and even entire shopping centers have been built and opened to the people walking which is a life style improving advantage. If the limiting of cars is done in more places then new things to do and try will open up in that area and in turn prove to be a great advantage from limiting car usage.

Elisabeth Rosenthal has writen about the possibility that in the United States the peak of driving has been reached. As it turns out Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less miles on average, and getting fewer licenses every year that goes by. If such a large population such as the United States is cooling down on car usage why not speed that process up and governments start slowly but efficiently reducing car usage internationally? This would mean that in public transport there would be more socializing because the people that take that same bus everyday at 7:00 AM along with you would become your friends or at least aquaintances. So when you think about it friendships might even come with car limiting as well!

From the reduction of polution to the improvements of everyday life style to even possibly socializing with new people, the possibilities of car usage limiting are endless.",0
1a6f8b76,0,"The usage of motor vehicles has been on a steady decline for the last several years. More and more people are relying on carpooling and other means of transportation. In Elisabeth Rosenthal's articles, she discusses Vauban, Germany, where cars are forbidden and how the use of cars has been on the decline. In Robert buffer's article, he talks about Paris' issues with pollution and the ways it has been dealt with. In Andrew Selsky's article, he talks about a program in Colombia when citizens use other means of transportation other than cars. The perks of limiting car usage include less pollution, less traffic congestion, and improved safety.

The main culprit of pollution issues is car usage. In Source 2, Robert Duffer says that ""Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France...""Duffer 16 This is because of a tax policy that has a preference to this fuel. Diesel fuel is a lot more harmful than regular gasoline, and if many people are using this fuel pollution rates will skyrocket. Cutting down on these fuels altogether could create a less polluted environment. In addition, cars cause 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and 50 percent in specific places in the U.SRosenthal 5. This statistic is startling, since half of the pollution problems in the U.S are associated to cars. By using other means of transportation such as the train or even carpooling, this number can be greatly reduced to a much smaller percentage.

With more cars, more traffic congestion occurs. A sign of this congestion is evident when Rosenthal says""New York's new bikesharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect those new priorities.Rosenthal 37"" A lot of people are still using their own vehicles to get from point A to B, and as a result their is more money that has been given to toll bridges because of that. The encouragement of governments to suggest carpooling services and shared rides will decrease the revenue that comes from tolls. If everybody shared a ride with a person from work or from somewhere else, there would be a great decrease in traffic congestion.

Furthermore, public transportation such as the BART in the San Francisco Bay area has decreased the amount of drivers on the road. Although the rides are typically longer than driving a car from point A to B, it is a more efficient method of transportation.Rosenthal 40 Using these alternate methods of transportation decreases the amount of cars on the road at once. With less cars on the road at once, there is more efficiency in getting where you need to go.

Safety is one of the most important aspects of reducing the amount of cars. In Colombia, a program promotes the use of no cars one day per year. Many of the citizens use alternate methods of transportation such as walking and riding bikes.Selsky 20By promoting this, there are obviously less cars on the road and a lesser risk of people being injured by cars. With programs that promote other modes of transportation, many lives can be saved since there would be fewer cars on the road. Although many people require cars to get from place to place, the idea of lives being saved is something that shouldn't be ignored. Also, technology has aided the decline in cars. Telecommunication has helped people become connected to friends and family in a way without meeting with them face to face.Rosenthal 35 Because of this, people dont have to travel to meet with their friends and family. This has created a domino effect people can communicate through social media and texting which causes less cars to be on the road to visit other people and overall causes less safety isssues.

In conclusion, cars are the focal point of many issues in our society. They cause many safety issues such as traffic accidents,more traffic congestion which causes increases in revenue in tolls, and pollution issues. By reducing car usage, many of these problems can disappear, and can create a safer and healthier environment.",0
1a7af311,1,"The Electoral college is a process where electors vote for President and Vice President, and count the number of electoral votes by Congress. Many people are debating whether or not keep the Electoral collegee or change it to a election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Although the Electoral collegee has been taking place for many years now, it can be a disaster factor. I believe that the Electoral collegee should be abolished and changed to a election by popular vote for the president of the United States because it will make the election fair, the chance of there being a tie is much less, and it will be rather rational as oposed to the Electoral collegee.

The Electoral collegee is not fair and it is irrational. Voters don't vote directly to the president they want. According to Source 1: ""What is the Electoral collegee?"" voters actually voting for their candidate's electors. Majority of the states have a ""winner take all"" system in which electors are awarded to the winning candidate. Voters don't get to chose who exactly they want, it's based upon which elector they chose that really determines who will win the presidential election. The voters can't always control what the elector they chose does with what thy're decision was on who they wanted to win the election, and they just as well get confused and sometimes possibly make the wrong choice. Changing it to election by popular vote for the president of the United States is fair for anyone who votes. There is less chance of getting confused and less chance of picking the wrong elector. Even though others may argue that each party selects trusted electors to vote for the patry's nominees, it's still not fair to those who get confused and end up picking the wrong elector which leads to wrong vote towards the presidential election.

The chances of it turning out to be a tie aren't low. according to Source 2: ""The Indefensible Electoral college: Why even the best laid defenses of the system are wrong"", a tie has happened before. States have sent two states of electors to Congress. Although it happened long ago, it doesn't mean that it won't occur anytime again. Abolishing the Electoral collegee can give a less chance for that to occur. Since staes have the ""winner take all"" system, the candidates don't even spend time or focus on the states that the know they have no chance in winning in. According to source 2, there were seventeen states who didn't even get to see the election at all, and some votes didn't even get to see the ad of the campaign.

The presidential election will become rational to many people. There may be cons to abolishing the Electoral collegee but there are more pros to it rather than cons. It would make the presidential election fair and easier for the voters voting for the candidates. People may argue that it's best to keep the Electoral collegee because some states may not have enough people voting for the candidates so it wouldn't be possible to directly vote for the president of the United States but there are more states who do have the chance to chose and make a direct decision rather than picking an elector who may or may not go agaisnt the party that had picked them and then they can end up chosing who they, the electors want instead of what the voter really wanted and intended. Many people may be able to agree that it is best to abolish the Electoral collegee instead of keeping it. The electors are picked mostly based upon the state.

Abolishing the Electoral collegee is the fair, rational, and beneficial thing to do. Keeping the Electoral collegee won't benefit the presidential election in any way possible. It's better to keep the election fair than otherwise. Voters should be able to know exaclty who they're picking without any confusion or without accidently picking the wrong person. People shouldn't need to be confused about who they're picking and they shouldn't have to posibly worry at the fact that the elector they voted for might defy the will of the voters and they would pick who they, the voters feel like picking rather than picking who the voters vote was actually intended for in the first place. There are risks to basically putting the voters vote in someone elses hands and the voters vote can easily be changed by one of the electors that the party had picked because they trusted that person. If the presidential election was about who you can pick directly, then it would be much easier and the voters will know that the presidential election was fair and nothing was done to change who they voted for in the beginning.",0
1ae2e6fe,0,"At first, the idea of not using a car may seem like an extreme inconvience that comes with endless problems. However after looking into the matter there are many hidden advantages. One can lessen emissions, and help create a less polluted environment for themselves. One may also be able to save money by simply taking alternate types of transportation.

By using a car less, one can help decrease the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Paragraph five by Elisabeth Rosenthal, states that up to fifty percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are due to passenger cars. While these numbers may seem daunting, some cities have reduced their pollution in simple ways. For example, Paris experienced record breaking air pollution caused by emissions. This drove leaders to put in place a ban on certain cars driving during specific days of the week. Not only did the smog clear within one day, but sixty percent of car traffic was down too. If parishes problem was fixed by making a simple switch, then less polluted cities could easily decrease their emissions swell.

One can also save money by avoiding cars. Not only are cars expensive in the first place, but as explained by Rosenthal in paragraph twenty nine, the bridge and tunnel tolls are rising. Bikes on the other hand, are a great alternative because they are inexpensive and they have free paths. One may argue that it is impossible to get the public to ditch their cars for human powered machines, but in Bogota, colombia, this is already happening. For one day each year cars are banned, and only certain types of vehicles are allowed. Selsky explains in paragraph twenty that millions participated, even on rainy days. Here one can see that this alternative transportation idea is not a couple of people, but a widespread movement.

Overall, lessening ones usage of cars has many benefits. Not only can one help ensure cleaner air, but they can save money while their at it. By making small changes in ones everyday life, huge impacts can be made on the community.",0
1af7160f,0,"We use cars every day, but have we ever actually stopped to realize the stress and pollution they cause? Now think just how many advantages there would be if we limited car usage. There would be less stress, it would be less dangerous, and there would be less pollution. Not only would we be helping the environment, but also helping to protect our families from the harm cars can cause.

Stress we all experience it. It's become such a big factor in everyones life. One of the most stressful things is sitting in a traffic jam when you are already late to work, but think, if we limited the usage of cars, there wouldn't be so many traffic jams. In the third essay, by Andrew Selsky, a man and his wife state ""It is a good opportunity to take away stress"". Traffic jams are stressful no matter where you are going. They make you impatient and easily annoyed. Stress has a very big impact on your health too. Sitting in a traffic jam every day and being under that kind of stress can start to affect your health poorly.

Cars are a very dangerous piece of machine. They are manmade and sometimes they have flaws. Some of these flaws might be a quick fix, but others may be fatal. Many people have lost their lives while at the wheel of a car. Many people have lost loved ones to terrible car crashes. Limiting the usage of cars will end up resulting in a lower crash rate. With a lower crash rate we can ensure the safety of our families, more than we ever could before.

According to the article ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, ""transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants."" Pollution is a dangerous thing. It may seem like nothing, but it has a bigger threat than any of us realize. Pollution is taking away all of the clean air we have left to breathe. With power plants emitting such harmful fumes, and now cars, our air is being polluted quicker then we ever thought possible. Helping to reduce car usage will reduce the pollution in the air. We will be, not only helping our environment, but also helping our children. As kids grow older, we can help them have a healthy earth, and clean air to breathe.

Considering all of the advantages to decreasing the usage of cars, we may want to join in on what parts of Europe and Colombia have already started to work on. According to the article by Andrew Selsky, Colombia has a ""Day Without Cars"" that happens once every year. This has been happening for three straight years. In German, there is a suburb where people live, and most do not own cars. While in Paris they have also started having a day of no driving. This has helped to clean up their air and decrease the amount of stress people go through while driving. Cars are very convienent, but are they so convienent when they cause so much harm.",0
1b25a34a,0,"cars are everywhere these days, and they are commonplace among us. getting from point a to point i almost always involves using a car. iut there is a different method of transportation emerging and that is puilic transportation. there are many ienefits to puilic transportation including reducing emissions, having less cars on the road, and improving cities. this one farfetched idea is now coming into the spotlight.

in cities like chicago and new york, the skies are dark and gloomy and pollution is in the air. the main contriiuting source come from emissions from cars. limiting the usage of cars would help to clear the skies and stop some pollution from filling the air. the quality of life would then ie much ietter in these cities. ""after days of near record pollution, paris enforced a partial driving ian to clear the air of the gloial city."" paris needed to ian cars iecause the smog and pollution in the city was getting out of hand. if there were fewer cars in the city, this type of proilem would never ie an issue here or around the world.

traffic is always a iig issue on the roads around the united states and the world. limiting car usage would ease the traffic and make roads a lot safer. when the car ian was in place in paris ""congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of france, after fivedays of intensifying smog."" when less cars were out on the road, accidents would ie greatly reduced and city highways like the ones in chicago, illinois would ie much more manageaile. there would ie more money to work on roads since the traffic is reduced and the roads would also stay in prestine condition for longer amounts of time. events like carfree day have already had iig impacts in other parts of the world and the impact would ie even greater in larger countries such as the united states. ""it's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" having less cars on the road would ienefit our society in more ways than one.

quite a few years ago, ideas such as puilic transportation iecoming mainstream seemed pretty farfetched. well today, those ideas can help iuisnessses and whole towns limit car usage. when cars are used less frequently, the areas that have more frequent usage will ie cared for even more. new sidewalks, restaurants, and shopping will emerge throughout cities and ie a huge advantage. caring for roads have little ienefit and putting money into puilic areas will help out cities tremendously. ""parks and sports centers also have iloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have ieen replaced iy iroad, smooth sidewalks. new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" using puilic transportation instaid of cars will greatly improve cities.

cars have ieen around for a long time and have served us for many years. now, reducing or getting rid of them seems like a viaile option iecause emissions will ie reduced, there will ie less cars on the road, and cities would ie improved. this task of getting rid of cars may seem hard to do iut the infrastructure for it is already in place. puilic transportation is already in larger cities such as new york and chicago and it can easily ie installed in smaller towns and communities. the advantages such as less pollution and more greatly outweigh the minor inconveniences. smart planning is the iest option to encompass all of these ideas. "" it separates suiurian life from auto use, as a component of a movement called smart planning."" smart planning is not only the wisest opportunities and advantages of limiting car usage for now, it is also meant to help future generations have a safer and cleaner world to live in.",0
1b57098f,0,"Some people like to drive while others don't and some countries are making bans or just limiting the usage of cars. This can have more advantages than disadvantages.

When people drive cars they let out pollution into the air which harms the atmosphere. The advantages to this is that if people don't drive that much anymore the pollution can be stopped at a certain point and cause no harm anymore of course the air might still be polluted but with a less perentage. People would definitely use money on something else thtne to try and get the new car or just use it on gas. There are alternatives to limit the use of cars.

sociologists believe if this continues with people limiting car transportation that ""it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emission, just behind power plants."" so if we all got to think about it we are basically doing a favor to ourselves by helping the planet by limiting the use of cars.

Another advantage that this idea might have is that the people in the community could stop spending more money due to cuts in the job. They waste money on gas on new cars, etc. When really you could be doing something better with that money.

Most poeple dont even really need cars they use them for the heck of it. Teenagers use it just to go around with friends or go to work but really they could limit that use and find another way of transportation. This isn't saying to just stop using your car but just finding a way to say that if you dont really need your car but just using it for fun then you could limit that use and instead of driving to places that are close to you just walk there.

The author of ""The End of Car Culture"" elisabeth Rosenthal even said that her own kids being 19 and 21 ""have not even bothered to get a driver's license...."" they find other ways to get around she said ""they organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends"" as i said before there are alternatives to limiting the usage of cars and this could be one of them if you are with friends and all are going to the same palce then you ca just share one car so that not all of the cars are ut it can avoid traffic and cost less money to you also.

In conclusion, I say that there are alot of advantages to limiting the use of cars and we could most definitely make more.",0
1b587a92,0,"Having a limit on car usage has many advantages to it. This limitation mainly benefits the people and the environment.

A major advantage of the limitation is to help the people. Many of the people like not having cars available. In In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars , a family says "" When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way.Rosenthal"" Not having a car takes pressure off of the people, because they don't have to worry about filling up on gas. They also like it ,because it encourages more exercise. instead of driving to the store or the park you can walk or take a bicycle. In the article Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota, some of the statistics show that ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the cityuneven, pitter sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut off traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"". This is an example of how progressive this change has made on cities. Also mentioned in Selsky article "" Its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"". Most of the people say that not having cars takes lot of stress off of them. The positive impact on the people is just one of the many advantages of limited car usage.

another advantage is helping the environment. By limiting car use has really impacted the environment. Rosenthal states that ""experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe.... Passengers cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe"". This just shows how much of an impact not using cars has been. In article two Duffer explains why Paris created limitation on car usage. Paris had a huge smog and to help clean it up and to prevent from getting worse, Paris made a law that only certain number license plates could drive on certain days and if you drove on the wrong day than you would be fined. But this helped France get their fuel numbers lower. In Selsky article he talks about how Columnia has a ""car free day"". On this day no cars are allowed with the exception of buses and taxis. ""The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog"". Alot of the people like to participate in this event. In Amercia research has been found that ""Amercians are buying fewer cars,driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by"" Rosenthal.With this information we can be lowering our pollution on our own. Many people did not like the limitations, but learned to like them considering the end result of a healthier environment. These two advantages of limiting car usage is just a couple of the many.",0
1b5b7ee7,1,"It's the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, can you guess what it is? It's election day! Every four years, nearly every person in America will vote to choose a new President, or do we? Yes, we live in a democracy where we can vote for who runs out country, but do we really make the decision? The Electoral College is a phase where electors, of a candidate running for president, come together and decide for who is the President, Vice President, and include the counting of the electoral votes from Congress. The person who runs for President has a select group of people known as electors, which are typically chosen by that person's political party. Is this who we really vote for, and is it fair? This should be eradicated.

By using the Electoral College, we don't directly vote for our own President. We vote for fisher's electors. It's them who really choose who leads us, not us! In ""What Is the Electoral College?"" it states that ""...when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors,"" meaning we aren't actually voting for a President, just fisher's electors. It could literally be anybody, not holding public office. This is not a direct way for us to vote for who makes the decisions around here. In ""Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" it claims that ""...over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" Sixty percent said that! That's incredible.

The electoral votes are just unequal. The states that are bigger would obviously get more electoral votes than, let's say Maryland. California would have more votes than Maryland because it i smuch bigger. The House of Represenatives has its own unique way of handling that, and they're going just fine, we don't need another. It just isn't reliable, the numbers and percentages would be all boggled up. This country is based on equality and liberty. and there is no equality in this.

The Electoral College is much too confusing. Sometimes voters could be discombabulated about who it is they are voting for. Sometimes voters can't control who the electors vote for. This is both confusing and frustrating for anyone who thinks they voted for someone great, but the electors change that. In ""Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" it says that ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."", meaning that we don't choose for ourselves, they do.

Some could say ""its anarchy"", or that ""its not democratic"", which could be true. In ""In defense of the Electoral College...,"" it states that ""But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee...however it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote."" This means that even though you vote for a person, it's probably a fiftyfifty chance your person will win. It does also help release the stress of worrying about a runoff election, and avoids the problem where no candidate receives a majority of votes that has been cast.

The Electoral College is not the best way to vote in our beautiful country. It can be decieving and confusing. Though it may have one or two advantages, the list of things that can go wrong with it are of plenty. It is unfair, and could turn nasty. It should be abolished. Make America more equal.",0
1bd359c4,0,"Why should we limit our uses on car usage, some people se the limiting of car usage as less tense. "" When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" said heidrun Walter, a mother of two. when you have a car you'll have to find space for it as well as a house to buy. There are only two places to park at the edge of a development, where a carowner has to pay 40,000, along with a home. passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up to 50 percent in the United states. with less cars people have the advantages of being a walk away from a store instead of a highway. With less cars that give off gas emissions the less our ozone will deplete. More and more people are using hybrid cars because they dont give off as much gas emissions than regular cars that take diesel. Depending on the weather of the night and day could really effect the greenhouse effect of our planet. If ther was a cold night and a warm day this could help the warmer layer of air to trap the car emissions, which depletes the ozone layer that is protecting our planet.

Paris one of the most leading countries in the world with the car emissions ended making people stop using their cars because of all the smog that was being created. People who used their cars were fined 31 and if they complained about that their car would sometimes be towed away. While the rule of no cars was in effect the traffic jams in france were down over 60 percent. Think about what this could do to the United States. The smog had cleard so much that Paris eventually allowed odd numbered plates to drive again on Tuesday. "" 'It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution said Carlos Arturo as he rode with his wife on a two seat bicycle"" Andrew Selsky, Source 3. The no car rule is sweeping over the nations, because of this rule there has been over 118 miles of bicycle paths in Bogota, Colombia.

"" Municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the event and were enthusiastic these poeple are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders' Said Enrique rivera, the mayor of asuncion, Paraguay. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly down by 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January of 1995. Part of the explanation lies in the recession, because cash strapped Americans could not afford new cars, and the unemployed weren't going to work anyway. These people could not afford cars but they could have afforded a bike if they wanted to. They could have rode to work on a bike or could have tried to find a job on a bike it's that people are starting to get to lazy to do important things like ride a bike. With cars theres gas you have to pay for along with the insurance, that's a lot of money.

Lucky for us Americas love affair twords vehicles seem to be coling down. When the number of child growth grew, the number of miles driven dropped steadly down in 2005. With cars the rodes are more dangerous anything could happen to anyone or anything. The percentage of 1639 year olds that are driving dropped, while older people retain thweir licenses as they age. A study last year was found tha driving by younger people dropped by 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. Bill Ford proposed partnering with telecommunactions industrys to create cities in which "" pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improive safety"". In Germeny the banning of cars resulted that 70 percent of families donot have cars, and 57 perecnt sold a car to move there. In doing all of these thing this could help stop the greenhouse effect on our planet and start saving it insted of killing it.",0
1c090353,0,"Cars thery're every where, and people use cars to get from point A to point B. Cars are very important in the lives of many people all over the world. Cars are efficiant and help to get the job done. People often only seem to look at jus the positive sides of cars, but yet tend to oversee the down falls of how the use of cars can have in a persons life. the use of cars many have a few positive aspects but the negatives out way the good. The use of cars effect the environment negatively in a big way, also the use of cars tends to cause people stress that a person might not be aware their going through. The limting of the use of cars is something people must take upoon themselves to look at.

The envorement its all around us, it provides us with the basic nesscities we need to survive the envoirment provides us with oxygen that we need to breathe and food that we need to eat. The use of cars is threating the environment. Cars realse Co2 or carbondioxy into the environment causing the air to be come polluted. according to an article tittled ""paris bans driving due to smog"" writen by Robert Duff. Duff writes about how Paris Frances air had become so polluted due to the realse of co2 admsions that the government had to enforce a band on the use of cars until the smog in the air cleared up. The main casue of the smog in the air was the diesls found in the cars used in France, due the fact that France has a Tax policy that draws towards the use of diesles over gasoline. according to Duffer ""diesels makes up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to.3 percent average of diesle engins in the rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters."" In the article Duffer explains how the most populated cities are the ones with the the smog or air pollution. Cities like Beijing and China have alot of smog in the air is because of the use of cars. The use of cars have a very negative impact on the environment. Countries all over the world are taking a step foward towards limting their use on cars due to effects its has. In an article called In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars writen by Elisabeth Rosenthal talks about an upscale community in called Vauban Germany where people have given up theirs cars. In vaughn's 70 percent of the families that resided in vaubans don't own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move into the community. Even though alot of the residents of Vauband dont use car some still due. Ownig a car is still allowed vauband uses large garages where people can store their cars,but a person must first purchase a parking space for 40,000 first. While some cars are still used in the comuntiy walk or bycicle as their means of transportation. Vauband is a prime example of of a positive growing trend. Vauband helps to reduce the green house gas emissions cars give off.

While cars can cause harm to the environment, cars can also cause people stress that they themsleves don't know they're dealing with. according to a a qoute found in In german Suburb, Life goes on without Car. Heidrun Walter exprees how without casr lifes is happier ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" another qoute found in Carfree day is spinnig into a big hit in Bogota says ""Its a good opportunity to take away stress an lower air pollution"" said a businessman Carlos Arturo. Carlos was speaking about a day set aside where the use of cars is not permited in Colombia. Cars casue people to feel as if their lifes revole around cars. Pepole didnt notice the effect that cars had on their lives until they didnt have to undergo the use f cars.",0
1c338e7a,0,"The role a car plays in the life of an individual has made changes through out the years. There never was a significant meaning to having a car it just meant having a vehicle that can get you from point A to point B. As the human society continues to progress with the creations of technology, the use of cars has diminished greatly in different parts of the world. Not being able to use a car seems like there is no bright side, but there are actually many advantages on limiting car usage.

The United States always had this recognition of being one of the world's prime car cultures. ""The first Model T cars were born in the U.S. It has also been the place where Wilson Pickett immortalized mustang Sally."" President Barack Obama identifies in the article, The End of Car Culture, his dreams for the U.S ""to curb the United State's geen house gas emissions will get a forturious assist from an incipent shift in American behavior."" Going back to the article as reference, studies show ""americans are buying fewer cars, driving less, and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by... as of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak... there was also a drop in percent of 16 to 39 year olds getting a license."" The cause of the downfall in car usage can be pointed towards a few factors internet making telecommuting possible, the renewal of center cities, and the rise of cellphones and carpooling apps. It is not because society assumes cars are becoming of no use, the role of technological improvements are making things a lot easier than how things were in the 1960's. The United states has the option of using cars or not, in other places like Paris, the option to drive has become a choice made out of a person's own power.

Paris, France is a location that anyone dreams of visiting. The city is beautiful but the levels of smog have made it impossible for people to enjoy the views of the city. According to the article, Paris bans driving due to smog , ""it has been enforced to the citizens of a partial driving ban in order to clear the air... people were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine which is 31 in the United States."" The way things are organized in Paris goes by a person's license plate number. In correlation to the article, ""congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifiying smog."" However, not all of the cars used in Paris, France were banned. Those cars that are plugins, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers were allowed to roam the street of Paris. A good majority, 67 percent, of vehicles in France are made up of diesel, and that kind of fuel were the ones to blame since gasoline was not in favor in a city like that one. In the same way, places like Bogota, Colombia, had similar situations as the peolpe that live in France.

In the country of Colombia there has been a day dediated to doing things with no car it's a carfree day. In contrast to how banning driving is in Paris, Bogota, Colombia has everyone participate in this 24 hour event. If a person were to violate the rule they are to face 25 fines. The article, Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota, explains that ""millions of Colombians hike, bike, skate, or take buses to work during the carfree day."" Just like the goals in Paris, Colombia has goals to promote alternatice transportation and reduce smog. A businessman, Carlos Arturo Plaza, explains ""it's good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" No one would everythink that driving is as stressful as going to work. When put into mind, things begin to make sense. The early mornings of road rage people encounter makes their entire day a little more stressful than what it should be. Driving is a wonderful advantage but there is always more than just a car. Colombia's main goal, as expressed in the article ""is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog."" In the end of it all cars have always been in the making trying to find new ways to improve and modernize. Although cars may have had significant meanings in the older times, as society continues to prosper in technological making, cars are beginning to be identified as material objects that are not as important. They are just in use for people to get from one place to the next when other things are not working.",0
1c63fc04,0,"Some of the advantages of limiting car usage is definitely that it would help not polute the air. With so many people driving cars in small towns that can quickly polute the air, especially in paris in source two where it says ""After days of nearrecord pollution, paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"" With all of that pollution it can cause things such as global warming, and unhealthy air for our bodies. With just a small break of not driving the congestion was down to 60 percent in the capital of france, after five days of intensifying smog. Also with cold nights and warm days that also causes air to trap car emissions.

Another advantage of not driving cars, would be exercise. That would be such a good work out because you would have no other option except to walkie your bikes. You would get to socialize with everyone else who is walking to their jobs, or the grocery store all while getting a little bit of exercise with your family. With everyone walking and having nothing better to do, sports centers and parks activity has bloomed throughout the city, and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up with sales.

More and more people have stopped getting carslicenses and instead taking the city bus, walking or riding their bike. A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. If more people would continue to either car pool or find a different way to get where they're going the worlds pollution would definitely begin to go down. Without all of the pollution that comes out of cars and that gets trap into the air, our air would begin to get so much more cleaner and safer for us to breathe.

With all of the money it takes to repair the roads, and the electricity it takes to run all of the stop lights, that money could go towards other things if people didnt drive as much as they do. Although many people need and use their cars for transportation theres always other ways to getting around town. It would also help save you money that is spent on gas every week, with the gas prices being unpredicatable every day.

With all of these advantages of not driving cars as much or at all, it would really help protect the worlds air, and could be a great source of exercise! Walking or riding your bike to wherever you need to go, or even just taking the city bus for two dollars. Also saving your money and spendind it on something else rather than wasting it on gas, or getting your car fixed. Or simply even buying a car, which can cost thousands of dollars.",0
1c6745d2,0,"Many citizens in the United States rely on cars as a way of transportation. What they don't realize is that there are multiple options to consider instead of a car. ""Why consider a new method of transportation?,"" you may ask. If we limited the car usage we would have great amounts of advantages as a result.

One important result that would come if we limited car usage is having nearby store locations near by. "" In this new approach stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in a malls along some distant highway.""Source one: In german Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars paragraph six Limiting car usage will result in new buildings, stores, houses to become at a fair enough distance to walk.

If we had stores nearby enough to walk, there's no need of a car. If car usage reduces, the amount of walking, or riding a bike would increase. This will lead to a better life style. Recent studies has showed that walking daily can improve a persons mind. ""When I had car i was always tense, I'm much happier this way."" Source one: In German Suburb, Life goes on Without Cars paragraph three.

Another major positive affect that will result in reducing car usage is improving our atmosphere. One disadvantage cars cause, is air pollution. One example would be smog. The smog that we breath in is not good for our health.""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution.""Source threeparagraph twentyfour. Not only if we reduce car usage we would gain positives outcomes but we would reduce pollution.

""Passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emmisons in Europe...and up to fifty percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Source one paragraph five. We would be doing positive thing for ourself but a positive thing for the environment.

Our generation does not need to rely on a piece of mechanic to take them to their destination. We have the ability to get to our route, and have other options that are helpful for us and for our environment. We have multiple advantages if we would consider to reduce car usage. So the question would be, why dont we stop using cars, and start helping ourself and our environment knowing the advantages we could be recieving in return.",0
1d16af20,0,"Life without cars may seem like a distant dream, but dreams are becoming a reality with new expiremental towns, banning of driving in some cities, and a national day without cars. Cars are causing, in some cases, more and more pollution everywhere. Although we ignore the signs of pollution everyday, we must face the fact that we are polluting our planet, and something needs to be done about it.

Vauban, Germany. A little city that has a strange law, to live in this city, you must give up your car or pay 40,000 to park it. As a result, ""70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold their car to move here"" stated Source 1. Heidrun Walter, a mother of two and a media trainer stated, ""When i had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"". This new form of separate suburban life from auto use is called ""Smart Planning"". passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions Europe, and up to 50 percent in the United States. With Smart Planning, we can cut back on greenhouse gasses and start to breathe cleaner, healthier air.

Another example of over pollution problems due to cars is Paris, France. Source Two states, ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"". Congestion was down 60 percent for those five days. The reason there was so much smog in the air was due to the diesel fuel. Diesel fuel is the mail fuel used in France, 67 percent of the people there use it. Another factor could be the climate there. With ""cold nights and warm days caused by the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions"" Stated in Source Two.

Europe isn't the only continent seeing change. Bogota, Colombia was celebrating its 3rd straight year of, Day Without Cars. The Day Without Cars is a banning of cars and only busses and taxis are permitted. Carlos Arturo Plaza stated, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"". For the first time this year, two more Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar are taking part in this Day Without Cars.

America too is seeing change with cars. The number of miles driven in the US peaked in 2005, but has been steadily dropping after. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the county was in January 1995"", states Source four. Although the drop in car usage will have a benificial effect on the environment, it will have negitave implications for car industries. Ford and Mercedes are already taking steps to rebrand themselves to ""mobility"" companies. Although car companies aren't the only ones changing their ways due to the drop in car usage. New York started a new bikesharing program and its skyrocketing. They have started building more bike paths and tunnel tolls are reflecting the new priorities.

Cars have done enough damage to this earth and its time we fix what we have caused. With all these new ecofriendly and car lacking ideas, we are so close to the isea where we can live without cars taking over our life.",0
1d1d10fb,1,"In the intense debate concerning the validity of the Electoral College process, it is difficult to choose a position. The Electoral College is a longstanding tradition created by the founding fathers in the early days of the United States. However, the reasons behind the adoption of the Electoral system are not as valid today as they were centuries before. Electoral College was proposed by the founding fathers due to the fact that the average American citizen in the beginning of our nation was a simple farmer, who was not educated enough to make an informed decision in a vote. Nowadays, things are different. General education of the public is very advanced, and there are various easily accessible forms of media from which to learn about the policies and positions of the presidential candidates. After all, the president's job is to care for and protect the people of America, not the politicians. Therefore, shouldn't the people, not the politicians, elect the president?

Even those who support the Electoral College must admit it is a confusing system. When a citizen votes for a presidential candidate, that vote really goes to a slate of electors who were selected by means that vary between states and are pledged to that particular candidate, and those electors then vote for the president. As pointed out in Bradford plumber's The Indefensible Electoral College , voters can't control who their electors vote for. additionally, ""voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate"" also bradford . And Bradford makes a good point in the past, ""faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate"".

There is also the fact that candidates for the presidency often focus on ""swing states"", states whose majority is not decided between political parties and whose votes have a large impact on the election. This is due to the winnertakeall method of the Electoral College. In a state that is mostly Republican, a Democratic presidential candidate may not put much into the local campain, knowing that since most voters are against them they would probably lose the state and gain nothing, because all the electoral votes of a state go to the candidate who won the majority of voters in that state. Thus, presidential campains are focused in the swing states, giving little attention to the others. However, if the presidential election were decided by popular vote, campain efforts would be spread evenly across the United States since every voter everywhere counted in the final election.

The method of electing a president by popular vote is a fair and wellbalanced one, giving the minority parties in nonswing states a say in the presidency. Also, it was discovered that ""according to a Gallup poll in 2000...over 60 pecent of voters would prefer a direct election"" Bradford Plumer, . It was even admitted by proElectoral College Richard A. Posner in his Defense of the Electoral College that ""A tie in the national electoral vote is possible"" due to the even number of total votes. Posner also states that ""no voter's vote swings a national election"". However, if everyone believed that, noone would vote at all. Then there could be no election, Electoral College method or otherwise. Therefore, the individual voter does count, and so do all the minority political parties who's electoral slates do not get to vote for the president due to the Electoral College. Popular vote is the only reasonalble system for electing a president who will do their best for the American people. ""Of the people, for the people"". So let the all the people Vote.",0
1d5fcb28,0,"Life has revolved around driving since the termination of World War II. In sources 1 and 4, the authors mention the population's inhabitants have greatly reduced or stopped car usage wholly voluntarily. While in sources 2 and 3, the cities have banned car usage on certain days. The advantages of limiting car usage include less pollution and increased accessibility to the entire city.

Pollution is an large issue in todays world. According to Rosenthal in source 1, ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States P5."" The use of cars has created smog in many large cities. The 2009 Olympics in Bejing required the city to reduce car usage in order to clear the air. Those participating and attending the event were in danger of harming their lungs. The citizens of Bejing has already been noted to wear respirators and other devices to filter the toxins from the air they breathe. In this extreme case, it was mandatory to cut the usage of cars down. But in other cities, they have not reached this extreme and it can be easily prevented by limiting car usage. Duffer mentions the pollution in the skies of the global city of Paris has been noticeably decreasedP19. In another scenario of pollution in the atmosphere, the city has taken initiative to ban cars depending on the number of their license plate. Without the emissions from the cars, the air would be clean to breath and a better sight as well.

The new generation has grown up with cars yet when the time comes to obtain a license, they forgo the opportunity. Selsky says that without cars, the city's parks and sports centers have been heavily visited. The pedestrian walkways and shopping centers have also came in large numbersP28. Due to the abandonment of cars, upscale commerce and new restaurants were constructed. Rather than a large mall near some interstate or other large roadway, shopping districts have transformed into locations in which are near public transportation or in walking distance. Rosenthal shares an anecdote that outlines that public transportation, carpooling, and even walking have replaced the car for himself and his childrenP40. Public transit is not viewed down upon anymore, it is a smarter way of getting from one place to another. Carpooling isn't a desprete call, it is a resource that has become essential and benificial to both parties. A combination of carpooling, walking, and public transit makes the city much easier to access and explore.

The development of cities is no longer based on cars. It is now be based upon the access it will give to those without cars. Limiting the use of cars makes the city improved in many ways. Clean air and more efficient ways of transportation highlights that cars are no longer needed and limiting car usage will have even more advantages in the future.",0
1db28341,1,"What is the electoral college? The electoral college is a process which consists of the selection of the electors, meeting where they vote for president, and the counting of the votes. The real question is, is the electoral college helping us or is it just bringing our government farther towards disaster? The electoral college should be diminished because it is an unfair direct election, and the disaster factor.

To begin, by keeping the electoral college we could avoid run off elections. This would help our governmental system because as noted by Richard A. Posner, ""There is pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast."" By keeping the electoral college, we could help resolve runoff elections. What we dont know is if it will permanently work for our governmental system and is it worth the risk? The electors are the ones voting for the president, so we should question whether they should have control to help avoid these runoff elections. The writer notes, ""... the pressure would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by electoral college..."" Posner. Although that is true, that is only one problem that would be resolved by the electoral college, and one benefit is outnumbered by the numerous disadvantages to the electoral college.

Moreover, the disaster factor has a huge impact on the electoral collage. The writer states, ""The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse"" Plumer. This disaster was not the first disaster to happen in the system. According to Plumer, the system has had much more effect and damage on the United States and this should not be repeated again. The writer also says, ""electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please"" Plumer. This goes to show, not only is the electoral college unbeneficial, but they can be sneaky. The electoral college should be abolished because of the atrocious outcomes it is capable of doing to our government.

Not only is the electoral college capable of the disaster factor, but it also has no direct election. As stated in ""What Is the Electoral College?"", ""... when you vote for your candidate you are acually voting for your candidate's electors."" Office of the Federal Register. This means, voters have no control over whom controls the country. That is outrageous that the lives of these people will be affected by someone they did not want in the overpowering decisions of their country. Writer Plumer states, ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair too voters"" as well as ""The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational"" Plumer. Both of these point go to show that the electoral college is lowering our hopes for the government. The writer also notes, ""candidates don't spend time in states they have no chance in winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states"" Plumer. This proves that the electoral government thinks about their winning chances instead of our countries government. Are we going to sit here and let them take advantage of their power that will lead us towards disaster?

All in all, the electoral collage should be banished from the government.",0
1dc898aa,1,"To the Senator of Florida, ""The founding fathers established... the Constitution"" to make sure that there was a way to vote for one elector to portray the role of President of the United States of America. However, this action has resulted in electors to lose even though they won the popular vote, the age of the electoral college, and there are numerous possibilities of ties. In the United States there are hundreds of millions of people who want to keep the United States a democracy, but the United States may change their stand point.

Popular votes are collected from the people of the United States. With stating this, ""over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" This is because voters will be able to have only their votes taken into consideration. For example, the President of the United States is the official who sends people to places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran to fight for our country. These people vote for the elector they want to send them over seas instead of the politicians in the electoral college system voting for who they want to be the president. There are only 538 electors to vote for the elector they desire and that is still more important than the millions of people that vote. ""We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"" is a part of the Declaration of Independence and the right of liberty involves our right as people to vote.

The electoral college has be are for hundreds of years, but with the age of the system comes problems. In modern times, we have to make slight changes to our government so the United States does not get held back from when the Constitution was first created. Things are meant to change and so is the electoral college because over time thins changes to better and more efficient things. ""The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century."" This evidence exclaims that there was a problem with the electoral college 15 years ago, which means that it can happen again.

Furthermore, the electoral college already has problems and there can be more with the possibilities of a tie. It states, ""perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote.,"" this is not a democratic thing because democracy has to do with the vote of people, not the vote of the legislature. Also, in source 2, it exclaims that ""the election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe."" This is a dangerous situations because if a tie occurs the popular vote still won't be taken into consideration as much as the electoral votes.

To conclude, the electoral college system should be abolished because it does not benefit the citizens of the United States. The elecotral college takes away the popular vote of the people, is way too old to still be around, and there are possibilities of a tie. I don't want my President to be voted in based on the votes of the legislature.",0
1ddd8e26,0,"One uses a car to go to thee store, pick someone up, or even to go shopping, but what if people had no cars? Not having a car would have advantages.

To start withe, not having a car helps thee environment. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gass emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the eUnited Stated."" In German Suburb, Life Goes On Witheout Cars, paragraph 5. Witheout cars thee air will become cleaner and people won't have all thee polution in thee air. Our air will get better if we start not having cars.

Also, anotheer advantage is theat people will get healtheier. No polution gives people healtheier air and withe no cars people will have to walk everywhere or bike. ""Vauban, home to 5,500 residents withein a rectangular square mile, may be thee most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life. But its basic precepts are bing adopted around thee world in attempts to make thee suburbs more compact and more accessible to thee public transportation, withe less space for parking. In theis new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, ratheer thean in malls along some distant highway."" In German Suburb, Life Goes On Witheout Cars, paragraph 6. Ones destination will be a walk away not miles. People will just walk, bike, and if theeir destination is far away one will take public transportation. One will become more active witheout cars.

Finally, driving is comming to an end. ""President Obama's ambitious goals to curb thee Untied States' greenhouse gas emissions, unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in American behavior: recent studies suggest theat Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less, and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" The end of car culture, paragraph 29. Gas cost more, people are getting hurt while texting and driving, and some people just don't know how to drive. People seem to be getting over cars. This could help thee environment. Driving just isn't a priority.

In conclusion, having no more cars would benifit people. The environment will be better and people are getting over cars anyways. Why drive a car theat harms thee air, when one could simpily walk or ride a bike making one healtheier too? Not having cars would help.",0
1ded8f5b,1,"The electoral college ii iomething that hai been loved, hated, and debated on for iome yeari now. We could aboliih it or keep it the way it ii. Some iay the electoral college ii undemocratic and unfair to the voteri and the candidatei. But iome iay it ii the beit way to vote. I'ti ieen both wayi but ii there anything we can do about it? Good or Bad.

The Electoral College ii a compromiie between election of the Preiident by a popular vote of qualified citizeni. The group of electori for your itate are ielected by the candidate""i political party. So when you vote for a ipecific candidate you are voting for the electori he ii iupported by.

So why do people want to abopliih the electoral college completely? Becauie there are iome ierioui thingi wrong with it. ""perhapi moit worrying ii the proipect of a tie in the electoral vote"" Source 2, Paragraph 4. How can there be a tie in the election of the preiident? Perhapi becauie iometimei the electori get to thinking in another midiet and vote for the wrong candidate...Yei that ii pooiible. When people vote for there candidate the electori are the onei being ielected and aren't alwayi the way they were in their choiing io therefore there can be a ierioui tip in votei if the electori don't vote for the candidate of the party they were ielected by. ""In 2000, taken ihortly after Al Gorethanki to the quirki of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but loit the preiidency, over 60 percent of voteri would prefer a diect election"" Source 2, paragraph 1. The people don't want the electoral college anymore, Who'i to iay they ever did?

But even know iome don't want the electoral college there are iome who prefer to keep it. ""each party ielecti a ilate of electori truited to vote for the party'i nominee, and that truit ii rarely betrayed"" Source 3, Paragraph 2. So when the party ielecti their electori they are moit likely to ielect the candidate of the party they were ielected by. There ii alio regional appeal,if a preiident only hai diierably majority of vorei in a certain region of the country he ii ""unlikely to be a iucceiful preiident"" Source 3, Paragraph 5. Thii ii becauie if a preiident ii only deiired by a certain region and not the reit of the country, the wanti of the reit of the country aren't met and he moit likely will not tend to the needi of them, and ultimately doein't have a chance of being ielected ai preiident. Finally, when no candidate for preiident hai a clear majority of votei, the electoral college'i votei gove a clear winner and a candidate ii ielected.

Concluding, both iidei have reaionable argumenti to if the electoral college will itay for good or be aboliihed completely. But it'i up to you to decide which iide your own becauie thii ii a democracy..",0
1e0e2a9f,0,"Many people carry out their daily life routine via car. Whether it is to drop their children off at school, or simply taking them to go to any sort of practice. Whichever the case, many find limiting car usage to be the answer to our problems.

One thing most people know is the amount of damage using a car can cause, especially to the environment. Air pollution has been a great factor into the problem as well as carbon emissions. For example, in Europe passenger cars are responsible for about 12% of greenhouse gas emissions and up to 50% in some car intensive areas across the areas in the United States. Congestion also plays into the problem. In France, there was an increase of smog in their cities, and diesel runned cars were to blame. As an outcome, the cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to cage in car emissions. With the limitation of car usage comes the decrease of toxic air roaming into our atmosphere, and an increase of a healthier lively one.

Besides the environmental effects car usage has had on us, there is also human effect. Many people around the world have participated in events in which they were to quit the car usage and were to find different methods of transportation, and the feedback was positive. In Vauban, Germany there is a resident of an upscale community whom had owned a car, but had decided to give it up. Heidrun Walkter, a mother of two, had once owned a car but now she walks the streets and is able to hear the swish of bicycles and the chatter of children. She says ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" The limit of car usage has also brought about more days of physical activity. In Bogota, Columbia, there were millions of Columbians who hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during a car free day they had, in attempt to lower the smog in the air. In return, what the people got out of this day was both the decrease in smog, but also the decrease of stress. Not only did the day leave the capital city completely devoid of traffic jams but also brought many people closer with each other. As an example, a man riding a bicycle with his wife around the city, and says to say it was beneficial for both the environment and themselves.

Overall, the limitation of car usage has drastically decreased the amount of air pollution, and smog around the world. It has brought about the sound of children playing and the sound of people riding their bicycles. Many of the countries around the world participate in events to lower the harmful outcomes of the car usage from Germany to Paris, to Columbia and the United States, but there are still efforts in which they are present.",0
1e9a3c73,1,"Dear state senator, I urge you to vote in favor of changing to election by popular vote to select the president of the United States. I urge this to pass for three particular reasons. First is because of the factor that electors could defy the will of the people or the peoples word, Second is because of the event of a it would already be handed over to the House of representatives, and third is because of the winner takes all system.

To begin with the electors have and most likely will again defy the will of the people and the peoples word. For example, In The source The indefensible Electoral College: Why Even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong. By: Bradford Plumer, He states that back in 1960 segregationists in the lousing legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who opposed president J.F.K. Likewise electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and vote for who ever they want.

Next, is the most worrying, the prospect of a tie in the votes of the Electoral College. If this were to happen the election would be decided by the House of representatives where the state delegations would vote on the president. Since each state only has one vote a representative from Wyoming representing 500,000 wouldn't have as much say as the reps. from California who represent near 35 million people. In 1976 a tie would have occurred if 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted for the other side, only a few voters away from catastrophe.

And Finally, The Electoral College is unfair to voters because of the winner takes all system. in each state candidates dont spend time in states that they know they have no chance of winning. They focus most of their time in the swing states. During the 2000 campaign seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all including Rhode Island and Sotheren California. Voters in 25 of the largest media markets didnt get to see a single ad. If anyone has a good argument to put their fate in presidency in the hands of a bunch of swing voters in Ohio, they are far away from the white house.

And once again state senator I urge your vote towards changing to election by popular vote to select the president of the United States. Because First, is the factor that electors could defy the will of the people or the peoples word, Second is because of the event of a tie it would already be handed over to the House of Representatives, and third is because of the unfair winner takes all system.",0
1e9afe51,1,"Dear Senator, Good day, I am writing this letter to let you know it's time for things to change. I have been reading and researching the Electoral College and i have a strong opinion on it. As you know, the Electoral College is a process when all five hundred and thirty eight electors vote on electors and defenders. This way of voting for electors lets the people have no say in whose running our government! Our government should not allow or be based on ""the winner takes all"" method. When we choose for OUR president we should be able to choose OUR electors too! Under the 23rd amendment of the constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the electoral college. The electors shouldnt be chosen by the candidate's political party, we should choose. By voting for a president every four years a new party of electors have already been selected to run with him and we dont get any say. After the presidential election, your governor creates a list of all the candidates that ran for president in your state with a list of their representative electors. This is later sent to Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election.

Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, Jimmy Carter, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO all agree that we need to remove and forget about the electoral college. This year our voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could lose the presidency. Still the electoral college still has defenders fror themselves is crazy. Facts say voters arent actually voting for the president, but for a group of electors who in turn elect the president, and that is ridiculous. How are we supposed to trust these electors if we dont even know who they are and their background until after the election? Who even are these electors i wondered. I figured out that all the electors are actually anyone with a brain and not holding a public office, fantastic. So how do i know they are reliable and going to do whats best for my state and our country? Voters dont even control whom their electors vote for most of the time which is kind of scary. Some electors are even faithless in their party's candidate so they dont even vote for them at all! How can we rely on a group of people who dont rely on their party?

As much as I hate to say it, there most definitley is an upside to the Electoral College. The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a nondemocratic method of selecting a president that needs to be overruled by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner. I personally think that is the best way to decide who gets in. Each party selects a slate of electors that are trusted to vote for the party's nominee. Sometimes the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. Another reason The Electoral College is a positive way of voting is how certain the outcome is. There is never failure in the counting of the votes and there us rarely a tie between two people. My favorite reason is because ""everybody is president"". This means everybody can make their own decisions and have a great amount of freedom.

Even though im all for removing the Electoral College there is positives too. In a few years when i am able to vote, i will be careful of who I vote for and make sure that there is great electors in the party i vote for.",0
1ead9853,0,"There are many fellow citizens in the world that have been using cars are having car accidents and many more terrible things that have happen during inside of a car or outside of a car. According to the passage, Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters. Is better to take a walk, ride a bike, and make the streets a better place. Especially, that up to 50 percent in the United States, there are carintensive areas. Car free day, was a big hit in Bogota, and should make it in the United States one day to leave the streets without traffic jams.

First, fellow citizens should stop the car usage, to make the streets a better place, walk, ride a bike, or do something that would make the streets much safer. The cars usage, many people have died for these terrible accidents. Limiting car usage, is a great idea, because it supports the streets to not become very dangerous. There are many accidents that have caused of a hitandrun. So is very important that at least the car usage should stop the humanity.

Next, Limiting car usage, is a great idea, because, according to the passage, up to 50 percent in the United States, there are carintensive areas. Carintensive areas, such as the traffic jam. Traffic jam, can be very dangerous at some point, and it keeps people very tired and frustrated. According to the article, In Bogota, Colombia, there's a program set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to keep the area as a carfree day, leaving the streets devoiding of traffic jams. So try to ride a bike, walk, skate, or do something, that can be a carfree day, a much safer environment.

Then, Limiting car usage, is a great idea, also, because without cars, and only buses and taxis, a which the main goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog, Violators have faced 25 of fines, according to the article, also. Its a really good opportunity to take away the stress and lower air pollution from cars, especially the stress from traffic jams. As what i was saying in the beggining, that many people prefer to use bike, walk, or skate to keep themselves a much safer habit. If your driving, always put on the seatbelt to prevent from car accidents. Limiting car usage is a great way to prevent from all the car accidents out there in the world.

Last, Limiting car usage is a great way to the environment, makes the countries a better place. Having a carfree day, especially, is a much safer way to its environment. Ride a bike, walk, skate, or take a bus, if necessary, to prevent from all the car accidents out there in the world, it takes away the stress and decrease its air pollution from having a carfree day, and to promote from alternative transportation and reducing smog. Limiting car usage, is great way to our planet, but there is times that we need it for transporting to a place we want to go. Also, using a bike, walking, or skating is a great tool and excercise to our legs to keep our body maintained and healthy.",0
1ebe7ffe,1,"The Electoral College is used in the United States to elect a president, yet it is highly debated over whether it is needed or not. The Electoral College was founded to compromise the election of a president between the people and Congress, to try to avoid problems between both parties. Many people align themselves with one side to argue that it is needed to eliminate unfair advantages, or that it is not needed because it doesn't give the people the power to elect their president. This brings up disputes and controversy especially in situations that give evidence to support both cases, such as the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George Bush. The Electoral College should be kept in use because it provides a fair representation and campaign for all regions, allows votes from states with fewer population numbers to have significance, and avoids the issue of trying to determine the president when neither receives the majority vote.

To begin with, the Electoral College should be in use because it provides fair representation for all the states involved in the election. ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal."" ""This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."" This shows that it is beneficial because it makes a candidate who has only regional appeal, have to work harder in other states to show that he would be fair to all states, not just the ones that support him. Furthermore, it allows for massive regional advantages, like the South, mean nothing because they would still have to convince the North to vote for them. The opposing side might argue that if a candidate has regional appeal, they should just let that win them the election, but a successful president should be able to sway the whole country into voting for him, not just a certain region. Thus, showing that regional advantages prove meaningless with the Electoral College, making it less unfair to other regions.

In addition, the Electoral College eliminates the unfair advantage of having a bigger state, allowing smaller states to have a significance in the election."" The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution."" This shows that large states can sway the whole election, while small states don't make a dent on it, without the Electoral College in place. Thus, using it allows smaller states votes to matter in the election, while eliminating large states advantage over them. People might claim that large states deserve more representation because more people live in them, but this doesn't preserve the equality for other smaller statess citizens that the United States stands for. This makes it apparent that without the Electoral College only the ""big states"" would matter and the candidates wouldn't have to worry about the small states.

Finally, the Electoral College does its best to eliminate the issue of not being able to determine the winner when the majority vote does not differ. "" Most states have a winnertakeall system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate."" This stops the problem that occured in 1968 with Nixon and 1992 with Clinton, and provides a clear definite way to choose the winner. If the Electoral College wasn't in use, lengthy recounts and much controversy would follow elections to try to determine if the votes were fair this would cause too much strife and unrest within the country. It can be argued that even with the conflict it provides the people a chance to make their votes count, but it does more harm than good and it doesn't truly change anything. As a result, the Electoral College solves the issue of uncertainty and significance of vote.

In essence, the Electoral College is necessary for the balance and order in the United States to remain. It provides a fair representation and campaign for all regions, allows votes from states with fewer population numbers to have significance, and avoids the issue of trying to determine the president when neither receives the majority vote. This all shows that fewer problems arise when using this procedure, rather than if they use majority vote. ""You help choose your state's electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors."" This shows that the citizens still have power in choosing their candidate and it creates a balance with other parties. In conclusion, the Electoral College should be kept to preserve the integrity and equality the United States is all about.",0
1ed3e28b,0,"The reduction or limited usage of cars impacts the daily lifes of society and also benefits the environment It could also Change the way you see things.

Limiting the usage of cars can reduce the pollution in the air caused by cars and motorists.

Around the world people have a different way of thinking when it comes to cars, Society has come to realize that car usage is becoming dangerous & unnecessary. ""It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the day to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog"". In colombia People have decided to change the routine of driving everywhere in cars because it might be unnecessary since their destinations might be close instead they reduced the transportation usage and only buses are permitted it lowers the pollution in the air. This demonstrates that a campaign of limiting the car usage should begin in other countries.

In Germany People have founded other ways to limit the car usage instead of banning cars. Society decided to make the streets more compact less far away from the community itself. ""Make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation with, less space for parking, stores are placed a walk away on a main street"" By doing this action it takes pressure away for people who use their cars everyday to drive anywhere. It also saves people money by not spending on gas & most importantly it encourages people to walk and exercise by doing simple things like shopping. It also psychologicaly impacts community members. "" When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"".

There's many others ways of influencing people to not use cars. For example, making a national fine. Like the government in France made "" License plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine"".

Driving less could have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, It will allow people to feel more free and less stressed and it also allow them to meet new friends, their could health become better The economy could rise, traffic will be cut. There would also be less car accidents and crashes due to less traffic.",0
1f272063,0,"The automobile was made a long time ago to help us move around faster and more efficient,however,have we really thought about the benefits that could come from limiting the usage of cars such as:Saving money in gas and insurance,Less car crash related injuries and even because its better for the environment.

With limiting the usage of cars comes many pro's such as saving money. On average,an American spends about thirtyfive to forty dollars on gas per fillup and one hundred to two hundred dollars a month on insurance a month depending on age,experience,accidents,etc. By limiting your car usage completely or even just a little just imagine the extra money you'll have laying around for the nessecities and maybe even a ittle youtime. Say you buy a bike and the only time you use your car is to drive to work and anywhere outofstate,that means that you'll be able to go a week with roughly two gallons of gas. That puts you at about thirtyeight hundred dollars a year where if you were purchasing four or five gallons a week you'd be spending approximately eleven thousand dollars a year. Thats no chump change. You're insurance would gradually decrease due to safe driving and age so along with gas being cheaper,so would the insurance.

Florida is a state wellknown for car crashes due to weather conditions like rain and fog and you can't do anything to change that other than take a different,much safer mode of transportation such as a bus. Nowadays bus and semitruck drivers are more experienced and cautious then they used to for one reason,CYBCover your Butt.You see major bus and semitruck companies now that due to the size of their vehicles,if there's ever crash involving one of their automobiles then they're likely to get blamed cause of the size of the vehicles and so it would make since for them to send their drivers to extensive training and make sure that their trucks are in good hands,which is exactly what they do. Studies show that you're chances of being in a wreck in a bus are one of every one hundred rides while being in a car driven by yourself puts you at a whopping one of ten ridesyur chances of safety are greatly increased.

The United States of America has no shortage of pollution and that's not helped by the fact that we have one of the largest populations of personal automobiles inhabiting this country. There are many other kinds of pollution that occurrs in the land of the free but most of it like factory smoke,large shipboatsmoke and even resturant made smoke can not really be stopped or diminished by you or me but one form of pollution we can prevent is automobile smoke. In the US up to fifty percent of greenhouse gas is from carscertain areas.If you stop using you car and ride a bike even thugh it won't seem like muchyou'd be suprised at the difference. Say a sall cmmunity around yur neighborhood gives up their cars that could account for half a percent of greenhouse gas which is more than it seems. Just ask yourself if you want your friends and family growing up in a dying,polluted world.

In conclusion,I'm not discrediting the huge help cars can be in our daily lives I'm just slaying if we continue along this carorientated path,pollution may be what ends our daily lives.",0
1f3224ab,1,"The Electoral College has been around for many years. It is not an actual college, or location. It is a process where American citizens select their electors, however proceeding that the electors make their votes for President and Vice President Congress counts for electoral votes. But, the Electoral College is a very controversial process, many people are for it, but many are also against it. Some even wanting to get rid of the Electoral College overall. We should ban the Electoral College for it does not satisfy American people.

Electors in the Electoral College can vote for whomever they want, giving American people the wrong idea and vote for the wrong presidential candidate. In the article source 2 ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" it states, ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes."" This quote from the article shows that not always can the American people be guaranteed who their electors vote for, and electors can give voters the wrong information and vote for the opposing candidate. This would be going against American people, dissatisfying them. In the article source 3 by Richard A. Posner it states, ""It can be argued that the Electoral College method turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state Democrats in Texas, for example, or Republicans in California."" American people can be confused, infused with the wrong information by Electors, and vote for a candidate that has no interest in carrying their state.

Larger states get more attention than the smaller states due to their high number of electoral votes. In the article source 3 by Richard A. Posner it says, ""The popular vote was very close in Florida in 2012 nevertheless Obama, who won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the winner only 3 electoral votes."" Obama had won 29 electoral votes in Florida high number due to him making speeches and campaigns throughout the state. Paying his upmost attention to that state due to the high number of electoral votes he was trying to gain. Whereas in a smaller state such as Wyoming, he would not want to waste time paying much attention there where he can only gain 3 electoral votes! This is simply unfair and at most dissatisfying for the citizens who live in the smaller states with low electoral votes such as Hawaii, Alaska, Maine, Rhode Island, etc.

The Electoral College has been around for a long time, and in the end we DO receive a president in the end. But, imagine if this unfairness keeps going every four years an election happens. American people not being guaranteed their candidate, smaller states not getting as much campaign as the larger ones, etc. We do though, receive a president in the end. But what if it's a president that we do not want? That we were not fairly given? Just look at what happened with George Bush! There are many simple advantages to the Electoral College, but there are also many concerns that can outnumber.

The Electoral College should be gotten rid of because of how unfair it is to American citizens. If the issues with the Electoral College are not taken care of in the present, just imagine what our future elections will be like. Us American people need to take a stand against the Electoral College, and the process involved. Once a new popular process is created and introduced, it can provide us more justice and fairness than the Electoral College.",0
1f41ab17,0,"12% of all green house gas in Europe is from is from car emissions and up to 50% in the United States. The earth needs a change while it still can. Theres already many countries that are trying to do something, France the U.S. and Colombia just to name a few. Taking a break and not driving cars has so many pros and very little cons. Yes, you might have to walk and might lose some weight but it may decide how much longer humans can stay on earth.

What comes out of your car, that's what you are breathing. Would you rather breath burn gasoline fumes or fresh clean air? Its your choice, every year billions of people driving cars that are releasing a gas ,CO2, into the air which is poisonous to humans. What happens after the world gets full of it? I honestly don't want to see.

Not only is car pooling and taking public transportation cheaper that paying for gas but it also helps keep the green house gasses down more that if everyone was driving. A recent study by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives shows that more Americans are driving less cars every year. Join your fellow Americans, you won't regret it.

Soon enough cars are going to get banned and fines will be put in place that are given to people who drive gas powered cars. Do you really want this to happen? People getting fined just because they had to go to work or to see there family? I'm pretty sure you o don't, so lets make the world a little more car free. Then thus make the world CO2 free.

Now there's a relatively new car that runs on electric. Although these cars are not exactly cheap, but they are motorless and gasless and they don't release CO2 into the atmosphere and they look nice too. If that doen't suit you there is a hydrogen powered car coming out in 2015. If you dont think you can handle that then there is always busses, taxis and bikes. Then if you still can't find something you like there's walking, humans where built with legs, use them.

Think about how you want your children and there children to live there lifes and how you and the rest of the earth can effect them and how you can keep there lifes free of poisonus CO2. Consider the walk or bus ride and maybe even investing in an electric car or a bycicle.",0
1f902ca9,1,"Dear senator, I wanted to write you this letter to say that we should keep the electoral college. Because they tally the votes fair to elect the government and president that the people of this powerful country have elected to be their leader. The electoral college was one of the rules that our founding fathers made for our country which has kept our country strong in the past so why would we want to take away that cause that would be like erasing our country past and our fathers rule. The electoral college consists of 538 electors for the electoral college so if we take away this process cause its not a place then we are putting 538 people out of a job.

First things First, we should keep the electoral college cause it is a great process that lets our people choose a leader of this brave and powerful country fairly by having the electors read the votes and tally them up and pick the leader the most people voted for but sometimes its not the most cause if bigger states with more powerful people vote for a different president and the one president has the most votes but if the other one has the more votes from bigger states and cities like california then he gets the popular vote. The electoral college has never technically failed us it has gotten close in the John F. Kennedy election when state legislators were technically responsible for picking electors and that the electors could defy the will of the people so say like if John F. Kennedy got the popular vote then it could possibly not go to him cause the electors could get replaced with new ones that could oppose him. The mistakes were never to the point that it messed up our country just little mistakes that got fixed by a direct election which we have now a day so that these little mistakes cant mess our whole voting system up. We should keep the electoral college because it is proven that people have out voted electors in the Gore as Bush election cause Bush got the electoral votes but Gore got the popular vote by the people.

Second of All, we should keep the electoral college because it was one of our founding fathers rules and processes and they were the people who founded and discovered this brave, powerful, and beutifal country so if we throw that away then we are betraying our fathers and our ancestors. Another thing is electoral college has of america and they aint running for president and they are aloud to vote which is fair cause it's everyones president not just only the people not apart of the constitution. The great rule that our constitution made for the electoral college was the malapportionment which means even if the large states has a bigger population they still could lose by virtue so if we dont have an electoral college that will not be possible then we would just get out voted by heavier states and electors. The electoral college is a great process for fair voting for our government and president and if we keep that running then we keep our country running as a healthy country.

To Wrap it up, I think we should keep our electoral college for many of reasons. one because its the fairest most strongest process of voting. two because it lets everybody vote including the electors. and last but not least it keeps our founding fathers rule going and keeps us loyal to our brave and powerful country leader.",0
1f9b2465,0,"Limiting the use of cars seems like a crazy idea but if you really think about the importance of cars now a days does not seem like a big deal. People are starting to realize that cars are not the only way of transportation. According to the article, the number of people driving tend to decrease every yearSource 4 S4 paragraph 41 P41 . On the other hand driving can be more beneficial than walking or riding a bike at times. The purpose of the essay is to explain the advantages of limiting car usage.

For all you nature lovers, limiting cars would seem like a good idea. If more people walk or ride bike's, the percent of air pollution would lowerS1 P5. In the United States, it is proven that up to 50 percent of greenhouse gas is caused by carsS1 P5. Cars can be very dangerous if they are driven by the wrong people. Driving under the influence can cause many accidents because drivers tend to go to fast or drive really reckless while intoxicated.

Choosing to walk or ride a bike instead of driving can be more beneficial because of the amount of exercise people can get out of it. One con to driving is having to worry about trafficS3 P20. When not driving you do not have to worry about anything slowing you down. There are many advantages to walking instead of driving that many people do not realize. For example, when walking you do not have to deal with bad parking, being fined for bad driving, or even washing your car which can be a hassle at timesS3 P21.

On the hand, there is nothing wrong with driving at times. A car can be more useful than walking when it comes to going long distances. Now a days everybody is always in a rush and based on where you need to go a car can get there at a faster rate. Accidents can still happen while walking or riding a bike just maybe not as frequently. People can even use smart cars if they are so worried about air pollutionS2 P18.

To wrap things and get to the point, driving less cars can be more beneficial. Walking and riding bike's and avoid less traffic and accidents. The percent of greenhouse gas caused by cars would probably go down and air pollution would not be such a big problem. Another benefit of walking is getting exercise. While cars do cause many problems as far as pollution and accidents, they are not a bad idea.",0
1fc7961e,1,"Dear Senator, The Presidential election is one of America's proudest accomplishments. It sets the United States apart from other countries and brings great pride to the people. As the United States grows older and wiser, it learns more than what the original Founding Fathers knew. One of their the Founding Fathers great contributions to this country is the electoral Congress. This process is still being used today. Based on the positive and negative aspects this system, the electoral Congress should remain the way Americans elect government leaders.

The major goal of elections is to choose a leader in a mythotical and smooth way. The electoral Congress brings a ""landslide electoralvote victory in that state."" source 3, paragraph 18 This gives the public a reasurrence that their state was strong and sure about the decision. This comfort might not come if the elections were popularvote based only. Also, ""the electoral College requires a presidential to have transregional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president"" source 3, paragraph 19 It's important to have a system that doesn't allow one region to dominate over the others. Had this been the case, the balance among the people would be completely thrown off.

Of course, there are drawbacks to this system. There are a good number of people who believe this is not a democratic way of having their voices be heard. source 3, paragraph 15 Along with that, close calls such as ties have shown to strain the current voting system. source 2, paragraph 11 However, these are rare cases and when they presented themselves, the leaders of the country were able to fix the issue in a way that appeased most. This current process does give some states power to tip the scales while others are locked in on their canadates before the voting begins. source 2 paragraph 13 But the results over the past years have shown no party has an unfair advantage over the others. America has had both many democrats and republicans in office.

Based off of the current solutions to the electoral Congress, for the timebeing, remaining the same would be in the best interest of the nation. It is acknowleged that the people are voting for a slate of electors and not the actual canadate. But the voters who know United States elections are about ""expressing their political prefernces"" source 3, paragraph 23 are accomidated nicely and reassured of the current process. The peoples' opinions are well represented in the use of this system and until it poses an unsolvable, catastriphical problem, there is no need to abolish it.",0
20190395,0,"We live in a world where we rely on cars to get us to where we need to and want to be. Be it to work, school, errands, dates, family get together, hanging out with friends and a multitude of other things. Yet do we really need cars like we think we do, some would say yes or how else are we suppose to get around to places we have to go but when you think about it not really since there are other ways to get around like walking or taking public transportation. Their are even some advantages to just stop using cars altogether.

Many people now a days worry a lot about the environment specifically the negative things that have been done to it like how green house gasses are destroying the ozone layer. It makes the earth more exposed to the sun's radiation and causing a negative chain of events like the polar ice caps melting. According to source one ""In Germen suburb life goes on without cars"" its revealed that cars account for twelve percent of green house gasses in Europe and fifty percent of green house gasses in the United states. This is especially problematic in large dense cities where car green house gasses add to the pollution by mixing in with other green house gasses from other parts of these cities. In source two ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", cars are the cause of the terrible smog problem Paris is facing which causes many driving problems. If we stop using cars we immediately cut down on how much green house gas gets released into the ozone layer. It would not only be good for us but good for the environment as well.

On a more personal note, in all honesty driving a car is incredibly stressful. There are rushhour restrictions which cause massive traffic jams, it's sometimes hard to find parking pace, gas costs an arm and a leg most of the time and accidents can be caused by the simplest mistakes. Wouldn't it be more peaceful and more enjoyable to walk somewhere on a nice day or take a bus with your family to the beach so you can all interact more with each other and not have one person busy focusing on the road. In source 4 ""The end of Car culture"" a study was conducted and it was seen that in the United States the number of miles driven peaked in 2005 and it has been dropping steadily. Aren't you getting tired of driving now especially with all the stress that comes with it be it gas prices, traffic, accidents and driving rules and regulations. Is a car really worth the time and expierence of headaches and pains from driving?

A big reason people use cars is to get in touch or communicate with friends or family. At least that use to be a big reason. Many used to have to drive many miles or many hours to see or meet a particular person. Now with inventions such as the cell phone and the internet specifically things like facebook, skype and twitter many can talk with their family and friends across any distance and in some cases feel more connect as stated by Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel university in source four ""The end of Car culture."" Yet if you want to go out still there's always the option of biking, walking or a public transportation such as taxi, shared van services and buses. There are many ways to communicate in this day and age and cars are slowly becoming an fading option While at first the idea of stopping the use of automoblies may seem stupid and could cause many to have a kneejerk reaction their are actually many advantages to not usuing cars anymore. In fact in might even be the best thing to stop using cars and just enjoy a stressfree environmentally healthy life with the people you love.",0
203c0fad,0,"Cars. Trucks. motorcycles. All these forms of transportation are drastically poluting the air due to the release of gas emission from the tailpipe. Some may say it's easier to get around with a car handy. Others believe too many people are centered on a car. Cities should become denser for the public in order to transport and reduce gas emission at the same time.

Up to 50% of car intensive areas are poluted in the United States as well as 12% in Europe. driving isn't the only way to get around. In Vauban, Germany some in the community have taken the pledge to give up their cars and go green. In result to doing this, locations like garages are generally not used to hold a four wheel vehicle anymore. Instead this ""car free"" area is encouraging those to join the 70% of vaughn's population to say goodbye to the waste product. In addition to a ""car free"" zone comes ""smart planning"". This is the practice of separating the suburban life from auto use. In other words, creating a more condensed community will ensure more walkers instead of drivers.

Similar to both the US and Germany, many areas have committed to giving up the cars. In Paris, pollution had gotten so bad they almost hit a record! Depending on the even or odd number license plate along with the day that came with it, people were ordered to leave their car andor motor vehicle home or pay a 22euro fine. Pollution was down 60% in France after the period of time enforcing the rule. In Bogota, Colombia most chose to walk, bike, skate, or take a bus to get around, leaving the city barren of any to no vehicles. With a capital of 7 million a goal was reached reducing smog throughout the city. Violators paid the price of 25 fines.

Other research may suggest that leaving the cars home decreases some ability to get around at a decent time or may even cost just as expensive. Having somewhere to be and knowing you have to be their can be a haste prioritizing your time. You have to calculate when you leave from both your home and the destination. Those who live in big cities will struggle even more from time to time. If cars on the street are limitted to taxis then the cost to get to a location will be as similar to that of a gas bill. Not only that but areas will require more taxi services to fill those needs of the people.

Vehicles, the deathly poison of the human race, will continue to pollute the area unless something is done. Many areas have taken the step to create more suitible living conditions of the human race. Globally, we are reducing the exposure of gas emission everywhere. Continuing this will ensure a heallthy present and furture for years to come.",0
2041ea95,1,"Dear Mr. Florida State Senator, My name is PROPER_NAME from SCHOOL_NAME in LOCATION_NAME, and I am writing to you addressing a matter that I have witnessed being discussed, come every four years presidential election time: the Electoral College. I am in favor of abolishing the Electoral College and changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. The method of electing our president should be changed to election by popular vote because the Electoral College is unfair, problematic, and does not represent the will of our citizens accurately.

First of all, the Electoral College is unfair. Because many states are ""set"" Republican or Democrat, it seems like only the votes in ""swing states"" seem to matter. According to The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong ,""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all...and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad.""So, it seems that, in this system of election, only the swing states matter in voting. Though the focused campaigning is necessary in the process of the Electoral College, it would not be necessary if the voting system was by popular vote. This is unfair because it puts potential voters in the dark about what's going on. Also, Democrats in ""Republican"" states or vice versa cannot hope for them to help their preferred presidential candidate, as mentioned in In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President.

Secondly, the Electoral College is problematic. There is much uncertainty with the Electoral College. As What Is the Electoral College states, we vote for electors to vote for the President and Vice President. According to The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong , ""The electorscan be anyone not holding public office...sometimes the presidential candidates themselves."" The electors may not vote for who the people wanted. An example of this would be in the presidential election of 1960. Also according to The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong , ""...segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors.""paragraph 11 If they had succeded, it would have meant a longer period of intense segregation and racism, which we are still fighting to this day. Another reason that the Electoral College is problematic is in a case of a tie in the electoral vote. Then, more steps are required to figure out who's president.

Lastly, the Electoral College does not represent the citizens of the United States accurately. Many reasons support this claim. I think political parties are similar to ""cliques"" in school. People in cliques act in a certain way, dress in a certain way, only think that how they do things is right, etc. Political parties are similar. If you pick a political party to identify as, you're either ""prolife"" or ""prochoice"". You're either for something or against something. There's not really an inbetween. In In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President , author Richard A. Posner says that ""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election...""paragraph 23. Presidential candidates that don't identify with a certain party don't have much of a chance to win at all, even if they might turn out to be what's best for our country. I don't think there should be a vote for ""political preference"", but that's another arguement. Voters should vote for who they want to represent their country with flexible decisions, not a set cookiecutter description, like a clique in school.

In conclusion, I believe we should abolish the Electoral College and put in place a new system of voting. The process of voting should be changed to the poplular vote because the Electoral College is unfair, uncertainly problematic, and an inaccurate form of representation. We all want what's best for the country, right? So, this is how I think we should make our country better. My voice may not be much, but it only takes one to start a movement. Please consider my voice, and it could be a step to making our country the best it can be.",0
205bfb3b,1,"Dear state senator, Hello my name is PROPER_NAME and I am writing to you about our voting system. Many individuals are not content with the Electoral College and many are. You could see both sides, but that does not mean we should switch to election by popular vote. Here are a few reasons on why the Electoral College method is the way to go.

During election by popular vote there is a great chance that there could be a ""tie"". A tie would cause a great set back in the voting process due to the fact that there would have to be more votes cast or even longer campaigns. In the Electoral College system we don't have to worry about things like that happening. Yes, disputes are possible, but they are very rare. As stated in article three under the headline certainty of outcome, the reason for very few disputes is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College exceeds his share of the popular vote. It is highly unlikely for a tie to occur.

Article three line twentytwo reads "" The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."". One example of this is in 1968 Nixon only had a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, but won the majority in the Electoral College. Another example is in 1992 when Clinton also only had 43 percent of popular vote but majority in the Electoral College. Source three line twentythree states "" It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state.."". This is true but the Electoral College is still more efficient due to the fact there are rarely ever any ties.

The Electoral College eliminates the power of a large population, everything is equal. The winnertakeall method induces candidates to focus their campaign efforts on the tossup states. Voters in the toss up states are likely to be te most thoughtful, the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election. The case in the popular vote method is very different.

Over all you can see that the Electoral College method is the way to go. There are les bumps in the road and it is very efficient. There are rarely any ties, everything is fair, and it avoids runoff elections. We should not switch to the popular vote method.",0
20a59417,0,"All throughout the world, experiments are taking place that replace the personal automobile with safer and more environment sensitive choices. Life in places, such as Vauban, Germany, is built around the lack of cars. Bogota, Colombia hosts their own Day Without Cars. Although this scale of events hasn't happened America yet, the youth of the United States aren't using cars as much as they used to. In all these cases, quality of life has improved and the environment isn't suffering as much as it previously did.

The residents of Vauban, Germany have made a monumental decision in the aspect of cars. According to the article In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars , in the new district of Freiburg, the only cars that run in the streets are the trams that run to downtown Freiburg. This is done so that ""stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway."" This ""smart planning"" allows people to get to where they need to go without using cars. Placing busy businesses on a main street would normally be a bad idea because of the amount of congestion it would cause. In places like this, congestion isn't a thing that can happen. A walk could get you to central places allowing you to access the more important of places. The same article states that ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of the greenhouse gas emitions."" The environment is in a state of constant decline with the amount of greenhouse gasses and chemicals we are exposing to it. The lack of cars is a great way to put us in the right direction. The article mentions that cars were responsible for ""up to 50 percent of greenhouse gasses in some carintensive ares in the United States."" Imagine how much clearer the sky would be with smog reduced by half. The implications of removing cars from our lives could mean the difference between severe global warming and living happy and healthy.

Three cities, deep within the Colombian urban areas, host a day where cars are not allowed. Andrew Selsky describes how ""parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city uneven,pitted sidewalks rushhour traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" In Bogota, this singular day where cars were banned gave people a reason to try out public transportation and personal locomotion. Paris took a similar approach when, According to Robert Duffer, they ""enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of he global city."" Cars with evennumbered license plates were enforced to not be driven. The oddnumbered plates were the ones that were taken off the streets the next day. The two day ban allowed the environment to recover after extremely high smog levels. The rule that was applied in the Colombian cities was also enforced in the worldwide city of Paris. Both cities benefited greatly from a temporary ban of cars.

Car culture has always been strong within America. Elisabeth Rosunthal implies that for several decades, cars were a musthave object, but now, the youth are not as interested as the previous generations. Rosunthal shows how ""America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. When adjusted for population growth, the number of miled driven in the United States peaked in 200 and dropped steadily thereafter, according to an analysis by Doug Short of Advisor Perspecive."" If the largest cities stopped relying on cars as much, everybody would benefit. Even the car companies would have something to gain with advances in more personal vehicles such as bicycles. The environment would have an immense amount of weight taken off of its shoulders. In the US, where the 2nd highest source of environmental harm is cars, the impact would be monumental. The article relates that ""people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may find less reason to resume hte habit."" Teens all across America are carpooling and finding new ways to help the environment while also getting to where they need to go.

Life is getting too busy. There is always something that needs to be done. Cars may help but there will never be enough hours in the day to do everything. Leaving personal transportation behind will be the next big step towards a more relaxed and stressless life. The advantages easily outweigh the disadvantages.",0
20c62af5,1,"It is often said that ""change is good."" This saying is one way to describe my feelings towards the Electoral College. The sources ""What Is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the Federal Register, ""The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer, and ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner show the pros and cons of the Electoral College. The Electoral College should be taken over by popular votes because all Americans should have a say in who their next leader will be.

The Electoral Collegemay disregard what their voters say and vote for another candidate to be our next President. In paragraph 11 of the source ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer it is declared that ""faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate."" Voting citizens of America vote for a reason. They vote for who they want to be President, not who the party's electives want to be President. Voters should be able to trust their electors, otherwise their votes are going to a candidate they voted against. Another key point of this unjust way of voting is that people have to put their trust into unknown electors. It is stated in paragraph 16 of ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner ""each of the party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee."" These electors may be ""trusted"", but to the unknowing voters of America they are ordinary people who could betray someone very easily. All it takes is one elector disobeying his promise to the candidate he chose to represent to have the fate of American changed.

The winner of the election may lose by popular vote and win by electoral votes. This is an unfair advantage that the Electoral College has to the common voters. Voters expect to vote for who they selected, not who the Electoral College selects. It is emphasized in paragraph 10 of the source ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plummer in which ""voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors."" In simpler terms, this is saying you don't vote for the next leader, you vote for people who may choose the next leader. The people of America vote for a reason, to choose our next leader who will support our country. They don't vote to have a College of unknown Electors choose the next President. It should also be noted that you're technically not even voting for a President. It is disputed in paragraph sixof ""What is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the Federal Register ""when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors."" In other words, you don't even choose your candidate, just people who are trusted to vote for them. American voterswant to for the nex president, not a board of Electors that they are unsure will trust them.

On the contrary, there is the possibility of it being a very close election where it would require the Electoral College to choose a President. In paragraph 18 of the source ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President""Richard A. Posnerstates ""a dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is less likely than a dispute over the popular vote."" The popular vote might be back and forth between the Presidents, but an electoral vote would create more of a landslide win. In the end, the cons of the Electoral College outweigh the pros of it.

The Electoral College is an unfair way of choosing our country's next leader. The change of this ancient voting would be a very good and appreciatef one.If America really let the people of America choose, they would let the popular vote be the deciding factor for our next President of the United States.",0
20e5df00,1,"To begin with, the Electoral College should be kept. It's a important process to be able to select the electors and the meeting of the electors where they vote for the President and Vice President. One's of the many reason they should keep the Electoral College is because the voters want to express their political preference. Also, it helps choose your state's electors when you vote. Lastly, voters won't get confused about the electors when they vote for the candidate with this process, they wont.

startingg of with, some people might argue that one vote won't affect the voting and that it does not express your political preference. However, in source three by Richard A. Posner paragraph twenty three states ""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference."" People who vote in elections are people who want a change to be made. They give their vote for the strongest and most confident candidate. They don't get mistaken in whom they've voted for.

To continue, Every given time there is a presidential election which is our responsibility to vote in and help choose our state electors. In source one by the Office of the Federal Register says ""You help choose your state's electors when you vote for President"" When we decide who our vote goes to we usually help choose our states electors when we vote for President and when we vote for our candidate we are also voting for our candidate's electors which most people will agrue is the right way to go.

Last but not least, many people would argue that voters get confused and vote for the wrong candidate. In source two by bradford Plumer says ""...voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate."" However, it has been proven that mostly everyone does choose for the right candidate! They choose the candidate they see the post potential and confidence in and the one that is going to make the changes they want and need.

To conclude, Electoral College should be kept. Multiple people will agree to this as well. This isn't just a place its a process that people agree to do! This makes us able to elect the most confident candidate that is going to make a powerful change. There are many reason the Electoral College should be kept. starting of with, the voters and how they want to express their political prefence. Also, it helps us choose our state's electors when we vote. Lastly, voters won't get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate with this process. This is a long process but at the end of the day is worth it.",0
210cc873,1,"Having ""electors"" vote for us from the electoral college is basically giving us, the people, no say into what we president we want. Why ask us the people to vote when you have someone or others to chose what they think we want for president? Changing the from electoral college voting to the popular vote can give us the people a voice for what we want and think is best for this country and it gives us a reason to vote. If we still electoral college voting then our voice as a country is not being heard.

Giving us a voice in this country that we live in an enormous opportunity than what other countries around the world do not have the privilege to have. Giving us, the people, a voice brings us together as a country and it unifies us. It also means that not only do we have government power but we have people power as a whole. Bradford Plumer from source 2 explains to us in his first subtitle what is wrong withe the electoral college and he states that ""When you vote, you are not voting for the president, you are voting for a slate of electors, who then for the president of their choice."" That was an example of our people not having a voice because we are basically wasting our time voting because at the end of the day the slate of electors are the ones who end up chosing who they want as president. Why should we vote when our vote doesn't even matter?

Moreover, I feel that us voting is a waste of our time because of this winnertakesall method that Bradford Plumer states in the fifth paragraph of his article titled: The Indefensible Electoral College. The winnertakesall method is when presidents travel to specific states in which they believe they would win in the electoral votes and some states do not get visited at all by neither of the candidates because the candidates do not feel like they would win their votes. I understand that the electoral college is a process in which was founded by our founding fathers and established it into our constitution so that there is a compromise between election of the presodent by a vote in congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens Source 1. It is not really a compromise when you have a system in which a president can win the popular vote by 99 percent of the people but still lose by the electoral college because we basically have no say in the election.

On a final note, the electoral college system is a unfair way of our countries presidents to be elected when we also have the votes of the people which have no effect on which canidate wins. Although, our founding fathers thought this was a terrific idea at the time of making this part of the constitution, in reality we have a much larger population today than they did in the past when they had made the constitution. Having have all these people in our country vote today for a canidate and later have the vote not take any effect which canidate should win is very unfair. I can understand the electoral college system working back then when it was first made because the population was still relatively minimal but now we must abolish it because the points that some electoral vote colleges get is very small compared to some other states. How would you feel if you were a canidate and got 99.",0
2129c2a1,1,"Dear Senator, I know that you have many issues to think about and have a lot of decisions to make, but I think it the subject of the Electoral College is a very important subject for you to ponder. The Electoral College needs to be changed, we need to vote for the presidency with the popular vote. I believe that the Electoral college needs to be taken away because it's not the peoples president when voting with the Electoral College, the legislature could approve people to be electors that are all against a certain candidate, and it is a very confusing process for people to understand.

First, the Electoral College should be changed because it is not the peoples president when voting with the Electoral College. The people ar voting for the president, but not really. They are actually voting for a slate of electors, who then choose what candidate there electoral votes should go to. The whole point of a democracy is to let the people of the country have a say in who is in charge, but with the Electoral College this is not happening. The people are saying who they want for president but if the slate of electors does not agree, then the votes go the other way. This was expressed in ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong"" by Bradford Plummer. In the passage he says, ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for John kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the off chance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry would get 34 electoral votes."" In addition, the Electoral College should be abolished because the legislature could approve people to be electors that are all against a certain candidate. The Legislature is technically responsible for picking electors and theywould very well pick electors that are all against a certain candidate. Everyone says the system is so strong but is it really? The fact that a group of people opposing one candidate could be the electors for that state and could totally changed the votes doesn't make the system look so strong. Plummer adressed this situation in his passage, he stated, ""Back in 1960, segregationista in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the democratic electors wiht new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. so that the popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy."" Finally, the Electoral college system needs to be taken away because it is very confusing. The whole system is just a jumble of different things. There are so many different steps and processes that tend to confuse the voters. When the voters get confused they often end up voting for the wrong candidate or making a mistake. If the voting system was just, the voters voted for who they pleased, then the votes were counted, then all the votes from states are added together, and then whoever had the most votes won, the whole thing would just be much easier. I belive that when the situation is as impportant as voting for our president, it should be as easy and flawless as possible. For example, when I was in seventh grade, I learned about the Electoral College in civics class. learing about the Electoral College was one of the hardest and most complicated thing I learned that year. How are people supossed to vote, if they have no idea how the system works?

In conclusion, I believe that the electoral college needs to be abolished becauseit's not the peoples president when voting with the Electoral College, the legislature could approve people to be electors that are all against a certain candidate, and it is a very confusing process for people to understand.",0
212ae7f0,1,"The Electoral College basically serves as a filter for the votes of every individual American citizen. Every single vote that comes from citizens is a vote for somebody else who will be voting for the president, not the candidates themselves. The Electoral College is flawed to the point where the most logical way to vote would be to base presidential elections off of popular votes.

The Electoral College encourages the presidents who are running for office to avoid campaigning towards states with a smaller amount of electoral voters. If the president is determined by the most electoral votes, it would make sense that the president would campaign towards larger states with more electoral voters such as California, Texas, and Florida. Why would they spend time trying to appeal to some of the smaller states? This can lead to some states not even seeing the candidate. Infact, during the 2000 election, voters in the 25 largest media markets did not witness any campaign advertising.

The Electoral College's process of voting suppresses the voice of every citizen. The balance between smaller and larger states comes into play here as well. Take Florida for example, a state with 29 total electoral votes. If the mass majority of Florida votes for a certain set of electors, the minority votes for the other ones would not matter at all, as the electors speaking for that certain fraction of the population would not elected. With popular voting, each and every vote would matter towards electing a president. The number of minority votes would directly apply to the outcome of the president.

The Electoral College and the electors should not be the voice of the country. The voice of the people should be heard, especially when it comes to presidential elections. Popular voting is the most fair and rational method of voting. The Electoral College is best off forgotten as a voting system.",0
21313307,0,"Cars are an essential part of life they get us from place A to place B, but so do bikes, buses, trains, and your very own feet. In Vauban, Germany, residents have gone where few soccer moms or communting executives have ever gone: they have given up there cars. ""Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers."" Rosenthal 1 In a world filled with pollution, stressed adults, and unhealthy people the advantages of limiting car usage are infinite.

Limiting car usage in the world would most definitely reduce the amount of pollution that is ruining our ozone layer. If it wasn't for the ozone layer humans would be long gone and wouldn't come back any time soon. In Paris, France, the government enforced a partial driving ban because of the nearrecord pollution. ""On Monday motorists with even numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day."" Duffer, 11 After five days of partial driving, congestion was down an incredible 60 percent. What if after five days they kept going? The city would look and feel brand knew and it would be safe for citizens to breathe the air. Similarily, our very own President Obama is trying to curb the United states greenhouse gas emissions. "" As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995."" Rosenthal 32 This means that people are choosing better ways to get from place A to place B, and if this trend persists "".. it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment..."" Rosenthal 34 As you can see, there is hard evidence that limiting car usage in the world would reduce the amount of pollution.

Furthermore, limiting car usage would help to relieve the stress of our everyday lives. How much traffic will there be? Am I going to get to work on time? Oh my god, I am out of gas and I passed the nearest gas station? Heidrun Walter, a citizen of the carfree Vauban, Germany, says,"" When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" Also, the stress levels of adults get higher when they become parents who have children driving. I know my mom doesn't sit through a full car ride with me without stomping on her imaginary brakes. But, it seems to be that, ""there has been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39 year olds getting a license.."" Rosenthal 38 Moreover, even one day without driving makes the Columbians in Bogota, Columbia, less stressed and more relaxed. Business man Carlos Arturo Plaza rode a twoseat bicycle wih his wife to work that day. He says, "" It's a good oppurtunity to take away stress and lower airpollution."" Selsky 24 Limiting car usage, like these small cities have done, helped to relieve stress of their citizens which is why it is a huge advantage.

Lastly, limiting car usage would better the well being of our fellow citizens. Imagine, a business man who works in an office for 10 hours and then gets home just in time to eat and catch a few hours of quality television. When does this man have time to exercise? He sits in his car, sits at work, sits to eat, and sits to watch tv. If we limited car usage, this man would have to ride his bike or walk to the bus stop to get to work everyday, which is good for his health. Similarily, we have children who spend more time in front of a computer screen than playing outside like children should. But, what parent would let there kids play outside when there's tons of cars on the road? In Vauban, Gemrany, the streets are filled with bicylcles and the chatter of wandering children beacuse there are no cars to be afraid of. Limiting car usage can better the well being of oursleves and everybody around us.

In conclusion, there are many advantages of limiting car usage in the world today. On every sidewalk, you would find relaxed and healthy people breathing clean and healthy air. We can create cities in which ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources , lower emissions and improve safety."" We will never achieve a perfect world but it is not romantic or naive to work towards one.",0
213e0109,1,"""The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress."" There are 538 electors in the Electoral College. In order for a candidate to become President, a majority of 270 votes is required. I am in favor of the Electoral College because of the certainty of outcome and because of the states.

First, I am in favor of the Electoral College because of the certainty of the outcome. Because of the number of electors is even means that there could be tie. But, people don't understand that is very unlikely. As said in Source 3: In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President, ""A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possibleit happened in 2000 but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote."" So, most of the things that people stress over about the Electoral College are very unlikely to happen.

Secondly, I am in favor of the Electoral College because of the states. Two types of states are big states and swing states. Big states are the states that have the largest population that ""the Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance"" on. One of the other types of states are the swing states. Swing states use the winnertakeall method. Swing states don't vote for the President based on his or her political party. They vote for the President based on who they are or who they like better out of the candidates so you never really can know who they are going to vote for.

In conclusion, I am in Favor of the Electoral College because of the certainty of outcome and because of the states. The Electoral College have sources to rely on so that it won't fail. Most people just don't realize it because there has been a couple problems with the Electoral College before but, the Electoral College is a good system to have.",0
2153c231,1,"Dear State Senator, I propose that we change the election by popular vote for the president of the United States rather than having the Electoral College. I say this because the Electoral College is unfair to voters in many ways more than one.

I'll start off by saying that Electoral College is unfair to voters. I strongly agree about this because under the electoral college system, voters do not vote for the president, they vote for a slate of electors, who then elect the president. This system is unfair because you don't always know who your electors are and you can't always control who the electors vote for. If you can't or don't know who they are voting for, then how can we trust them with the fate of our country? Although us people don't always make the right decisions, at least with popular vote we would all know that our votes wouldn't be put in someone elses hands.

To continue my agreement, the Electoral College is also unfair in this way. Say if there was to be a tie in electoral votes, the election would be given to the House of Representatives. Then the state delegations would vote for the president and the Senate would chose the vice president. When this would happen you would then not know who they were going to vote for and what your government's fate would be. So again if we had election by popular vote this wouldn't happen.

Lastly, the Electoral College is unfair to voters by the winnertakeall system. Since there is a winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning. An example of this is back during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't get to see the candidates at all. Some of the largest media markets didn't even see a single campaign ad. This is completely unfair and ridiculous to all potential voters.

In the end, I think that the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and ridiculous. With all the valid points and arguments I have made, they make a pretty good reason to abolish the electoral college.",0
21a7b29e,0,"While owning a car may seem like the most important possession a person can have, it is becoming more beneficial to find a way to live without them. Cities around the world are turning in their cars, even if just for a day, and finding that it brings plenty of advantages to make up for what could be seen by some as a troublesome lack of easy transportation. Both the environment and and the well being of the people are grateful for the new change, and examples of such will follow.

To begin, according to ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, one can learn about Vauban, Germany, a place manifested so that residents of the upscale community must give up their cars. While residents are still permitted to own cars, they must be kept in large garages at the edges of the community. Here, the owner of the car must buy a space within the garage, along with a home in the residence. Parking on the streets is forbidden, along with driveways and home garages. The streets of the residency are completely free of cars, except for a few streets on one side of the community, and for where the tram to downtown runs through. Most of the citizens of Vauban choose not to own a car, or sold their car in order to move to the community, and find they are much more content in their lifestyle because of it. Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, stated that she is ""much happier this way"", explaining that she was always tense while in possession of a car. This community was created as a prime example to showcase the advantages of limited or forbidden car usage, and it is now being used as the basis of the growing trend around the world, including America and more places in Europe, in which suburban life is being separated from its former dependence on auto use.

Furthermore, the reduction of air pollution and smog has become a major advantage in the limitation of car usage. After suffering through days of nearrecord pollution, Paris, France had composed a temporary driving ban in an attempt to clear the air, according to Rober Duffner in ""Paris Bans Driving due to Smog"". The passage goes further to explain that the ban followed five days of smog that rivalled the likes of Beijing, China, which is widely recognized for being one of the most polluted cities in the world. Exceptions to the ban were made for hybrids and cars carrying three or more passengers, and public transportation was made to be free. Once the smog cleared enough, the ban was lifted and citizens were allowed back to the road, but the reduction of auto usage was what saved the air from becoming overly polluted. Moreover, in Bogota, Colombia, citizens participate in a carfree day, entitled Day Without Cars, once a year to reduce smog in the cities, according to ""Carfree Day is Spinning Into a Big Hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky. Violators are charged with 25 fines, but, according to Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus, the people participate, and the turnouts are large. This day without cars, which has begun to spread to other Colombian cities, is a fantastic way to reduce both air pollution and stress, and is a part of a campaign to oversee the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, which, according to Mayor Mockus, is the most of any city in Latin America.

In addition, ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal tells the reader of the new goals created to cut down on America's greenhouse gas emissions. According to the passage, the goals, set by President Obama, have been graciously aided by recent studies which show that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less, and have been making less of an effort to get a license as the years go by. With transportation being the second largest source of the nation's carbon emissions, behind power plants, this pattern, if maintained, will most likely have majorly benificial impacts on the environment.

All in all, there are many advantages that could easily come with limiting car usage, including the reduction of smog and a more pleasent lifestyle for the citizens who decide to limit or cease their auto usage. While transportation issues may arise when people begin to give up their motorized vehicle, or if they decide to not purchase one in the first place, as many already have, a quick purchase of a bike or the use of public transit can solve at least some of them.",0
21f409bc,1,"The electoral college should be abolished because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidates elector source 1, and the voters cant always control who their electors vote for source 2. On the other hand the electoral college is a great thing because a dispute over the outcome of an electoral college vote is possible but its less likely than a dispute over the popular vote source 3.

When you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidates elector source 1. Most people, including me, would like to vote for the president not a candidate because they might not even vote for the person you want for president. Some states are smaller then others so that makes them feel like their votes arent as important as the bigger states like California and Texas. The electoral college consists of only 538 electors compared to how many people are actually in the U.S. so there is a greater chance that the wrong president might be elected.

Many people do not vote because the voters cant always control who their electors vote for source 2. Not everyone wants to take the chance of voting for the wrong person to be elected for president. Some voters might get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate, as it says in source 2. Most states are small so most people in those states dont think the little states matter and they arent important in the election when they actually do.

On the other hand the electoral college is a great thing because a dispute over the outcome of an electoral college vote is possible but its less likely than a dispute over the popular vote source 3. A better thing about the electoral college is that it requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal, meaning that not all the vote can come from one or two regions and no other ones. Voters in presidential elections are the people who want to express a political preference rather than the people woh tihnk a single vote can dicide an election.

As a student I want the best for the up coming generations, including me, that are going to be able to be a part of the presidential elections and to not be confused who to vote for or how the electoral college works. Every year a new generation becomes legal to vote and be part of the election but if they dont know how to vote or how it works then they wont be able to. Some people dont know anything about poitics but, still want to be able to vote so, it should be easy for them to vote for who they want to be president rather then the long process of, voting for the canidates elector and most of the time they dont vote for who they want and they vote for the wrong person.",0
223bbf18,0,"When limiting car usage the first thing that most everyone thinks of is: ""How would I get from Point A to Point B instead of driving myself in my car? Would I walk, ride a bike, take public transportation, or try and find a new creative approach?"" Limiting car usage is not the end of the world, it is the beginning of a healthy one. Most cars burn gas which cause smog and pollution which is harmful to the environment, some people get lazy and end up being so dependent on a vehicle that they will not even consider walking a few blocks to a friend's house for an afternoon lunch, and our own ancestors have gone without a car for centuries on end. So would it really be that much of a struggle to not use a car any and every where that you go? You do not need to never use your car again, you just need to realize that using your vehicle more than needed is harming not just yourself, but everything and everyone you interact with in life.

In Paris, France a partial driving ban was put into effect just before the city of Love and Romance' reached record breaking pollution levels. The ban states that: ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following days.""""Paris bans driving due to smog"", Robert Duffer. However, just because there is a law put into affect does not mean that everyone will abide by it. According to Reuters, an international news agency in London, almost 4,000 drivers were fined and 27 people had their vehicles impounded because of their reaction to the fines. It is a shame that people are so unwilling to follow one rule for one day which would help the planet and reduce the pollution in their city. According to Duffer, Paris ,typically, has more smog than other European capitals. When buffer's article was published he states, ""Last week Paris has 147 micrograms of particulate matterPM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London, Reuters found."" Also, in Paris, diesel fuel is used more than gasoline. Diesel engines take more energy to burn the gas which causes more pollution than just normal gasoline. According to Reuters, France has a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. In France, as a whole, 67 percent of vehicles have diesel engines. In the rest of Western Europe, about 53 percent of vehicles have diesel engines. The smog that is in the air from the burning gas of your vehicle ends up in your lungs. Imgine just sitting in front of the exhaust pipe of your car for a few secondsdo not actually attempt this analogy it is overwhelming and unbearable. It is harmful to your lungs and the rest of your body. That pollution is coming out of thousands and thousands of other cars and is adding up to the air all around you. You breath that air every day, just like your family and friends as well. In Paris, after the partial driving ban, on Monday the smog cleared up enough for the French party to take away the ban on the oddnumbered plates on Tuesday, according to Duffer. If the smog in one of the biggest cities in the world can clear up just a little bit in one day from limiting car usage, imagine how much smog could be prevented if you limit your car usage every day. What if you only used your vehicle when traveling out of town or when you need to transport a large item? You can change your whole environment just by deciding to walk or ride the bus to work instead of turning on your vehicle to drive 10 miles down the road.

The law that was put affect in Paris, France does not state that you can never drive your vehicle again, it is just simply asking the citizens to go one day without their vehicle. ""But what if I have to go somewhere such as work, school, or anywhere else that I want?"" Paris is a large city, that much is understood, because it is a large city there is more than just one way of getting from Point A to Point B. One way is public transportation from the city andor local businesses, like a bus or tram. According to the BBC public transit was free of charge from Friday to Monday as well. So, if you did not want to spend extra money than you had to that would not be a probolem. If you do not like public transportation, or do not prefer it, you can get out for a bit of exercise and ride a bike or even walk. Getting up or leaving maybe an hour or two early so that you can get to your desired destination on time is not that heavy of a price to pay. Also, you are getting exercise out of it which benefits your health. Walking or even riding a bike to work can benefit you in so many ways. If you see someone familiar walking towards you, you have the opportunity to start up a conversation and catch up with how their life is going. As well as this, if you see a small shop or stand that sparks your interest you have easier access to explore inside. If you were drivingriding in a vehicle then you would have to cross traffic, find a parking spot, make sure you grabbed everything that you need, and make sure that it is locked. If you are taking a stroll through town, you already have your needed things, you do not need to cross traffic and find a parking spot, and you do not have to risk accidentally leaving your vehicle unlocked and end up possibly getting robbed. A study discovered by Elisabeth Rosenthal found out that driving by youth decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. Maybe this is because young people still have the energy and sense of adventure in them to walk or take a bus somewhereor they just can not afford it, which in the long run saves them money anyway. Maybe you can learn from the young people that decide to ride a bike or skateboard to work instead of driving a car. Maybe taking public transportation is not as crowded and as much of a hassle as the movies make it seem. Taking public transportation can introduce you to new people with different backgrounds as well. You can meet someone that you might not see as a coworker or a family friend that you have an idea already who they are. Some people are always so busy with every day life that they do not have the time to meet new people and learn new names. With public transportation or deciding to walk instead you have a bigger opportunity to meet someone new. Why not give yourself a healthier lifestyle by walking once a week to work instead of driving? The question still remains, why not?

Limiting your vehicle usage does not limit your options and exposure to the outside world. Having a vehicle is not entirely a bad thing either. Some vehicles are 'eco friendly' and are built so they can help protect the environment. Sadly, however, most are not built and designed that way. Driving is so stressful for a person. You have to focus on all of your surroundings, check every blind spot, make sure that all of your fluids are not empty, replacing tires, and so much more. Again, driving is not all bad. Some people enjoy to drive, some say that is relaxes them and gives them time to think because driving is the only 'alone time' that they have. Carlos Arturo Plaza says, ""It's a good oppurtunity to take away stress and lower air pollution.",0
228035b8,1,"Dear State Senator, I believe that the Electoral College should be kept and not changed. With the Electoral College, the presidential candidates can not have transregional appeal. The Electoral College also reduces the risk of a runoff election, where no candidate wins a majority of the votes. A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral college vote is also less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. This system also encourages voters in tossup states to be more thoughtful with their vote. The Electoral college also helps in balancing out the weight that large states with a large population lose.

With the Electoral College, no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. This not only makes the votes more fair, but it also encourages the presidential candidate to be desirable to all regions, not just one that that the candidate knows will vote for him. A candidate with only regional appeal would likely cause residents of the other regions to feel that their votes do not count.

The Electoral College reduces the risk that no candidate wins a majority of the votes and instead, usually produces a clear winner. An example of this, as stated by Richard Posner in his argument in defending the Electoral college, is when Nixon and Clinton were elected. Both had only 43 percent plurality of popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College. The Electoral College also avoids creating pressure when no candidate wins a majority of the votes.

As said by Posner, voters in tossup states who know they are going to decide the election are likely to pay close attention to the campaign and will be more thoughtful with their vote. They also will have received the most information and attention from the candidates. It also makes sense that the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election.

The weight in the political balance that large states with a large population lose is balanced by the Electoral College. An example ,given by Posner, is that the popular vote in Florida was very close in 2012, but Obama, who won the vote, got 29 electoral votes. The same margin in a smaller state would result in the winner getting alot less votes. This causes large states to get more attention from candidates than a small state does.

In coclusion, I would like to say that keeping the Electoral College is a great choice. It will make presidential elections more fair and balanced than purely relying on a popular vote. The Electoral College produces more thoughtful votes, which intern will result in the best candidate for the people to have as president.",0
228a014b,1,"Dear my Senator, whats the point in voting if our vote may not even count?

In the Electoral college people citizens vote for a slate of electors who then later go and vote for president. However, sometimes it doesn work that way. The electors are not obligated to choose the president that the people want. The Electoral college is corrupt and needs to go away.

The people of America dont like the Electoral college and want something new. Stated in source 2, "" gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gorethanks the quirks of the electoral college won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent off voters would prefer a dirt election to the kind we have now."" In short, people were so unhappy with the election and the way it ended. people would rather have direct voting than to continue with an Electoral college.

The Electors in the Electoral college arnt always innocent. They can lie, cheat, they go behind the backs of the states citizens and not even vote for who the citizens want. In 1960, segregationists in the louisiana legislature tried to get rid of the democratic electors. They wanted to replace them with people who would oppose John F Kennedy. source 2, number 11 says ""In some vein, faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whoever they please..."" This means that with an Electoral college, the person you want to vote for may not even get picked cause of lying electors.

Even though the electoral college is a pretty bad thing, there are still a few upsides. The Electoral college avoids te problem of neither candidates getting a majority of the votes. In source 3, number 22 There is no pressure for runoffelections when no candidatewins a a majority the votes cast that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the electoral college, which invariable produces a clear winner... Simply this says that without the electoral college voting can be difficult and stressful.

In conclusion, The Electoral college may not be the best thing for our society, and also can we even trust that our votes even matter? either the Electoral college cant be trusted and it needs to be gone for good, or something needs to change.",0
22f65ab6,0,"Cars are a very, very common mode of transportation used all over the world. People depend on cars to get them from place to place every single day. While driving cars seem to be the quickest and easiest form of transportation, there are negative sides to it. These negative effects can be harmful to the environment and humans if we aren't careful. Therefore, citizens should take a step forwards limiting their car usage. The advantages of limiting car usage is that it reduces smog, saves resources, and is a healthier lifestyle.

When cars are used, they can pollute the air with harmful chemicals and toxins. Air pollution is a serious issue that is occurring around the globe. This is important because cars are polluting the air we need in order to survive. Some cities around the world have gotten so polluted that they had to restrict people from using cars over a period of time to try and cleanse the air. If you drove during the ban, then you would receive a fine. Paris and bogota are two cities that participated in the ban. After the pollution cleared up some, the ban was lifted in both cities. Therefore, reducing the air pollution is a major advantage to not using your car as much.

Over time, cars can use up a lot of resources. Cars run on gasoline, which is a fossil fuel. There is only so much of it and once it's gone, it's gone. Our fossil fuels are being used up quick, so it's time to start saving them. You can save resources by driving around less. Instead of driving yourself, you could either walk, ride a bicycle, skate, ride a bus, or carpool with some friends. These are all ways you could help save the planet's resources.

Lastly, limiting how much you drive your car can be beneficial because it is a healthier lifestyle for you. You could get more excerise and help the environment at the same time. One community in Germany, named Vauban, gave up their cars completely. They are in a movement called ""smart planning."" This community gets around by walking or riding bicycles. Their lifestyle includes having stores and markets a walk away so they have easier access to them. Having a healthier lifestyle is an advantage because it's important to take care of yourself.

The advantages of limiting car usage is that it reduces smog, saves resources, and is a healthier lifestyle. Driving less reduces smog because it helps clean the air from toxins. It also helps save the limited amount of fossil fuels that we have. Not to mention, driving your car less will give you a chance to live a healthier lifestyle because you will get much more excercise. Overall, driving less is beneficial to both humans and the environment. Therefore, join the movement and limit your car usage.",0
2309fe60,1,"You get pearly on November 6, 2012 ready to vote, because every vote counts! But does it really? Instead of your vote going directly towards who you want as president, it goes towards the electoral collge and then they decide who really wins the presidency. The Electoral College ia a system where instead of the people vote for the president, a group of electors choose the next leader of the free world. I fervently believe that we should abolish the electoral College sytem, and change the election of popular ovte because it is an injustice, outdated, and irrational.

The Electoral College system is highly unfair. The voters wnat to elect the president that they would like, and in order to do that their vote should be significant. Although the Electoral Collge system is at times efficient, it still does not satisfy the voters. The people aren't even the ones who get an actual say on who their next president will be. Even the people who are in defense of the Electoral College System agree, ""It is the electors who elect the president, not the people"" 15, says Richard A. Posner author of ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five Reasons to keep our despised method of choosing president."" In the 2000 elections, candidate Al Gore received more individual votes than George W. Bush, and won the popular vote, but did not win the electoral college vote so he lost the presidency. If this is supposedly a ""free"" country with a democratic system, then shouldn't the citizens have the right to pick the individual that will be running their country for the next four years?

Some electors may not even vote with the majority. Voters can't control who their electors vote for. The electors are even sometimes picked by the presidential candidate running for office, how does it seem fair that a group of people that hold the fate of our country in their hands is chosen by soemone who would be highly affected by their decision.

It is also an injustice because of the way the votes count. If you live in a state with a higher population, your state gets more electoral votes. The amount of electors depends on the amount of senators and representatives your state has. There is one elector per representative, and two per senator. There is a total of 538 electors, and to win presidency the candidate most have at least 270 or higher. For example sya you live in Iowa, where there are only four electors, the vote doesn't count as much as the votes in California or Florida. The system is completely outdated too. The Electoral College system has been around for hundreds of yars,a dn it is not up to date with our modern times, so it is a complete waste to use it.",0
230bf706,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, My names is PROPER_NAME. I am 14 years old, born and raised in the beautiful city of LOCATION_NAME and I am writing to talk to you about the Electoral College. I've done my research, and according to the article What Is the Electoral College?

by the Office of the Federal Register, it was first established ""in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" What I understood from that text is that it was made to keep equality and fairness between the government and the people. If that is so, why is it that the people have no say in it? I believe that the election should be based on the popular vote because the people should get what the people want.

The Constitution says ""We the people, by the people, for the people,"" yet the people have limited power. I understand that in order to form a more perfect union of our nations, their must be laws and rules and people who govern, as well as enforce, these laws and rules. All I'm asking for is a bit more freedom and power as a citizen of these United States of America.

I'm not the only one who thinks this way. ""...according to a gallop poll in 2000...over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" Their has been several cases in which the candidate has ""won the popular vote but lost the presidency"" Plumer. For instance, the election in 2000 with Al Gore, where his opponent, George W. Bush, received 271 electoral votes and he received 266, eventhough Gore won the popular vote. Instead of voting for a group of people who vote for us, what's the harm in letting the people choose our nation's leader?

The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by bradford Plumer, has a section titled What's wrong with the electoral college in which he questions ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for?"", to which he replies, ""Not always."" If ""we the people"" are supposed to be the one's with the freedom, then we should have the freedom to at least choose who we're going to have as our President.

""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states."" Plumer. Take Mitt Romney, for example. He ran for president in 2012, and, knowing that campaigning down South, where he would already be receiving the votes, would not gain him any electoral votes, he didn't campain there at all. This is why they focus on the ""swing"" or ""tossup"" states, and make the other states feel left out, like ""the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn't their president."" Posner To prevent the states to feel left out and to prevent an injustice such as this one, we should end the anachronism that is the Electoral College. ""...The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best."" Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO have all agreed on it at one point in time: ""Abolish the Electoral College!"" Plumer.",0
231ac52f,1,"Dear saaae senaaor, My leaaer is in regards ao changing ahe elecaion ao popular voae for ahe presidena of ahe Uniaed Saaaes. I believe ahaa we, ahe people, should have ahe opporauniay ao choose whom we wish ao become Presidena.

The reason why people go oua ao voae, is because ahey have a specific person in mind. Alahough ahroughoua elecaion aime, many people are brougha ao differena conclusions ahaa one candidaae is beaaer ahen ahe oaher, or ahey boah have aheir flaws yea, ahey sarongly represena one ahing ahe oaher candidaae dispises. Eiaher way, ahere are ahose aypes of people who jusa cannoa decide. They may be lefa undecided, and have changed aheir minds by ahe aime ia's ready ao voae. Ia's a big deal for people ao go oua and aake acaion. So whaa would make ahe elecaoral college change one view of voaing? Ias ahe faca ahaa we aren'a really voaing for our presidena. We are voaing for our elecaors of ahe saaae, ao voae for our presidena. And on aop of ahaa, ahere are saill many people oua ahere who don'a have a clue ahaa aheir acaually voaing for someone in our saaae ao decide for us. Alahough ahe elecaoral college does help make ahe presidenaial elecaion less complicaaed, ia's ahe mere faca ahaa WE aren'a making much of a difference.

The elecaoral college doesn'a only have a few minor sea backs, bua ia could aarnish oua dreams of who we wanaed ao be presidena by way more ahan we could've expecaed. When ia comes ao voaing for elecaors, ias a difficula ahing when ia comes ao how many elecaors represena which poliaical paray. Democraa, or Republican. Say one wanaed ahe one candidaae running for presidena ao win, and heshe were Republican. Thaa person would go oua and casa a voae for a slaae of however many of republican elecaors ahere are for ahaa saaae. The para ahaa geas a loa of people is ahaa ahere could be fewer Republican elecaors ahen ahere are Democraa elecaors. Say one saill wanaed ahe Republican candidaae ao win and ahey voaed in aheir residenaial saaae which was Nevada. IF Nevada had 4 Republican elecaors ahen ahaa meana anyone who voaed for ahe Democraa elecaoral wasn'a chipping in much ao ahe elecaion. In ahe end, all ahe elecaors voaes are counaed for each side, and because Nevada had only awo dedicaaed Democraas, ahe chances of ahe Democraa candidaae having less elecaoral voaes ahen ahe Republican candidaae, has increased. If ahis problem happenes for several oaher saaaes, ahen ahe chances double, even ariple.

If ahis doesn'a make you ahink ahaa ahe elecaoral college should go, ahen ahink again. The elecaoral college is definiaely unfair ao voaers. Any chance of unfaiahful elecaors, could happen. Ia could make one feel bearayed ahaa ahey voaed foe a specific elecaor ao do one job. Which was ao help seleca ahe presidena ahe voaer wanaed. Whaas ahe poina in puaaing your arusa in someone who could jusa easily aurn around and NOT voae who you wanaed? There is no poina. Bua ahaa's whaa we're doing when we voae. We are making ia an opaion for ahaa ao happen. So why noa voae by popular voae? Why noa avoid all ahe issues ahe elecaoral college can cause for us? We should be lucky ahaa back in '00, ahaa was ahe biggesa elecaion crisis and ia COULD'VE been worse.

In conclusion, we ahe people, should have ahe opporauniay ao voae and acaually have our voae counaed. Because every saaae doesn'a have ahe sam amouna of people in each, ahe chances of ahere being a aie in ahe presidenaial elecaion, is slighaly unlikely. Oaher ahen ahere being a aie in ahe naaionwide elecaoral voae because ahe voaes add up ao 538 an even number. We shouldna pua ourselves ahrough ahis, and aruah be aold, ahe elecaion is confusing as ia is. I say, we should gea rid of ahe elecaoral college. Ia's noa needed, and a pain.",0
231d27b0,1,"Voting for president should be fair and democratic to all the people. Decisions for the country that affect the people should ultimately be determined by them since their lives could be greatly impacted by those decisions. Today, the country determines the election of the president of the United States by using the electoral college. Although the electoral college is effective in many ways, does it really portray what the people want? Changing the election to election by popular vote would determine what the people want in a more democratic and fair way. The United States was built upon democracy and that strong profile should be kept.

The electoral college is a process by which voters vote for electors that elect the president determined by their political party. In theory it may seem like an effective process, but it can bring many problems. Source 2 says that the single best argument we have against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The election crisis of 2000 was because of the electoral college process and that even worse things could have happened. The electoral college has brought a lot of problems. ""In the same vein, faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please,"" Source 2. Electors refusing to vote for their party's candidate, or refusing to vote altogether could lead to things like Hawaii sending two slates of electors to Congress in 1960. The electoral college system leads to a lot of complications and using popular vote would make the process simpler.

Voting by the electoral college can bring unfairness to the voting process. Source 3 explains that when you vote for a presidential candidate you're actually voting for a slate of electors. Your votes do not directly go to the president you want, so even if a president wins the popular vote, they could still lose the electoral college vote and the election all together. ""A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes538is an even number, but it is highly unlikely....,"" Source 3. Voting by popular vote would not allow this to happen because of the amount of people voting and the likelihood of that happening is even less. Also, the fairness of small states and big states is not democratic in the electoral college process. Since larger states have a greater population, they tend to get more attention than smaller states do. There would clearly be more equality in voting by popular vote than in the electoral college.

""The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a poplular vote of qualified citizens,"" Source 1. Although this compromise was good in theory at the time, the process is not very fair and does not bring the right people to be elected as electors. The electors are chosen depending on how they reach certain criteria by the law. These laws vary though, which could bring a wide variety of people from each state. This would give some states the upper hand compared to others. There would be no worry about the certain people chosen as electors in the process of popular vote.

The electoral college brings complications, unfairness, and the worry of chosing electors from each state. The Untited States was built upon the idea of general democracy and the process of the electoral college does not carry out that idea. Chosing the president by popular vote would give the people a more democratic way of chosing whom they want to be in charge of the country. The people of the country are the ones most impacted by decisions of the country, so they should have more of a say in what is decided.",0
232c8c2f,0,"Bycicles. Walking. Public buses. All three are alternatives to driving a car to arrive at places that you need to go. Some believe that having an automobile is essential to everyday life. Others may say that cars are unnecessary and a pollutants in our society. There are many advantages of limited car usage.

Limiting the use of cars could help reduce the amount of pollutantss in our environment. In Source two, it states, ""Cold nights and warm air caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emission."" This tells us that car emissions are being caught in the air due to the weather, causing a layer of smog to settle over congested cities. By limiting the use of automobiles, the layer of smog was able to vanish, but if we were able to limit cars permanently, then we would not have to worry about it in the first place. In Source four, it tells us that, ""If the pattern persists... it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions."" This proves that car emissions are harmful to the environment and that future generations are at risk because of the pollution already in the air. Also, the statement shows that Americans are very dependant on transportation, but are unwilling to try a different method such as walking and biking. By reducing the number of cars on the road, our environment would be helped tremendously.

Having to worry about driving a car may produce more stress in a persons life. In Source three, it says, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" This tells us that riding in an automobile, while the roads are very crowded, causes people to worry about whether or not they are going to be in an accident. Also, it has been proven that exercise helps to lower stress, and by riding a bike instead of driving a car, stress may be lowered by simply using your resources to get where you need to go. In Source one, it tells us, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier now. Heidrun Walter, mother of two."" This proves that people are worried about their car and if it might break down, or something worse. Something can always go wrong with a car, whether it be trouble with the engine or you accidently locked your keys inside, and it becomes very expensive when you have to fix a small blunder. By limiting car ownership, less people have to worry about their automobile.

A great alternative to owning a car is public transportation. In Source four it explains, ""They organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends."" By uses others means of transportation, it makes it very convenient for kids to meet up with their friends for a while, and still get to where they need to go. Also, public transportation is much cheaper than buying a car and gas for it, and it helps reduce the number of cars on the road. In Source two, it tells us that ""Public transit was free of charge for Friday to Monday."" By taking the bus that the government provided people received free transportation, allowing them to not have to worry about parking, gas prices, or potential accidents. They could travel wherever they needed to go on a very convinient mode of transportation for no cost to them. Public transportation, or carpooling, is an amazing way to lower the number of cars on the road, while still providing people with a way to be driven to the destination they need to get to.

Automobiles, the plugs to the sinks of the streets of the world, seem to clog up the efficient system of transportion. Parents, workers, and athletic kids alike are affected by the large number of cars on the road. By reducing the number of cars on the road, there would be a direct impact on our environment, emotions, and future generations.",0
23745610,0,"Changing our ways on how we use cars for the better? Is it just so happen that people are using there car less than usual? In many places like Germany, Paris, Bogota are changing the ways to use cars. To reduce every little problem cars are causing. Traffic jams, smogs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, people are getting smart about using there cars everyday. Maybe people are tired of using all cars of the time.

When people buy car, it gives them alot of freedom knowing they area able to go where ever they're heart desires. Lately people aren't feeling the whole waiting in traffic if theres an accident or just to much cars. Bus rides, trains, taxi are helping reduce this. People can go somewhere without waiting that long just for a little price. In Germany there are new laws where they put a prices to put cars and there is only certain places you can put there cars at. 70% of families in Germany have do not own cars and 57% sold there cars because of this new law? You would think thats people would complain about having cars and having no place to put them. But many people are actually happy that they put this new type of law. Many people preferred to have this happen.

Smogs? what are smogs? smogs are grey clouds that hurt is in ways we dont even know. Cars emmit these deadly gases and we dont know it. Cars arent the only one who emmit they clouds of grey smoke, factories emmit this also. Which is not helping our ecosystem at all. In Paris they had an order to help reduce this problem. On mondays motorists with evennumbered liscense plates were ordered to leave their cars at home which on the following day people with odd numbered liscenes plates were doing the same thing if they did not follow this ruling they were have to suffer a thirty one dollar fine. This helped alot with the smog.

Places like Germany and Paris arent the only one who are changing the ways. In Bogota they have a car free day which only allows you to take a bicycle, taxi, buses or whatever you want but do not take a car or suffer the rath of fine. Going on for three years now people are saying they enjoy these types of days because everything is more relaxing it reduces stress and air pressure which is a really good thing. Even when it rains it doesn't stop people from participating from this. There is even a 118 mile bicycle path that shows how much people want to change the way they use cars. ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city: uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaces by broad, snooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" Many sciencetists are believing that the car culture is coming to an end. Cars sales have drop alot. People are taking the bus, taxis, and even trains to avoid traffic. ""What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person started to come down two to three years before the downturn."" Younges ages don't even drive till the age of 21 or they don't even care till then. They can usually care poll to places like partys, mall and the beach. They don't need a seperate car for each person when they are all going to the same place. Which is feel its a good and bad things. Its good because poeple are caring more that were causing harm to our own home and that they know that they can do all they want together and still have fun. It causes harm to busineses many stores could go out of business.

It does not matter if we try to stop using cars or not we are always hurting in some other way. Traffic jams, smogs and reducing greenhouse emissions are just the begining of this all. We can do way more if we put out mind set to it.",0
239b0ed2,1,"Dear me. Senator, I am fed up with the electoral college. The system allows for so much disaster to occur. It isn't strict at all and it allows a variety of things to happen that wouldn't end well. The people deserve to make the decisions. Because the electoral college systems has so many holes and problems with it.

One of the best arguments against the electoral college is what we call the disaster factor. One big example of the disaster factor is the 2000 year election. In this election Al Gore had more votes than George Bush, but still lost by 5 votes because of the electoral college. In 1960, segregationists in Louisiana almost succeeded in replacing the democratic electors who oppose John F. Kennedy. If they succeeded and the popular vote went to Kennedy, it would not have actually gone to Kennedy. ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong"" Plumer Second off, one of the most worrying things is if there is a tie in the electoral vote. If that happens the election vote would be given to the House of Representatives, where the state delegations vote for the president. The vice president vote is given to the senate. Each state only casts one vote which insures that 55 million voters and 500,000 have the same power. Given the size of those numbers, and that people in those states may vote one party for president and one party for congress, the House's decision could hardly reflect on the peoples choice. We have come pretty close to this happening too, in 1976 a tie would have occurred if 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted differently. ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong"" Plumer There is a few reasons that opposing opioninated people use to justify wanting to keep the Electoral College around. One of them is that the president has to appeal to multiple regions. A candidate can not just be a favor of the south and get elected, he has to campaign and be desirable to all the regions. This is good because a president that was popular in just one region would not be successful, because everyone else in the other regions would feel like they do not regard their interests. Unfortuanitly this is solved by popular vote, since it is by individual not by state. Other votes in other states balance them out. ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president"" Poser The Electoral College has many reasons for it and against it. But I strongly feel that we should get rid of it for the reasons shown above. From the ""Disaster factor"" to the threat of a electoral tie. Of course other people feel differerent and have different opinions but I feel like popular vote is for the best. Thank your for taking the time to listen to my opinions.",0
23c6054c,0,"There are many advantages to limiting car usage. The whole world has already figured that out. Many countries are now starting to limit the car usage. It is a good idea to limit the car usage because they damage our environment and cars are not needed for average everyday life.

First, reducing the use of cars would make the world a much better place in terms of the environment. In the article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" written by Robert Duffer he explains how the smog caused by cars has polluted the air causing Paris to put a partial ban on driving. "" Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has... a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France...."". This quote by Robert Duffer explains just how bad the air must have been polluted because of the cars. They blamed the pollution on diesel fuel and that was 67 percent of the cars in France, which is a lot, and it was so bad that they had to make a partial ban to driving. We can already tell that our environment is not that good because of all the other pollutants that we have but by reducing the usage of cars that can make our environment so much better because that is getting rid of one major factor to the problem of pollution.

Next, many people do not even use cars that much. As stated in the article ""The end of car culture"" written by Elisabeth Rosenthal ""A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009.."". In this quote it states that a lot of new people are not starting to drive anymore. Without new people driving we will just loose the amount of people driving continuosly becasue of people dying and no people to replace them. Also in the article ""In German Suburb, life goes on without cars"" written also by Elisabeth Rosenthal, it explains how the people don't need cars anymore because they can just walk, ride, or find another way to their destination. Therefore if there is no longer a need for cars then we can easily limit the use of them.

In conclusion, there is not a reason anymore to use cars. If we can compact some cities and make everything easy enough to access without a car then we could just get rid of them completely. Cars are only used for transportation, otherwise they just cause problems like pollution, acciedents, and being unhealthy. So it would be excellent to limit car usage to help the environment and to jsut get rid of them entirely becasue we no longer need them.",0
23e54f58,1,"A Electoral College is a meeting of thee electors where theey vote for president and vice president. ""The founding fatheers established it in thee constitution as a compromise between election of thee president by a vote in Congress and election of thee President by a vote in Congress and thee election of thee President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" We should keep thee Electoral College because of thee certainty of outcome, theat everyones president and thee swing states. These are some reasons on to keep our despised metheod of thee choosing thee president.

We should keep thee Electoral College because of thee certainty of outcome. The certainty of outcome is a dispute over thee outcome of an Electoral College. According to thee passage "" thee reason is theat thee winning candidates share of thee Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of thee popluar vote."" For examples, President Obama recieved about 62% of thee electoral vote when rodney had about 52% popular votes casted to him. Even a tie is possible because theeres a total of 538 number of votes and its an even number.

Secondly,everyone is president. None if thee regions has enough votes to elect a president so no favorite has power to campaign heavily. So if thee favorite was rodney he will not gain any vote by by increasing his plurality in states theat he knows theat he will win. According to source theree.""thee residents of thee otheer regions are likely to feel disenfranchisedto feel theat theeir votes do not count,theat thee new president will have no regard for theeir interests,theat he really isn't theeir president.""Line 19 This means theat thee people who vote will theink theat its a waste of theeir time since theeir vote will not count. They will be ignored knowing theat theeir vote will have no interest and theat thee president wont really be theier president.

Thirdly, we should keep it because of thee swing states. The swing states is a winnertakeall metheod. Voters will pay more attention to thee campaign because theey know theat theey will decide on thee election. They will be known as thee theoughtful voters because theey will have recieved thee most information and attention and should be thee ones the decide thee election. The otheer people wont know alot about thee candiadates and will just pick theeir favorite.

Some people might argue about thee disator factor. Its where theere is a tie between thee states. They might say what will happen theen? However, theats why theere is representatives. They break thee tie on who to become president.

In conclusion,we should keep thee Electoral college because of thee certainty of outcome, everyones president and by thee swing states.",0
23e99b29,1,"Every four years since the founding of the United States, a president has been elected by the people to lead the U.S. According to source 1, the system used to select the president is the Electoral College. The Electoral College involves voters voting for president they want, as normal, and then the president that got the majority vote in that state gets all of that state's electoral votes. Supporters of the Electoral College claim that it is good that the presidents focus more on swing states, and that they are more likely to be the thoughtful voters, but there is zero evidence shown to support this, and it makes presidents focus on states disproportionately. The Electoral College should be abolished and replaced by the popular vote system, as it is an outdated method compared to modern technology, makes the vote of an individual seem even more insignificant, and makes presidents not campaign in states that are small or loyal to them.

Since the Electoral College was hundreds of years ago, it does not account for all of the new technologies that have been developed since then. The founding fathers could not have possibly thought that it would be possible to easily count all of the nation's votes with a machine, but now it is possible. It is likely that the reason they thought of the Electoral College in the first place was because it would mean that they could spread out the tallying of votes between the states, instead of doing it all at once. Nowadays though, there are computers that can count votes faster than ever imagined. Popular vote is now a viable method since every person's vote can be accurately counted.

Due to the Electoral College relying on a majority rules system, the vote of a single person can be completely insignificant. According to source 3, a supporter of the Electoral College, ""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election...."" This should not be the case when voting. Voters should research their choice as if the election relied completely on them. But instead, there is a system in place where somebody's vote can be rendered completely useless in not multiple ways! For example, if a state already has their majority of citizens voting for president A, if somebody votes for president B it will be as if they didn't vote at all! Even in a case where the state is completely 50:50 on who to give the electoral votes to, if the last person votes for president A, tipping the majority in his favor, according to source 2, ""... those electors could always defy the will of the people,"" and end up voting for President B. The Electoral College is an antithesis to democracy, because a citizen's vote can be rendered completely pointless at multiple points.

Both those who support the Electoral College system and those who oppose it agree that the Electoral College puts a much bigger focus on swing states and states with large populations, according to sources 2 and 3. To put this into perspective, here's an example of why supporting big swing states should not be rewarded. The US has 6 states. 5 are completely democrats and each have populations of 20. 1 is half democrat half republican and has a population of 100assume 20 people equals an electoral vote. If the republican presidential candidate convinces a single democrat in the big state to vote for them, they will get the majority vote in that state and get 5 electoral votes. This results in the democratic presidential candidate, with 149 people supporting him, tying with the republican presidential candidate, with 51 people supporting him. Simple logic shows that the opinion of 149 people is more important than that of 51 people, so a popular vote system would have been best in this situation. The focus on certain states is such a popular method by the presidential candidates, that, according to source 2, ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all...""Big states and swing states should not receive much more attention per citizen from the presidential candidates than little states do.

In conclusion, the Electoral College should be replaced by the popular vote system as soon as possible. The Electoral College relies on archaic methods to make tallying votes simpler for the government, which results in problems. It's like the government is rounding the votes. The winnertakesall method of the Electoral College can render a voter's vote completely useless, and it even allows representatives to vote for the presidential candidate that is against the voter's wills. Presidential candidates will not bother campaigning in states that are loyal to their adversary or are too small to be worth their time. While a single person's opinion might not seem important, or rounding votes seems ""easier,"" no corners should ever be cut when deciding who the leader of a nation with over 50 million citizens is, which is why the Electoral College should be replaced by the popular vote system.",0
247d63a2,0,"Imagine a world without garages, stations, or parkinglots. The problem with today's world is our lives revolve around cars to get us where we want to be and they have become a status symbol for many. The thought of being without a car scares most people, but limiting car usage is becoming more popular in cities, and has shown many advantages in the environment and in the communities. For example, the residents of Vauban, Germany have given up their cars completely Rosenthal. On the otherhand, Paris, France banded driving due to smogonly odd license plates could drive one day and even numbered plates could drive the next day Duffer. Many advantages came with limiting driving in these cities such as, less air pollution from tailpipe, congestion lessened, and introduced alternative ways of transportation into different communities.

""Passenger cars are 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the Unites States"" Rosenthal. This means if car usage was limited than we could cut back on almost 50 percent of our pollution in the United States. ""Transportation is the second largest source for America's emissions"" Rosenthal. The limiting of car usage would also help and knock down cars as being the second biggest emissions source in the U.S. Without so much air pollution in the United States we could live healthier and better lives. We would be able to reduce global warming if we reduce the amount of driving we do.

Another advantage with limiting car usage would be the decrease in congestion around our city and towns. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of intensifying smog"" Duffer. This means that traffic would die down as well, there would be no more rush hour after work, and the roads would be safer because there would be less people driving on them.

Lastly, limiting car usage would bring people to find alternative and healthier ways to get to where they need to be. In Bogota, Colombia every year for one day millions of people bike, skateboard, or take public transport to get where they want to be Selsky. With people using alternative ways to get to work it would not only benefit the environment as well as benefiting their health.

The answer is clear, we need to limit the usage of cars in America. Other countries are doing it and now is our time to jump on board with the movement of less car movement. So the next time you get in the car and buckle your seatbelt think about the advantages that could come from not driving today.",0
2480f5c3,1,"People in America vote for a candidate running for president believing that their vote counts, but in reality it all comes down to the Electoral College. According to ""The Indefensible Electoral College: why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer, ""over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election tot he kind we have now."" We, as a country, need to change to election by popular vote for the president of the united states in order to have fair completion instead of the people of America voting for a potential president only to find out the vote was worth nothing.

To begin with, majority of the nation wants to abolish the Electoral Congress because it's an unfair process. Bradford plumer states, ""The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational."" It should be that the voters vote for the president, but we are just voting for electors so they can vote for the president putting our nation's future in danger. The Electoral College used to be the the right way of election but now it's known as something from the past. Traditionally, the Electoral College was ""a compromise between election of the president by a vote in Congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens, paragraph 1, by the Office of the Federal Register"" in which the founding fathers established this process of election knowing that then it was the correct way. But now, this process is ""outdated paragraph 14, Bradford Plumer"" and there needs to be election by popular vote.

Another key point, former presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, agree with ""abolishing the electoral college paragraph 9, Bradford Plumer"" as do Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFLCIO, and the Gallup poll in 2000. Majority wants to get rid of the Electoral College in order to lets the popular vote decide who become president. also, voters cant always control who their electors vote for. Bradford Plumer notes, ""The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century."" The Al Gore election is an example of the unfairness that the Electoral College is pursuing. Al Gore won the popular vote against George W. Bush nationwide, which means the people wanted Gore, but he did not recieve enough electoral votes to win the election.

In the Electoral College's defense, the Electoral College, as illustrated by Richard A. Posner, ""restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution,"" meaning that a presidential candidate will give more attention to a larger state than a smaller state. Without the Electoral College, the president wouldn't have ""transregional appeal paragraph 19, Richard A. Posner,"" meaning that no one region has enough electoral votes to elect a president so the Electoral College requires the ""transregional appeal."" To conclude, our nation needs to change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States instead of election by the Electoral College because this process of election is unfair to the voters of this nation. Also, majority wins and the majority of the country wants to repeal the Electoral College then we should make a change. If we want this nation to be the strongest it can be then we need to make choices that will positively affect our country and the people of our country.",0
2499a7f6,1,"or. Senator, I think that the Electoral College is a decent way to vote for president. But is it really the best way? Though the Electoral College elects presidents in a way favored by many, it doesn't allow for people to directly vote for the president. Because of that, the Electoral College should be abolished and changed to election by popular vote.

Voting by Electoral College can make things unfair. As stated in the article, ""The Indefensible Electoral College"", ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the president"" Source 2. That statement basically says that when a voter goes to vote, they aren't voting for the president, but for someone to go and vote for them. Also, who exactly are the people we go and let vote for the person leading our country? According to the article, ""Electors can be anyone not holding public office"" Source 2. The people who go and vote can't control who these electors vote for. That's just another way that the Electoral College can be unfair to the voters.

Along with being unfair to the voters, the Electoral College can also be unfair to other people as well, for example, the candidates actually running for president. In an article that is for the Electoral College, it states that, ""...the electoral college is not democratic in a modern sense...it is the electors who elect the president, not the people"" Source 3. Does this mean that the Electoral College may have been a good system a while ago, and maybe not as good this day in age? Yes, it does. Also, in the article, it states, ""...it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote"" Source 3. That being said, there is always a chance that the result of an election will not be what the country as a whole wants, but what the electors want.

To conclude, the Electoral College is a very interesting process that everyone should know about. But I believe that the Electoral College should be a process that stays in textbooks to be learned about, not to actually be used. The Electoral College should be gone and be changed to election of popular vote. After all, the Preamble to the Constitution says, ""We the people"", not ""We the electors"".",0
24fbec45,1,"Dear Senator, There has been some recent heat on the topic of the Electoral College. I believe that it is only fair to keep the Electoral College. Although some voters may be upset with the fact that they don't define who wins the presidential election, it is best that way. If there was no Electoral College people with no actual idea of whats going on would vote, and that could have a negative affect. Also if there was no Electoral College there would be an unfair amount of votes in larger states. The last reason is Swing States, which is also a very important part of the voting process.

First and Foremost, the Electoral College may make voters feel like they have no input on the election, but really they decide who the Electoral voters choose. Without Electoral voters, there would be indecisive people voting for a candidate they know nothing about. For example, many young voters base their votes off of popular opinion, not what they think is actually right. If there was no Electoral College, the Nation could be in a lot of trouble because many votes would be casted off of popular opinion. So it is good to have some control over what happens and who becomes president, but I think having the full decision to vote for whomever, and have it count, is overdoing it.

Secondly, I believe that having the Electoral College is great because, without it larger states would have more of a say on who becomes president. This would be very unfair to the smaller states for an obvious reason, population. Even though a few states might have a bigger population that doesn't particularly mean that everyone in the state will vote. There are still ""independent voters"". For example, as stated in paragraph twentyone, the election voting in Florida was very close and relied a lot on popular votes. Florida ended up getting twentynine electoral votes, compared to Wyoming who only got three electoral votes. State size does matter because larger states will typically always get more attention from the presidential candidates than smaller ones.

Lastly, The Electoral College is a very important part of our voting process becaue of Swing States. As stated in paragraph twenty, voters in tossup states are ""more likely to listen to the campaign and the competing candidates"". These voters know that their votes wont make much of an impression on the election, but pay the most attention anyways. People claim that the most involved voters should be able to decide the elections. Although they don't have much of a say it is nice to know that people do care about the elections and do pay close attention to what is going on.

To conclude my previously stated reasons, I believe that having the Electoral College is a crucial part of the system. Because without it the nation would have so many voters that only cast their votes based off of popular opinion. Also without it larger states would have more of an affect on the votes than the smaller states do. Finally, Swing States are a very important part of voting because voters who know what is going on and actually pay attention do have one of the biggest affects.",0
251ca0df,1,"When hearing about the Electoral College, most people think of a group of individuals casting votes based on the popularity of the candidate in their state. What they don't know is that ""the Electoral College is a process, not a place""source 1 Some people, like Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bob Dole, have all thought that the Electoral College should be abolished and be replaced by the popular vote. According to a poll taken in 2000, 60 percent of voters believe the presidency should be decided on the popular vote source 2. After thoroughly researching, the Electoral College should be replaced by the popular vote. The current system of electing isn't exactly democratic and there is a chance for there to be a tie in the votes.

Most states have a ""winnertakesall"" system with the exception ofmine and Nebraska that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate in their state.source 1 There may be an argument that no state has enough votes to give the presidency to someone however, this system basically casts away the other votes of those on the side of the opposing candidate, making it undemocratic. Besides that, there is also the chance that a few of the electors go rouge and vote for the opposing candidate. To be a democracy means to listen to the voice of the people however, the college may not always listen.

The electoral College consists of 538 electors, meaning that the possibility of there being a tie is likely. When there is a tie, the fate of the potential presidents lie in the House of Representatives. When the election results are in the hands of the House, the selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people. It will be more likely that they will vote for the candidate in their party rather than listen to the people's vote. Not only does it ignore the rights of the people, but this gives an unfair advantage to the candidate who's party is currently in power.

In conclusion, the Electoral College is a ""nondemocratic method of selecting a president..."" source 3. Instead the choice of presidency should be at the will of the people, not in the hands of electors. In the words of Plumer, the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational.",0
251d5ce2,1,"I believe that the electoral college should be taken away because presidents that have won the popular vote have lost the election due to the electoral college and to me that just does not seem right ""Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency""source 2 Plumer 9. If it was not for the electoral college Gore would have won the election. If this country really is a government by the people and for the people then the government would get rid of the electoral college.

The electoral college is very outdated it has been in use sense the founding fathers made it ""The founding fathers established it in the constitution as a compromise"" source 1 OFR paragraph 1. it might have worked well back then but now it is outdated it has been three hundred years since it has been changed and it simply does not work that well anymore.

If there was no winner take all system it might just be a little more fair ""the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeallsystem"" source 2 Plumer paragraph 13. Candidates do not even give every state a chance they usually just skip the state that they know they will not win over ""candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning""source 2 Plumer paragraph 13.

That is why iI think the electoral college should be taken out it is outdated, and it is unfair. If this country was really run by the people than the people would really get to pick the president. Those are my only really big issues with the electoral college, but that does not mean that I do not want to see it go.",0
2533a9a5,1,"The electoral college, a mistake? Many Americans are unsatisfied with the electoral college and the system it follows. The electoral college has disappointed millions of Americans of any social class. According to The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong , by Bradford Plummer, "" Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of the electors, who in turn elect the president."" America should abolish the electoral college as it has upset 60 percent of americans and elected unwanted Presidents.

""This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could lose the presidency"", as said by Bradford Plummer. Every year Americans fall stricken by disappointment from the electoral college. The system of the electoral college is a poor representation of american ideals as candidates do not even bother spending time in nonswing states. According to Bradford Plummer, in the 2000 campaign seventeen states did not even see the candidates at all and 25 percent of the largest media markets did not even see a single campaign ad. As previously proven, the electoral college must be abolished due to the unfairness of its system.

The electoral college believers say that the electoral college stops disaster from happening, this is false. As Americans vote they vote for a slate of electors, which definitely creates a loss of the opposing or minority votes. This is because of the winnertakesall system that the electoral college runs off of. When the majority of the votes is accounted for, the minority votes are basically thrown away in a sense. Also, the electoral college ruins the chance of a more correct voting experience for old and new voters, making Americans ashamed and unwilling to vote because of the feeling of their vote meaning nothing or perhaps being crippled by the electoral college.

When the founding fathers of America created the electoral college it was an age without technology, making the electoral college a grand idea. Long ago, the electoral college served a patriotic and noble purpose as their was no technology and much less people. In todays age of technology, the record keeping and election process could not get any better as long as the electoral college is abolished and never reincarnated. The electoral college abolishes individual votes for the majority, crippling the American voting experience and smuthering it in shame and disappointment. The electoral college is outdated in many ways and should be dismissed from America.

In conclusion, the electoral college is shaming Americans from every state. This system should be permanantly abolished becuase of its lack of fairness and reliability. Every American vote should count just as much as its opposing vote instead of being dismissed. Free the vote and let the electoral college be forever dismissed of its dutys.",0
25939bac,1,"Greetings Mr. State Senator, Looking over the Electoral College, there has come to be a few interesting details. Yes, the process is beautifully thought out but as we look at it deeper it has its flaws. The founding fathers have given us the Electoral College, which anarchist are very unappreciative veiwing it as a nondemocratic way to vote.

If the Electoral College system goes, then Americans can have their full Constitutional rights. Using this process voters are not voting for the electors of their choice, voters are voting on higher qualified voters to vote for the electors. The whole process is a violator of the amendment entitled to voting. Having this maze of voting for voters, what if a voter confuses of who the electors is voting for so their vote isint actually going to the candidate of their choice. In 1960 before the election of John F. Kennedy, the segregationists of the Louisiana legislator came very close to replacing all of the Democratic electorss with electorss who opposed John F. Kennedy. So all the voters in favor of JFK. will be voting against him and all the Electoral College votes would be going to the other candidate.

The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defences are wrong , ""At the most basic level, the electorsal college is unfair to voters."" Plumer makes a very valid point beacuse of the size of states. The electorsal College's number of representatives are as big as their states population. So if all of the representatives in Alaska vote on the Republican candidate, and most of the people in California vote for the Democratic candidate, the Electoral College vote in California overules the vote in Alaska.

The Electoral College can make some voters not want to vote, usually because of their state size their vote doesnt count as much. Many voters in larger states refuse to vote because their vote wont really change the Electoral Collage's vote. The voters don't have total control over an electors, so the whole election crisis could happen again.

In conclusion, the Electoral College may have worked when the colonies were small and the votes counted, but today the modern society doesnt appreciate its lack of Constitutional rights. All we ask is for our right to vote to be given to us, so we can take part in our government.",0
2595fc59,0,"When you turn sixteen, you're filled with anticipation and angst of getting your licence, and furthermore a car! I know, I have certainly been there. But, what's so good about getting a car? Well, other than the new found sense of freedom. Not much. Car usage has accelerated since the 1900's and is starting to gradually decline. Why? Less stress, less pollution, and more excerise. These things alone may not be enough to convince you, so let's jump into the facts.

First off, getting rid of that car in your driveway will greatly lower your stress. ""As a result, 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"""". When you think about it, it truly makes sense. When you have a car you have to worry about gas prices, payments, and fixes. But, when you live a car free life none of that is of your concern. So, therefore your stress decreases and your happiness can go up to an all time high. When you have one less bill each month it truly does leave an impact.

Secondly, we have a big issue that is in our hands... Pollution and smog. Who's fault is it? Ours. Fumes and smoke crowding into our atmosphere with no where else to go. Our cars are a huge part of it. ""Diesel fuel was blamed"" in France for their smog layers. ""Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions."" We need to put a stop to this. It is destroying our planet. It will continue to destroy it until we make a change and do something to make this stop. It's in our hands and we can't just let it go. The problem will not just go away. It will not just fix itself.

When you are living in this day in age many people have cars, so they have no need to go out and walk, or skate, or bike anywhere because they have a more ""efficiant"" way of transportation. ""Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday,"" This means that people would be getting up and active to get to work and other places that they may need to be. Helping our environment and themselves.

Furthermore, cars are slowly but surely being forgotten, people are stopping their use of cars and taking alternative transportation. ""But America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling."" So, it's not as big of a deal as it used to be. Not everyone needs or wants to have a car anymore. ""If the pattern persistsand many sociologists believe it willit will have beneficial implications for the carbon emmissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants."" When you decide that you don't want a car, you're benefiting from it and the future is benefiting from it. Taking the next step seems a bit out of reach but we can make it.

In conclusion, people see cars as something that is a must have. Or, a next step in their freedom. But, we can change that. Show the world that it is more harmful than helpful. ""One small step for man, a leap for mankind."" We can get there, but it takes more than one person to set down the keys. Reduce your stress, reduce the pollution, and increase your happiness. All it takes is one person to start a movement.",0
25c0ca47,0,"America's love of cars may soon be spiraling down. With America's car culture seemingly coming to an end, there will be more alternative ways to get to work, school, shopping districts, and etc. As the years come and go by quickly, Americans are buying less cars and obtaining fewer licenses for themselves. The advantages we can receive by limiting our car usage is that it takes away stress, lowers air pollution, and benefits daily businesses.

First, Limiting car usage takes away stress. As businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza states:""It's a good opportunity to take away stress..."" People who no longer own a car will not have to worry as much about their car. Such as the price of gas rising, car payments, and insurance payments. These type of payments every month often put a big dent in a person's wallet. If we take up to the opportunity of limiting our car usage, we really won't have to worry about car payments anymore. Plus, being outside in the environment will certainly reduce stress levels almost completely, because we are interacting with others that are walking and enjoying the the environment outside.

In addition to, taking away stress. Limiting car usage will result in lower air pollution. According to Duffer, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" If we limit car usage, the levels of air pollution will dramatically decrease resulting in cleaner air and a healthy environment for us to live in. If we continue to use cars, we are further damaging the air that we breathe everyday and causing people to damage their lungs. Pollution often has chemicals that can harm our breathing and sometimes our lungs. As Americans it is our responsibility to take care of the earth and we are not doing so by constantly using our cars.

Lastly, limiting car usage benefits daily businesses. Selsky staes: ""Parks and sport centers also have bloomed throughout the city and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up. If we rely on walking to stores, etc. that are only a block away, it will surely increase the revenue of restaurants and shopping districts. Since the stores are so close to home, we'll be more willing to enter the store andor restaurant. Increasing businesses revenue also helps the economy, which we desperately need.

In conclusion, these advantages that we have gone over in the essay will greatly impact the future of America. Such as, taking away stress from former car owners, lowering the air pollution so we have a cleaner air to breathe, and beneifiting our daily businesses to increase revenue and better our economy. If we all limit car usage and follow the advantages listed, it will result in a better earth for us to live in.",0
262ea1a1,0,"Cars are starting to become more and more expensive everyday. Why pay when a person could either use train,bike,or just walking. Stated in source 1 ""As a result, 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here..."" Many people are glad that they had sold their car because it just cost to much money for others. Therefore many people need to limit their car usage.

To begin with, Cars could have many flaws that may infect the environment or humans. Stated in source 2 ""After dats of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" So because cars take in gas it may effect the environment because inside of the car is more chemicals a that comes out of the exhaust system. Stated in source 1 ""Many experts expect public transport serving suburbs to play a much larger role in a new sixyear federal transportation bill to be approved this year, Mr. Goldberg said."" this may be true because gas prices may go down and the environment will stay clean. However, waiting for public may mean waiting for a couple of hours. But when having a car a person can get to their event or job on time. Stated in Source 3 ""The day without cars is part of an improvent campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s."" Maybe if the United States started to start a campaign then maybe their wouldn't be so much smog in the air thats polluting the environment.

Also, in America many people would never give up their cars just for the looks. Stated in Source 4 ""But America's love affair withits vehicles seems to be cooling."" So i guess that would be a great start for the environment for America. But how long will America last with out a vehicles? From my point of view, not for long that's my opinion. Although, stated in Source 4"" Whether members of the millennial generation will start buying more cars once they have kids to take to soccer practice and school plays remains an open question."" In my opinion i wouldn't take a bunch of kids on the train just to get to school or to a soccer game and then once that is all over with then have to get back on the train just to take tem back home. Anything can happen. That's why having cars have pro's and Con's. But others may think of the train ride as bonding time or just getting to know the full team better.

Stated in Source 3 ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the cityuneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic."" So having cars helps everyone a lot less accidents would happen and park and sports centers are making good profit. So now everyone could be happy and go on with their life. Stated in Source 4 "" With all these changes , people who stopped car cummuting as a result of the recession may find less reson to resume the habit..."" I would totally agree with these , because when u stop driving it means more money and better health.

Finally, cars should be limited for many reasons. Limiting car usage would many better health and less gas, and also less accidents on the road. Stated in Source 4 New York's new bikesharing program and its syrockiting bridge and tunnel tolls reflect those new pririties."" Therefore many jobs aren't complainig about the less car usage and some people aren't complaining about it. Many people should stop using cars to help the environment out and to get into shape.",0
26489251,0,"Limiting car usage could greatly benefit the lifestyle of yourself and of those around you. Did you know that motor vehicles are one of the biggest causes of pollution and greenhouse emissions? According to a source by Elisabeth Rosenthal, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" If cars were completely eliminated for a week in an area like New York City, then pollution would be greatly lessened. It would be a good idea to try to take public transportation as often as possible, as opposed to driving to work every day.

Another good reason to limit car usage is to bring together community. There is a city in Germany by the name of Vauban according to a source by Elisabeth Rosenthal, which completely bans driving cars. Inhabitants of this community walk or bike everywhere, which is also a good form of exercise that one could do in order to stay fit. The city was designed with walking in mind, and everything is close by as a result. If we were to have more of these communities, then green house emissions could be greatly lowered.

One major reason not to drive a car is that cars are often very expensive. If you live in an area where public transportation is an option, it may be worth it to not buy a car. You'd both help the environment and save a lot of money at the same time! If you're in a city or an area where many things are within walking distance, then you may also notice that there is a lot that you can do, such as walk to a mall or walk to a park, and you would not be harming the environment in any way.

Pollution is one major factor that should be touched upon more than once. According to a source named Paris bans driving due to smog by Robert Duffer, ""after days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" Because of the large amount of people constantly driving, it caused the city to become so polluted that they had to ban people's ability to drive. If people carpooled more, or took more public transportation, then this wouldn't have happened. Some delivery companies even complained of ""lost revenue."" Lastly, it is a good idea not to drive because of the quickly depleting fuel supply remaining on our planet. Sooner or later, we will run out of gasses to fuel our vehicles with, and we won't have a backup plan. Some areas won't even be remotely affected by this, and people have already created hybrid and electrically powered vehicles. Perhaps if you were to bike more and get used to the idea of not driving, then you will be ready for the inevitable to occur. Although you don't have to cut cars out of your life completely, it's a good idea to start relying more on things that won't run out.

Overall, driving is fun and gets you to far places in much shorter times than it would take you if you walked there. However, there are many dangers and negative effects that come from driving. To recap, the green house gasses that come from cars are dangerous and harmful to our planet, and there should be efforts to lessen these gasses, even it is simply by car pooling or by taking public transportation. Also, people's excessive driving caused an entire city to have to ban driving vehicles.",0
267cc695,0,"The using of cars has caused much of the worlds green house gas imitions, in America as much as 50% of the imitions are caused souly by transportation. Many people feel that this is destroying our atmosphere and that we should cut down on imitions by walking, biking or car pooling. Efforts to cut down keep our atmosphere clean and breathable. Some communities such as Vauban, Germany have illuminated car use entirely.

Vauban is a new experimental suburb where there is no street parking or driveways and the only place to park is in a garage where you must buy a space for 40,000 which has cut the car ownership rate down to only about 30%. There are as many as 5,500 residents in Vauban and most of them say they like it much better without having to worry about a car. In many suburbs however the houses are much to far apart for them to be carfree, though many areas are considering developments like this one so they can clean up the air.

Other cities, such as Paris, are forced to ban driving for days at a time in order to clear the thick smog that hovers above the city. On one day odd numbered plates won't be allowed to drive and on the next day even, volaters are fined 31. As many as 4,000 drivers are fined. Only once the smog was sufficiently cleared did they allow both plate types to drive. Limiting driving can prevent problems like this from occurring in all cities.

In Colombia they have a day where all cars are banned, chalanging the inhabitance to find alternate routs of travel for fear of the 25 fine for violators. The day without cars began in the mid1990's for Bogota, a city with a population of 7 million, has participated, but last year two other cities in Colombia joined in. Dispite the rainy weather many people still hiked or rode their bikes. Many citizens say that it keeps the cities air clear and that its nice to have a day without traffic jams filling the streets. The Day without cars is an event that many countries hope to adopt.

Studies show that many people from the newest generation aren't bothering to get a licence. Cell phones and apps make car pooling easy and the internet allows you to interact with friends without having to drive to visit them. Experts are hoping this trend will continue and that it will cut down the gas imitions. With increased use of social networking technology hopefully people will also become more aware of how they are affecting their planet and move to help others cut down as well.",0
26d2254a,0,"Driving is a way of getting around quicker and to get to places you need to go, ever since the first car was massproduced it has caused a social drift where now in this generation almost all people use a car to get anywhere. Driving is fun and is a helpful way, but imagine if you had to lower the amount of time you would spend in you car, it wouldnt be the end of the world the only negative effect of not using your car is taking more time to get there and exercising. A car releases fumes into the air which cuases air pollution, driving is one big reasons why we have global warming. According to researchers people in CarFree communities feel less stress without their cars, because having a car is a responsibilitybuying gas, not dentingscratching the car, and ofcourse keeping it clean. Driving is everywhere and has been here for awhile, driving has also sadly played a role in deaths across the nation, Driving under influence, foolishness, accidents and so on and so fourth. Maybe less driving isn't such a bad idea after all, there are already country that practice less car usage, even carfree days.

When you have a car its a whole new world and responsiblitys you will have and you'll have to maintain it, but driving is not the only way of getting around, there is running and bicycles and walking which are all healthy options, maybe next time we you need to go to the local store you can take a bike or run there yourself and save gas and lessen airpollution, ofcourse one trip without a car won't save the world but its a start. This generation is closely tied to using cars and most of them don't think that when they use a car the effects it has on using a car. Cars have been a great invention but now their starting to become a lifestyle. One of the common results of driving is traffic it is seen all over the place and takes up time and cuases stress among drivers, less driving would clear up the roads and lessen stress for others and be an open opportunity for others to get healthy.

Cars make up around 50% of greenhouse gas in the United States and cars are a nasty contributer to Global warming the fumes of the cars go in the air and get trapped there and hurt the ozone layer, also gasoline a source we find underground which we are using more and more than we get and it is a nonrenewable resource, we break down mountains just to find this resource. Oil has caused political disputes and the loss of forest,enviorments and more. When a car is destroyed it is sent to the scrapyard which is a big land just for destroyed cars and it takes up space, and it once could have been a nice forest. Car usage also is the producer of smog, sometimes smog is so bad in country they would have to ban carusage for a number of days that means we are abusing cars just a little too much.

Lastly, CarFree is not new or scaring it actually is a rising trend country have done CarFree day and the culture is spreading across the areas, being outside without a car using a bike or skateboard is a nice calm and relaxing way to spend a day and thousands of people seem to think so too, statistics say in the US the amount of cars being bought is slowly declining and driving less and the amount of licenses being optained is too. In some states there bike sharing programs and communities without cars. CarFree communties are a great way to save enviorment, lessen air pollution and to connect the community together instead of passing by taking a walk and or taking a bike ride with someone you would want to be with, and instead of hearing the constant sound of a motor engine hear the sound of children at play. Lessening carusage can save money, less stress, and make you view things in a different perspective or even CarPool so others don't have to use their cars.",0
27eaf91f,1,"dear state senator, As you know America is very different from other countries. We are known as the land of the free, but then why cant we the people choose our president? The electoral college takes that right away from us. Americans have the right to vote so why would we be ignored and have our vote discarded. Many people dont agree with the electoral college system becase it strips people of their say and opinion in politics theres also the possibility of what people call a diastor factor. Despite it not being the best way to choose a president there are some pros to using the electoral college system, for instance runoff elections, where the amount of popular votes are too close or when ""no candidate recieves a majority of votes cast"" sited from source 3 but then again thats very rare.

The electoral college has someone voting in our places. A state representative cant say yes to all the candidates so why are they choosing for us we know who we want in office we as americans have a voice and a say in who is our leader. The amount of votes depends on how many people live in each state but ""because each state casts only one vote,the single representative from wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, woud have as much say as the 55 representatives from california who represent 35 million voters"" as sited from source 2 with all representatives choosing the same candidate how can you expect them to reflect the will of the people?

disaster factors are the best argument againt the electoral college ""back in 1960 segragationists in the louisiana legislator nearly succeeded in replacing the democratic electors with new electors who would oppose john f kennedy so that a popular vote for kennedy would not have actually gone to kennedy "" thers also the fact that ""in the same vein and faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for whomever they please""as both sited from source 2 these disaster factors just prove how the electoral college can fail to choose a candidate fairly.

To summarize i would like to restate that the electoral college takes away americans freedom of choice,it also does not allow people to choose who they think would help benefit our country,and the chance of disaster factors it could brings into play.",0
27ef9738,0,"Cars have been used and started to rise since World War II. Vehicles have trended to make them fit our life and culture. But there has been so many tragic events taking place because of the use of cars and people debates whether cars should be used or not. It will be a great idea to limit cars because it will protect the environment, cut difficulties while on the road and improve safety and business.

Initially, it would be a great option to limit cars because it will protect the environment. Cars are used to make it easier to transport places but it does not help protect the world around. Cars cause damage to the whole atmosphere and can harm many. For instance, in Paris, people are fined for driving because of the smog polluted in the air. According to the passage ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals. The use of driving vehicles can make it difficult to live in the world.

Furthermore, limiting the use of cars will be a big advantage to the world because it can cut difficulties while on the road. The less use of cars will lead to better circumstances while on the road. It will be easier for buses or delivery trucks to do their tasks quicker and more efficient. For example, in Bogota, many parks and sports centers have been replaced with smooth sidewalks which cut rush hour situations and traffic. The roads will be wider and more smooth for the environment.

Moreover, it would be a great idea to limit the use of cars because it will improve safety and business. Most instances when cars weren't used in different regions of the world, it led to the improvement of businesses but also better safety. In Vauban, having less placement for cars created more safety for customers to go into their desired place. It also has been more accessible and compact to public transportation. Limiting less cars progresses the world all around.

In conclusion, it will be a huge advantage to limit the use of cars because it will protect the environment, cut difficulties while on the road, and improve businesses and safety. Using less cars will not only protect ourselves but protect the world that we live in.",0
27fb60f2,1,"Dear Senator, I am writing you to explain why the Electoral College system of choosing the president should be changed. The president should be chosen based on popular vote instead of the current system. The Electoral College system is unfair to certain states and somewhat confusing to others. I am certain that my views on this issue are not the only ones.

First off, the Electoral College system is unfair to states. Candidates for president don't spend time in states that they know they have no chance of winning in. This is due to the Electoral College morphing the states into a winnertakesall system as said by the Office of the Federal register in ""What is the Electoral College?"". This means that the winning popular vote in each state wins the electoral vote for that state as well. The thing is, however the number of people voting compared to the number of electoral votes is unfair. I am aware that the number of electoral votes comes from the state's population, but imagine this California, which has 55 electoral votes gets visited by this tobepresident and wins it over only by a small margin. Wyoming, which has 3 electoral votes, doesn't get a visit by this candidate because he thinks that 55 votes is more important than three and a large majority of this state votes against him. The candidate then loses three electoral votes, but wins 55. Sounds like everything works out well right? Wrong. The other half of the voters in California combined with the majority of voters in Wyoming could have taken the vote if it weren't for the Electoral College. With popular vote the candidates would have to actually care about the states like Wyoming instead of ignoring them with Electoral College. With the popular vote system everyone has a say.

To continue, the Electoral College should be replace because of the confusion it causes. Most people believe that when they vote they are voting for president. However, what they dont know is that they are actually voting for a slate of electors. This slate of electors then votes for who they want to be president, and this might not always be the choice you want. With the popular vote system there would be no confusion and no voting on people who you want to vote for you. Do we really know who we're voting for? Or are we just going on luck? The reason why so many americans do not vote is because they think that even though they vote, they do not have a say on who's gonna win. With the popular vote system we could directly vote on who we belive to be the right choice for president.

In conclusion, the Electoral College system should be replaced because with a popular vote system there would be fairness to all states and no confusion on who you're really voting on. With all of this said, I hope you consider my request and try to make a change.",0
284d8bfa,0,"Cars have been a great way of transportation that has been around since the early days. It's a fast and simple way of getting to where you need to be at the right time. However, there are many downsides to cars, also, especially when it deals with environmental circumstances. Therefore, car use should be limited due the fact that limiting car use will reduce greenhouse gasses, conserve resources we need in order to live that is nonrenewable, and allows for communities to be more connected by preserving the environment.

To begin with, car usage is becoming a major issue for the world today due to pollution. Greenhouse gasses are being leaked into the atmosphere each day to cars' transmission fuels. According to Source 1, it states, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" These gasses damage ecosystems, and leave many environments unstable due to its destruction. It can also effect human beings, also. According to Source 2, the passage says, ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals... Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London, Reuters found."" This pollution that is occurring around the world can damage our health if not taken care of. By limiting car usage, it would not only benefit the environment, but our health also.

Preceding on, along with the benefits of the environment and our health, limiting car usage will also save help save many resources we use in cars that is nonrenewable resources. Nonrenewable resources are resources that can not be replaced when it is used up. These resources are resources that are important to our every day lives, as we've gotten used to having these resources and would suffer without them. According to Source 2, it states, ""Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has... a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compares to 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters."" Diesel is an important nonrenewable resource that we need that is causing pollution and smog in many places. By limiting the car usage, it would conserve these resources.

furthermore, limiting car usage would also help bring many communities together. If a whole community got together and decided to limit car usage with the whole community involved, it would give a sense of unity and benefit the community, also. An example of this was the residents of Vauban, Germany. In Source 1, the passage states ""As a result, 70 percent of Vauban's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. 'When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."" Due to the limiting of driving cars, many people actually felt more of a sens of relief rather than with cars. In Source 3, it says, "" Bogota, Colombia In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoif of traffic jams. It was the third straight yeat cars have been permitted for the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog."" This community was able to come together as a whole in order to reach the goal of reducing smog and allowing for an alternative transportation method. By limiting car usage, communities are able to act more of a community rather than individuals.

All in all, limiting car usage would be beneficial to the world. The advantages of limiting car usage would be the reduction of greenhouse gasses and smog, the conservation of nonrenewable resources used in cars, and making communities stronger by coming together to stop the driving of cars. Cars are a big and major part of the world today, but it can be more beneficial to limit it rather than continue it.",0
2882df77,1,"The Electoral College has been a part of America since the beginning, but is it fair? Our country is a Democracy, which means "" For the People"" or "" By the People"". The Electoral College is not By the People. Yes, it has historical value, but it no longer is what a Democracy is because of population changes and states being added to the country.

To begin with, Source 2 states "" The Electoral College is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state."" There is a popularity vote and then the Electoral College vote, most citizens think that the popularity vote will win because that candidate is the person that the people chose. That is not the case. It just depends on basically how big your state is and how popular a candidate is in that state. The population is the biggest factor that the candidates think about because if they win that state they are closer to winning the election. There are people who want to abolish the Electoral College including past presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. It really just isn't fair to the people that who they vote for and who wins the popular vote may not have a chance to win because heshe did not get the Electoral College votes.

In addition, Source 3 states "" The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense...it is the electorss who vote for a president, no the people."" When you vote in your state you are actually voting for an electors and not the presidential candidate. In 2000 the popular vote was higher for Al Gore than it was for George Bush, but Bush won the presidential election because he had a higher number of electorss in the electorsal college. In a real democracy Gore would have won because of the fact he was more popular. The people want to vote directly for the candidate they want not for some person that has been trusted to vote for a party's nominee.

Finally, The Electoral College is kind of fair in a way because it is based off population in each state. There is also an equal number of electorss. Source 1 states "" The founding fathers established it the electorsal college in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by popular vote of qualified citizens."" I understand that it is a law set by the men who created our country and it worked back then. It just isn't working in present day.

In conclusion, The Electoral College was created by the founding fathers back when the U.S. was small and didn't have a huge population like we do today. It worked back then, but now there are 50 states and millions of people. They want to be heard. The popular vote would make more sense than having states with huge populations deciding the fate of the election, when it should by popularity of the candidate. We need to restore our democracy and have the election be By the People.",0
28d4b384,1,"Since our beautiful country was born we've always used the Electoral College system to elect our presidents. It's time that we modify this old rule and change it to the popular vote, because it's simply unfair to all the hardworking people that leave work early and have to wait in line for hours to fill out a little white paper. The Electoral does not allow for everyone's voice to be heard. Clearly, the Electoral college must change to the popular vote because of the winner take all method, & the confusion.

To begin with, the Electoral college is outdated because of the winner take all system. Even if the votes are off by one, whichever partygoers the most popular votes gets all of the electoral votes the United States are basically saying everybody else's voice that voted doesn't matter. This winner takes all system also deals with population, the bigger the state the more electoral votes. This ancient system is clearly stating the citizens of the smaller states votes do not matter. Although, the winner take all method induces the candidates to focus on the toss up states, it's still unfair to everyone.

In addition, the Electoral college is irrational because of all of the confusion and trust issues. Many of the citizens in our country don't even know what an electoral college is! Plus the fact that most people think they're voting for the president, but in reality they're voting for the slate of electors. It's also possible the electors that represent your party votes for the other candidate! Another major reason the Electoral college must be abolished is because the citizens do not even get to choose their very own electors! It's like buying a new car while being blindfolded and believing the dealer the car runs fine. Everyone's going to have skepticism so they should at least let the citizens choose their own electors. Then again, the Electoral college avoids run off elections.

In conclusion, the Electoral college was once a good idea for a starting country, but we now live in a elite dynasty that must have a few modifications on how the citizens elect their leader.",0
291cea6c,1,"Dear Senator, I heartily agree that we the people should keep the electoral College. Like you may already know, ""the ElectoralCcollege is a process, not a place."" Our founding fathers have made it, and as we look back into history, we realize that they were right about how a lot of things run in the U.S., so why should we question them now? Even we too as citizens know that they were right for making the Electoral College. As much as we aren't a citizen ruled society, we aren't a totalitarian society either.

A really good reason for having the Electoral College is simply recognized by saying that it kind of gives usthe citizens of America the ""power"" to vote for our president, rather than it being inherited, or voted upon solely by government officials, or some random process like in North Korea where Kim Jung Uun gets voted because he basically brainwashed his people into loving him. It gives us a certainty that we can chose the betterment for America. Also, though roughly half of the U.S. might agree, and the other half might disagree, you are entitled to your own opinion, and voting gives you the chance to show your opinion about whom you believe should be able to run our beautiful homeland as our trusted founding fathers once did, as president.

I'm sure that it has come to you that their are, in fact, several great reasons for allowing the Electoral college still run, but their is a couple of downsides. First off, the people within the Electoral College that vote for us citizens, don't vote for each individual person, they vote based upon who is voted the most in their relative area in whichever state their in, so the people don't all get their votes out. This could have turned several presidential elections around and helped the man or woman that lost in the election to win it.

After seeing the great pro's and the tiny con's, I'm sure your settled upon the opinion of holding on to the Electoral College,though you are entitled to your own opinion, you can't deny the facts.",0
295dd4ed,1,"The Electoral College, good or bad? Many may feel that the Electoral College has more downs than ups, but thats not always the case. I feel that despite these common views we should keep the electoral college due to the fact that popular vote may not always be the best way.

There have been multiple instances in which the electoral college has saved many elections due to the fact that the popular vote was too close. This ""college"" consists of multiple slates of electors. These electors are really who we vote for when we vote for president. Every states including the District of Columbia are allocated a certain amount of electors. These electors then vote for whoever won the popular vote in that state despite the other sides views. This is called a ""winnertakeall"" system. Yet there are two states, Maine and Nebraska, that have a ""proportional representation"" system. When it is done the governor creates a ""Certificate of Ascertainment"" which basically is the official way of declaring who in that state won the vote.

The Electoral College is more good then bad due to the fact that it has saved instances of a tight vote. The Electoral College does require the presidential candidates to abide by some rules. One of which is making the candidate focus on other areas rather than the region they know they will win the vote in. Another like i have been talking about is the outcome, it enables a balance that should be kept between the popular votes. It is also another way like the two houses of Congress where it keeps the balance of political choice between big states and small states. It also avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast.

Now many may find it that the electoral college are beings from a bottomless pit because of the year 2000 election between Al Gore and George W. Bush with Al Gore winning with over 60% of the popular vote. This is most likely due to the reason why he mmay have stretched out all of his visits between the states. He may have won more popular votes in total than Bush but he may have appealed to a minority of people in each state so the overall of the state wanted Bush. Some say the best argument against the Electoral College is the disaster factor. Just because some may choose not to vote for the person they are supposed to doesnt mean that the entire college is bad. These things are going to happen with people who think differently. Just because someone may think McDonald's is nasty and they refuse to go are you going to not go because they don't? This happens in everything we do we are only human, we are different, not everyone thinks in the same way. When we do it is a recipe for disaster.

So, in my opinion, we must keep the electoral college if we want to keep the balance in everything the US stands for, politically and demographically. These are facts that should not be ignored, just because some see differently doesn't mean we have to change the foundation of our society.",0
29cc8b5f,1,"I have been burdened with the fact that our nation's president is not decided by us but rather by a slate of electors who we vote for. I sincerely feel this is unfair to the people of the U.S.There are many reasons to be against this its hard to choose, but I'll give you my three best ones. The slate of electors could change their political views, the decision for our president is not decided by us insteadby other people and their views ,but most of all its unfair to most states because the candidates only worry about the swing states.

To begin with the slate of electors we choose could change their political views. In the world we live in nothing is certain so if we choose a slate of electors whats stoping them from changeing their view on politics. This problem makes it harder to choose a slate of electors because you are putting your trust in them to represent you, and they can change their views. However ifthe people got to decide their views would be represented by themselves so at least they know their vote counts and it wont be changed. This also takes away the worry of their vote changeing because they themselves voted. And this in the end will give you the president that most people need. So this is one potent reason to abolish the electoral college.

Moreover the president being decided by thers and their viewsis another significant reason to end the electoral college. This country was made to be a nation made by the people,for the people,and by the people.

So if our vote is decided by others that aspect is destroyed. Also if there is a tie in the electoral college the house of representatives decides who is president. The decision will be made by the house of representatives views on politics so you are giving them more power than the people. So the electoral college should be destroyed and the people should decide the outcome. This will let the voice of the people to be heard.

Last but not least most states wont ever even see the candidates because they mainly focus on the swing states. This means that most states wont see the candidates. And if the electoral college is abolished people wont feel left out and they will know that their vote mattered. This will make people feel like their still part of the nation and that their not left out. Also the candidates foccusing on the swing states truly isn't fair to the states with little votes in the college. And that is why the electoral college should be destroyed. And then after this is done the non swing states will feel important.

To concludeI sincerely feel the electoralis unfair to the people of the U.S. There are many reasons to be against this it washard to choose, but Igave you my three best ones. The slate of electors could change their political views, the decision for our president is not decided by us insteadby other people and their views ,but most of all its unfair to most states because the candidates only worry about the swing states.",0
2a48dfbb,1,"It hao nearly been two centurieo oince our country wao born from the aoheo of a war far too long to remember every ocar and wound, but we hold the memorieo of our promioeo in our Conotitution and Bill. And oince, we have upheld every right and every propooition with the upmoot reopect and worohipped it among our God. Or have we? Though The United Stateo of America hao proclaimed many good ideao and beingo in our paot for the future, it hao not alwayo been recognized. If uneducated, the regular unqualified citizen may not know that with our election oyotem, we ouroelveo do not get to vote for which preoident we believe can take the reigno of our country, rather we vote for a certain amount of electoro that make the decioion FOR uo. Thio io called The Electoral College Proceoo.

Though thio proceoo doeo not run againot the citizeno, it doeo take away a direct vote to whom you deoire in the preoidential role. Ao a moot obviouo reaoon, people want to qualify themoelveo, choooe a party, and do a lot of deep thinking not to hand the righto over to oome higherqualified politicioto that hao juot ao much chance ao the electoro running againot him but to make a decioion baoed off of their own qualified knowledge from a viewpoint of regular Americano. Regular Americano, ranging from the omall town factory worker to a traveling military man. Theoe are the citizeno that run thio country, the oneo who know the real problemo going on. Politico io only fortune to politicioto Politico io an opportunity for change to Uo.

Now, what about the bigger otateo verouo the omaller otateo? We all know that the larger the population in one otate, the more repreoentativeo they have, and the omaller the population, well...they get the ohorter end of the otick uoually, eopecially in thio caoe. When a tie occuro among the vote of electoro, it io the Houoe of Repreoentativeo' job to fix that and make a vote for themoelveo. Thio meano that the olim few repreoentativeo repreoenting thouoando of people could make a vote Although baoed off of political knowledge, it io once again otealing the popular vote from American citizeno. And even compared to a larger otate, leoo than a hundred individualo all of which have done nothing but politico are to make a decioion for poooibly milliono of votero.

There io one turn that can happen at any given election and io mootlikely our biggeot worry becauoe of ouch an open chance. Though it io oaid that there io highly rare chance in which a day would come in the election that a defiance might occur, it doeo not mean oomething oo oinioter ao toying with the election oyotem could not happen and with great cooto. Conoidering it hao already happened once when John F. Kennedy ran for preoidency, how can we not aooume it might not happen again? And even if ouch happeningo may take decadeo to occur again, what of the electoro that did not owear themoelveo to the vote they had claimed to have chooen in the firot place? We, the People, elect Our repreoentativeo to uphold Our decioiono in the party We choooe, but what io truot in thio country if we cannot even truot Our repreoentativeo to ""repreoent"" Our decioiono.

In turn, the The United Stateo of America hao done their very beot to make thio country the beot it can be, but thio Electoral College Proceoo hao many dioadvantageo that takeo away the rightful vote of American citizeno. We are all human after all, ""profeooional"" politicioto or not, we make miotakeo and we are capable of deceitful thingo. The only difference io our trained knowledge and key advantageo baoed on rank in the government oyotem. Give Uo the direct opportunity We deoerve and break the Electoral College Proceoo.",0
2a984b63,0,"Limited car usage has plenty of advantages. A few examples of advantages that come from limited car usage are lessening the amount of gases polluting the air, also it would create a friendly and neighborly environment, and a large amount of money would be saved.

To limit car usage has huge benefits we can lessen the gasses that are polluted, lessening smog. It may not sound like something that effects your everyday life, but it does. Smog and air pollution are a problem, and a threat to our safety and well being. As of right now it is'nt a life or death situation, but if car usage continues to be a huge part of the world, all the air pollution from all the years of driving are going to get so bad people, and the earths atmosphere will be extremely affected by it. Think about your kids future, would you really want them to live in a world consumed by air pollution, and emission gasses, and smog.. To give an example, ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in europe.. and up to 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the united states"" rosenthal. That just showing how much car usage affects air pollution and the air we breath everyday. Just decreasing the amount of car usage can reduce the smog, and air pollution in cities and towns.

Additionally, the less cars are used the more people and neighbors would interact. If a majority of a town just lessened the amount they go out using a car, they would walk, or ride bikes, or take busses, etc.. imagine your town, and families and their kids taking a walk somewhere, or people riding their bicycles to their destination, everyone could meet their neighbors and talk. Overall, cities and towns and suburban areas would generally become just a friendly environment. Most people want to live in a place in which they feel safe and neighborly. Teenagers and families would get more excersise then the normal. Due to having to walk, and ride bikes or other things they would be getting out of the house more instead of sitting in a car then going and sitting some place then going back home and sitting around again, they would get the needed physical activity to stay some what healthy. ""Millions of columbians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car free day""selsky. That is amazing, and it is so good for people to get out and do things like that. Lessening car usage could completly change neighborhoods and towns and citiies.

Finally, Cars in the united states are highly expensive, and not everyone has thousands of dollars around to get the car they wantneed. ""Cash strapped americans could not afford new cars""Rosenthal. Just an example that cars are not cheap and a lot of people spend money they do not have on cars. In addition to buying the car, gas must be provided, depending on the car and the amount of gas it uses up, that can be pretty expensive. Insurance is another cost, everyone has to have insurance to be able to drive and own a car, thats a monthly fee coming out of our pockets. Limiting car usage could save a lot of money, it would leave extra money every day, week or month to go out and eat once in a while, or to buy other necisities. Just about everyone wants to have a little extra money, but with a car thats frequently used can use up almost 200 to 400 dollars each month. Riding a bike, or skateboarding or just simply walking is completly free.

Advantages in limited car usage are, The decrease in gas pollution and smog, it could create friendlier neighborhoods and towns, and lastly thousands of people would save a lot of money.",0
2ac6b992,1,"Hello, my name is PROPER_NAME, a freshman at SCHOOL_NAME. It is much appreciated that you took time out of your busy schedule to read this. This letter is in regards to the Electoral College. There have been many ongoing disputes on whether or not we should keep the Electoral College in order to elect the President. It is felt that the Electoral College is not the way to go when it comes to voting for the President. The reasons being for this is that the Electoral College doesn't truly represent the people, and it doesn't allow everyone to know the true facts about each candidate.

First of all, the Electoral College does not represent everyone truly. The Electoral College is overall risky. It is stated by Bradford Plumer from the passage, ""The Indefensible Electoral College..."" , that there were several incidents regarding corrupt electors whom did not fulfill the popular vote of their state. He stated the incident in the 1960's, when the Louisiana legislature almost replaced Democratic electors, in order to not have the popular vote go to Kennedy. Electors can also choose who to vote for and have no care in who the general public votes for. Why risk giving your voice to people who are shady, untrustworthy, and won't care for your opinion? Furthermore, in the passage of ""What Is the Electoral College?"" , that most states have a ""winnertakeall"" system. However, in Maine and Nebraska, they use a system similar to ""proportional representation"". Why would the USA need this in order to choose a President? Why can't things all be the same?

Secondly, the Electoral College does not give everyone a chance to know the candidates a little better. In the passage, ""In Defense of the Electoral College:..."" , he states that candidates focus more on swing states instead of all of the states in general. This strategy creates a problem for those who want to listen and get to know who the candidates are, but live in states that don't get visited. Which in turn, doesn't allow the general public to get to know who they are. Another problem is that when the popular vote is lost in a state, those who lost no longer have a say in the election. Why have your vote squandered to the majority when you can have a direct election that will always give you a voice in your country?

To conclude, the Electoral College isn't the greatest way to pick a President. The Electoral College should be abolished for it does not always honestly voice the general public, and does not give everyone to the same opportunity to understand a candidate's motives. The Electoral College may give a clear winner and is less timeconsuming, but are we working towards a speedy election? Or towards what the people want? Over 60 percent of registered voters prefer a direct election. Which would you prefer Mr.",0
2afacb9b,1,"Dear Florida state senator, I argue in favor of keeping the Electoral College. The Electoral College is meant to be a compromise between election of the President by a vote in congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. I argue for keeping the Electoral College because of several reasons backed up with information.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that the Electoral College makes it so that larger states don't have larger influence than smaller states. If the Electoral College is removed then larger states shall have much more political power than smaller states. Which means that a small state might not get the same amount of attention from presidential candidates as a larger state would like Florida.

Secondly, the Electoral College avoids Runoff Elections in which no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. It avoids that problem because candidates can win Presidency by electoral votes instead of popularity vote. For example, Nixon and Clinton didn't have the majority of the popular votes, but they still won because of electoral votes. If the Electoral College hadn't exist then elections might be more frustrating for everyone, because the Electoral College makes a certainty of outcome.

Thirdly, the Electoral College makes sure that a presidential candidate has transregional appeal. This is good because a candidate with only regional appeal is probably not going to be a very good president. And besides without the Electoral College there would be many presidents with regional appeal with would make other states feel left out, and this could be catastrophic to the unity of America.

In conclusion, despite the Electoral College isn't exactly of democratic origins, it still equalizes the political power of states, makes sure that candidates have transregional appeal and avoids runoff elections. Overall I say that the Electoral College is very important in keeping how we choose our president balanced and smooth.",0
2bf52db3,0,"Cars are useful machines that get you around. But what you may not realize is the many problems that they may cause. The emissions from car tailpipe can cause environment issues and pollute the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Some advantages from limiting car use include environmental improvements and recreational and personal advancement. Reducing car usage would be a benefit to most cities.

The atmosphere has been at an all time high in pollution, smog and green house gases are effecting cities. In Paris, France nearrecord pollution has been occurring and Paris decided to enforce a partial driving ban to help clear the air of the city. According to the article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog. Coldnights and warm days caused the warm layer of air to trap the car emissions into the atmosphere. In Bogota, Colombia there is a declared day without cars in the capital city of 7 million people. According to the article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky, the turnout was large and even the rain wouldn't stop them from participating. Carlos Plaza which was interviewed for the article stated ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution. Using less cars will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants according to Elisabeth Rosenthal author of ""The End of Car Culture"". Overall limiting car use will be a big factor in conserving resources and lowering emissions.

This limitation of cars would be beneficial to personal and recreational purposes also and not just the environment. In the town Vauban, Germany 70 percent of families do not own cars. According to the article ""Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, citizens claim to be happy this way. ""When I had a car I was always tense. ""I'm much happier this way"" said Heidrun Walter. In this new approach of limited car use, stores are placed just a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway. This provides an easier way to get what you need in a fast and convenient manner. In Bogota, Colombia, parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city and sidewalks are being replaced, and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up. A network of public transportation could be created to save time and improve safety. Reducing car use creates an opportunity for more recreational buildings and stores to be created near your community for your benefit.

Reducing car use would be a huge environmental benefit, helping lower the amount of smog and carbon emissions. This would also create the opportunity for recreational and business improvements, which would help create new shopping districts and recreational buildings closer to your community. In general limiting car use would create a cleaner and safer environment but would still be able to provide you with new entertainment and a stronger local community.",0
2c543883,0,"Growing up in the more modern times I see many things that would seem almost impossible to someone not born in this time. Cars are becoming more advanced than ever. Although they have their advantages, the use of cars also has many disadvantages. They polute the air and they can be very dangerous. The pros of cars are by far outweighed by the cons, if you look at them in the long run. Limiting car use could preserve the earth, relieve stress, and reduce the amount of overweight people in America.

Although cars make everyday life easier, lessening the use of them could potentially ""save the world."" pollution is at an all time high and car emissions are largely to blame. In paragraph five it states that, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Euope... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" This is saying that the emissions from cars are destroying the earth. Though going to the grocery store that is two miles away may seem easier by just hoping in the car and arriving in less than five minutes, walking or biking would be better for you and the environment. Many cities are even focusing on becoming more ""pedestrian friendly"" to help boost the enthusiasm of cutting the use of cars. Walking is not the only option either, using hybrid cars, carpooling, or public transportation is also an option. Though still involving the use of cars, emissions would be reduced greatly. Also, emissions can cause sickness. In large cities where cars are depended on there is Smog. Smog is a thick black cloud of pollution that hangs in the air over large cities. Smog can make you very sick if you injest it. Many people in cities that do have smog have to wear face masks when walking outside. I do not think that face masks are a new trend that everyone would like to start wearing. Lessening the use of cars around us would be a healthy step towards restoring our environment and could start a trend for others to do so swell.

Another advantage of cutting the use of cars would be less accidents. Thousands of car related accidents happen every minute around the world in automobiles. If everyone started walking, biking, or using pubilc transportation less cars would be on the road leading to less accidents. Families lose loved ones everyday just because the driver of the car isnt paying attention. Drivers have many extra responsibilities when operating the vehicle. They have to watch everything around them, including being responsible for everyone else in the car. Many people have reported being ""less stressed"" after they lowered the use of cars. Heidrun Walter said ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" when talking about moving to a car free community. Thousands are converting to the trend of using the car less and others are cutting the use completely! Following this trend would be a large benefit to yourself and the enviornment around you.

Lastly, America is known for being obese and cars support this idea. Cars make it easy for someone to get places without putting any physical work into it. Cars encourage people to be lazy. Lowering the use of cars and walking more would help reduce the percent of people that are overweight in our country. Instead of wanting to get in the car and drive to do something they could walk and get some excercise or even take a bike if they wanted to get there faster. Walking and biking are low intensity excercises making it easy for everyone to participate. Many overweight people always feel lathargic, getting out and walking or biking would also help them to feel better. Doing this would help our people and environtment become more heatlhy.

Cars are a great invention but it is not necessary for every individual to have one. Walking and biking are better alternatives. The use of cars has gone through the roof creating problems around the world. A healthy environment for our children and grandchildren is what we imagine. One does not think of using a car as damaging to the enviornment until after they have done it. Limiting car usage would turn the world into a healthier, stress reduced place. For these reasons I think it would be of best interest to try and find other alternatives to driving as much.",0
2c760000,0,"""My fellow americans,"" a phrase said by many important people, like current president Barack Obama, implicates that the speaker is trying to portray a message. So I use that phrase for a reason, ""My fellow americans, there has been a current movement to limit the amount of time a person spends driving."" There are many advantages to limiting car use, that could make a big difference in the amount of greenhouse gases.

Take Vauban, Germany for example, a neighborhood where 70 percent of its residents do not own a car. This neighborhood follows a growing trend across the world, and is flourishing. Source 1 states, ""In the United States, the environmental Protection Agency is promoting ""car reduced"" communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously."" This statement is a perfect example of this growing trend. If many suburbs follow vaughn's example, then the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will plummet. This will then cause the ozone to repair itself and global warming can be stopped. Source 1 also states, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" This statistic is shocking! If the United States is responsible for a majority of the greenhouse emissions, then why has the United states done nothing to fix this. This is not the only example of this growing trend.

Another example is Paris in 2014. Due to the abundance of smog in the air, Paris banned driving cars for a limited amount of time. This fixed their problem, but Paris removed the ban after only one week. Source 2 states, ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" Why would France stop the solution to their smog problem. The answer is, loss of revenue. Many companies during this ban lost revenue due to not being able to deliver their goods. Source 2 also states, ""Diesel fuel was blamed, since france has... a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of Western Europe."" This is a key factor in France's smog problem, and could be stopped by making a law limiting car usage.

One influential example is Bogota, Columbia. The citizens of Bogota have a tradition called ""the Day Without Cars."" They have been honoring this tradition for three years straight, and other countries around them are starting to take notice of its effects. Source 3 states, ""For the first time, two other Columbian cities, Cali and Valledupar, joined the event."" This statement shows how much of a pressing matter smog is to normal ppeople around the world. Source 3 also states, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" A day without cars not only helps the enviroment, it also mentally helps a person. If this could lower stress world wide, then less people would suffer from stress related injuries. Source 3 states, ""... and new restaurantsd and upscale shopping districts have croped up."" This tradition also helps the economy and can lower the percentage of people under the poverty line by creating jobs and helping people start their own business.

Three examples of cities or countries that have, at one time, stopped the usage of cars were shown in this essay. If all of the benefits from limting car use, like strengthening the economy, are true, then why has the world not caught on to this idea and helped it flourish. This essay has shown the benefits of limiting car use, but it is up to you to make a difference.",0
2cac6d81,0,"A major form of transportation that has been around for a long time is driving in cars.

Now, people are relying less on cars and are finding different methods of commuting. Some countries are even banning cars. Limiting car usage will have many advantages, such as reducing stress and benefitting the environment.

Cars come with a large amount of responsibility, which causes people to have stress.

Many people are actually happier without cars. Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and a mother of two, stated that ""When I had a car, I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Source 1: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars by Elisabeth Rosenthal People can be tense from having a car because they have to do things like pay for insurance, pay the monthly bill for the actual car, pay for gas, and worry about where to park. Living a life without a car means that you are saving money and you are walking and biking more. ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city."" Source 3: Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota by Andrew Selsky Due to the lowering in the number of cars, people are being able to go outside more into new parks, go workout with friends, or just enjoy the outdoors. All of this is healthy and good for a person, and causes a person to relax and feel less stressed. Due to no cars on the road in Carfree day, there is no such thing as rush hour traffic, so people do not have to worry about leaving early or standing in traffic for a long period of time. Many who drive cars tend to have road rage, causing them to shout or get mad, which is not good for their health. People that drive to work on their bikes or use public transportation will not experience road rage, which will cause them to be happier. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife. Source 3: ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky Carfree day allowed this man to go to work in a fun way with his wife, enjoying the outdoors while also spending time together. If he had taken a car to work, he might have not went with his wife and had a good time. Limiting car usage will lead to less stress and happier people in the long run.

A big reason for the great amount of pollution in the world today is from cars.

Reducing the number of cars will also lead to a better environment with cleaner air. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Source 1: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars by Elisabeth Rosenthal Pollution is a major problem in many counties, such as the United States, and limiting the amount of cars on the road will surely have a positive impact on the environment. It will not do any harm. ""If the pattern persists and many sociologists believe it will it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behing power plants."" Source 4: The End of Car Culture by Elisabeth Rosenthal Since transportation is one of the major reasons for the amount of pollution in America, imagine the benefit to the environment that will occur if the amount of driving and car usage becomes limited. This is a very ambitious goal to curb America's greenhouse gas emissions. It is proven that fuel in cars is blamed for polluting counties. For example, Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, and is also blamed for polluting the country. Source 2: Paris bans driving due to smog by Robert Duffer Smog is caused by the pollution, and is the key factor to the reason why Paris is banning driving. The only place the ban of cars will negatively effect is the car industry. People use their car sometimes for uneccessary situtations, such as driving to a friends house if they live a short distance away. ""The Internet makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends."" Source 4: The End of Car Culture by Elisabeth Rosenthal It is not always needed to drive somewhere to meet up with someone. Technology nowadays, such as cellphones and computers, allow us to call, text, or video chat with people who are far away. This saves time and gas, and will be better for the environment.

Cars are not always necessary for commuting, and they also cause stress. They are harming our environment by polliuting it with its carbon emissions. There are other ways of transportation, such as public transportation, walking, or riding your bike. Limiting the amount of car usage will lead to people being healthier and less stressed, as well as the air being cleaner.",0
2cd15a38,0,"In a world of large cities and distant suburbs, transportation is crucial, but is personal transportation truly necessary? Shouldn't there be a way of getting from point A to point B without expending an unnecessary amount of harmful gases that could one day bring around our demise? As specified by Elisabeth Rosenthal, Robert Duffer, and Andrew Selsky the answer to these questions is yes. Yes, there is hope for a healthier future without the use of bows, Toyota Corollas, Mercedes, and other modes of personal transportation that pollute the Earth. These answers have been noticed by our World's leaders and they are finally taking initiative to save our planet.

According to Elisabeth Rosenthal, writer for the New York Times, Germany is one of the many countries beginning to take notice. This is evident in the building of a small suburb called Vauban where ""life goes on without cars"". Although approximately 30 percent of the residents in Vauban do own a car, it is clear that the 5,500 people living in this small town are happier residing in a place where vehicles do not crowd the streets. As said by a mother living in Vauban ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"".

This idea of a ""car reduced"" community is not only seen in Germany but might very well soon be found in other countries such as the United States. These ideas today might just be seen by the public as what they are: ideas. However, serious action must be taken now. Although personal transportation might be seen as a necessity by your average citizen, it is not. Personal vehicles are a luxury that we use at, no only our own risk, but at the risk of everyone forced to breathe the intoxicating fumes of these polluting machines. According to recent data, 12 percent of green house gas emmisions in Europe come from passenger cars but this number is not nearly as shocking as that of the United States: 50 percent!

As stated by Robert Duffer and Andrew Selsky, writers for the Chicago Tribune and Seattle Times, Paris and Bogota have come to understand the consequences of the use of personal cars and are taking small steps to better the circumstances brought on to the human population due to the car pollution. In Paris, however, the city had to undergo a hard blow from reality for the french government to understand how crucial this change is. After suffering near record pollution, Paris enforced a partial ban on the driving of passenger cars in order to clear the air. If the ban was not respected by an individual, heshe would be forced to pay a 22euro fine. Although there were a few who did not follow the terms of the ban, the majority of the people did comply and the smog soon cleared.

For Bogota, however, the ban of passenger cars for a single day has been seen as more of a holiday. The people of this city have come to enjoy this somewhat stress free day away from cars. According to the Bogota mayor, Antanas Mockus, event the rain has not stopped people from participating in this day. This day is not as small of a step as you might think however. For it is a program set to spread to various countries where, for a single day a year, people will bike, hike, roler blade, etc. In other words, everything they MUST do to get from point A to point B.

Finally, as countries around the world begin to take initiative towards the better of our planet, the United States, one of the world's super powers is starting on it's path towards recovery. In the past years, data has come to support the fact that there truly is a shift in the American ""way of life"". As seen in recent studies, Americans are buying fewer cars , driving less and getting fewer licenses as times goes on. Although the United States peaked in miles driven in 2005 it is evident that, with time, that amount gradually declined and hit a low in April 2013 where the miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak. As a cause of this sudden hit on the use of cars researchers are beginning to ask: could the United States truly be entering a new era away from the pollution of passenger vehicels or is this just another phase?

Passenger vehicles and the gases they create could very well be the demise of our existence on Earth. This is unless, as a human poopulation, we begin to take action now. Although scientists everywhere have stressed the negative impact on the Earth brought on by cars, people are blind to see that these vehicles are not a necessity but rather a luxury. For this, it is crucial that countries and leaders around the world follow what others have done and begin to enforce the protection of the planet's health and ensure our survival as a species.",0
2ce175d8,0,"Cars are becoming a dying trend all over the world. More and more people choose to walk, ride bikes, take busses, or use alternative forms of transportation. Car companies seem to be losing business also. With more and more drives becoming pedestrians each day, it seems that private automobiles will soon be replaced by the old method of transportation, walking. This new option of transportation seems to be becoming a trend everywhere.

Less cars means less pollution. Major cities that are filled with cars seem be becoming more and more polluted each day. Big cities such as paris have taken major action, such as to temporarily ban driving, to reduce smog production. An article from the Chicago Tribune states""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city""10. Pollution is becoming a big problem all over the world. Alternative transportation is one way you can help stop the pollution all over the world.

More exercise is allowed without cars. without cars, people are forced to get up and move to their destination instead of just sitting down your whole life. Obesity is becoming a big problem now all over the world but it has a very big impact in America. More people need more exercise and getting rid of cars is an excellent solution. Even with riding a bus, you would have to get up and walk to the bus stop. Alternative transportation could be the new big thing in exercise.

You can save money without a car. Due to inflation, cars cost a ludacris amount of money in modern day. People spend their whole lives trying to pay off an automobile. Not only do you have to pay off the Automobile itself but you must also pay for the gas, parts, and tools that come with it, which price continues to rise. It is also getting harder to find money and jobs as unemployment also rises while many salaries fall. It is very important to save your money and current day and maybe spend it on something more useful than an automobile.

As automobiles begin to become scarce among many counties, more and more benefits come with alternative transportation. The benefits of being able to save money, the ability to get in physical shape and to exercise more, and the ability to be smog free are all extremely important in today's society and environment. Automobile businesses are even thinking of partnering with other companies that produce products such as bikes, busses, or even making more sidewalks for pedestrians with alternative transportation. Our economy may be falling but our enviorment is flourishing. Giving up cars and Alternative transportaion may be the next big thing. Use alternative transportation to save our earth and for the benefits that come along with it.",0
2ce71c53,1,"I profoundly believe that the United States should not keep the Electoral College because the person who has the popular vote may not win presidency, and the ""winner take all"" system causes voters in certain states to not feel like they are creating an impact. The electoral college is a process that the founding fathers established in the constitution. The electoral college consist of 538 electors and a majority of 278 votes.

In our voting system even if a candidate receives more votes than their opponents he or she still could lose the election because of the electoral college. Here is a prime example, in the 2000 election Al Gore won the popular vote but because he had less electoral votes than Bush he unfourtunetly lost the election. According to Bradford Plumer ""over 60% of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" It seems rather logical that if somebody gains the most votes in an election that the country would prefer that candidate to be the president. For that reason alone the reader should side with the idea to abolish the electoral college. Now besides somebody receiving more or less electoral votes, perhaps the candidates tied. In this case it gets thrown to the House Of representatives which will cause a Wyoming Rep. with 500,000 voters to have just as much say as a California Rep. with 35,000,000 voters. All a tie would do is corrupt the voting system even more than it is. For those reasons there should be an indefinite ban on the electoral college.

Additionally the winner take all method in some states makes voters feel unimportant. Some may argue that no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president but regions do have the power to swing an election in an enormous way. An effect of the winner take all system is candidates not going to certain states if they know they can not win it. This can basically stop some voters from wasting time and voting because they may feel there personal vote would make no difference. In the 2000 election ""17 states did not see candidates at all."" according to Bradford Plumer. How could somebody possibly feel engaged in an election if whoever is running finds there vote unimportantant to them winning the election.

In conclusion it is official that the electoral collage is unfair, out dated, and irrational. With that being said we should abolish it because it stops the voter who has the majority of votes from winning, and can undoubtably make voters feel unimportant.",0
2d56e570,0,"What would you do if you got written a ticket by a police officer for just driving your car? It could happen if we had a day that driving was banned to help the environment. I think this is great idea and we shold all get involved with trying to make it work. Other countries have done it and it doesn't seem to effect anybody negatively. The only thing this would do is limit the pollution put off in America and all over.

Cars are probably the biggest source of pollution in our world today. We use cars for everything now and it is very convenient but have you ever really thought of what they are doing to our atmosphere and ozone. Smog is one of the biggest effects from driving and its not a pretty one. I wouldn't want my city to be covered in a thick layer of foggy gas fuems. In paris the smog was so thick they had to make driving outlawed for a few days just to keep it under control. If we did it even just a couple times a year nation wide it could really help.

In columbia they tried this to help with car emissions and everybody enjoyed it. They even said other countries joined in so I think its our turn to give it a try.

The people of Vauban, Germany have a pretty much car free town. If towns started going car free like this in America the emissions would drop greatly. In Vauban evrybody really likes not needing cars and say it is much less stressful than driving everyday. If just one in every 20 cities of the United States went car free we would notice how much cleaner the air is and the greenhouse effect or global warming would be almost nonexistent.

Another thing the articles mentioned is hybrid cars. I think hybrid cars are great, I personally have one, but some people don't really understand or like them. These cars could really help save the environment in just a few years if people were to start only using them. Which I doubt will happen but they still are driven by many people and its much better then everyone driving a diesel truck around all the time.

In all honesty I don't think any of this will happen here anytime soon but it sure would be nice. The greenhouse effect is very real no matter how many people argue about it and there is thigs that can be done to help prevent it. We just have to be willing to make some sacrafices to save our planet.",0
2d6cbe85,0,"In order to inform the fellow citizens about the advantages of limiting car usage, let's first talk about how it impacts society, what will happen if society doesn't reduce the excessive amount of car usage, and what they can do to improve societies living conditions. Driving has majorly changed since back then, driving is an everyday thing for society most kids get dropped off to school by car, adults drive to work, and families go on trips by car. Driving has successfully impacted society in a positive way in this generation, but it does have some negative and unseen sides to it.

Limiting access to a car can positively change the outcome of a suburb, whether it be the United States, or Canada. According Source 1, ""In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway."" That gives the reader an idea of how the suburb is like without the use of cars, everything is closer to your house. You can walk to the nearest bakery or grocery store, creating the central idea of the stereotypical perfect town seen in shows. In order to build that idea, cities around the world are being influenced by that concept. According to Source 3, ""uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" That proves the fact that if cars are used at the minimum, the city will change for the better. According to Source 2, ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" In conclusion, with less usage of cars, the better conditions the city would have.

If society doesn't start reducing the amount of car usage in their city, it will end up being a horrible decision. According to Source 2, ""after days of nearrecorded pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of global the city."" That being said, cars cause the city to endure smog, causing leaders to input a partial ban. In order to fathom the idea of how many drivers refused to follow that law Source 2 states, ""almost 4,000 drivers were fined."" That can easily manifest the idea of how society won't be able to live without their cars, which can end up being disastrous. Smog seems to be a major result of car usage in cities, but in the future, it will lead into a worse situation. In Bogota, Colombia, an event was created to ban the use of cars. According to Source 3, ""The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog."" To conclude, if cities tried to reduce car usage, it'll drastically decrease the risk of smog and greenhouse effect.

Improving the living conditions of society will produce a tremendous amount of positive effects towards the city. According to Source 4, ""President Obama's ambitious goals to curb the United States' greenhouse gas emissions, unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in american behavior."" That being said, America is planning to attempt reducing car usages in the country. Also according to Source 4, ""recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" That also manifests the idea that America itself, is slowly reducing it's numbers of car usage. Whether it be the expensive prices of cars or the hard driving tests, the less people who drive, the better the environment. According to Source 1, ""the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."" That forms the idea that without cars driving around, children have an excuse to go walk around outside. Rather than being inside not doing anything, and taking a car ride to where they need to go Vauban's rule helps provide children with a different and active childhood.

Driving is slowly causing the countries to change, children don't go out that much. Technology already limits childrens excercise and their time outside, but driving causes children to barely be outside. Also, excessive driving can cause horrible conditions towards the environment itself. Limiting car usage and how it impacts society, what will happen if society doesn't reduce the excessive amount of car usage, and what they can do to improve societies living conditions are all explained, creating the idea that the less drivers there are, the better outcome it'll be.",0
2d91cdc2,0,"Do you ever wonder how it would be if we lived in a car free environment where cars where limited. There would not be any traffic jams,or heavy smog,people wont have to worry about gas prices. Our environment would be cleaner and better for us to live in. There are so many advantages from limiting car usage.

People with cars tend to worry about gas prices and how much money it takes to fill up their car. When limiting the usage of cars,and walk or bike it helps save your money for something other than gas. Just think of it the average person has to fill up their gas tank at least once every one to two weeks, and if they drive constantly then once every three to five days after they had just filled up their tank. Why even waste gas to go down the street to a store or to a friends when you can use a better and more conservative type of transportation, its nonsensical to even drive for a short amount of time if you can walk or bike to you destination. If we also limit car usage we wont have to worry much about bumper to bumper traffic or car accidents. Think of how much much time traffic on the highways wastes sometimes 20 minutes to an hour or two when we can be doing something better with our lives. Not to mention if we limited our usage our roads sidewalks and highways would all change. There would also be more outside attractions to do and be apart of, malls and stores would be different as well considering that if not much cars are around its not necessary to have shopping plaza because not much cars would be parked. Driving a car when only necessary would help people a whole lot and change and impact the way we live in a positive way.

Think of our environment and ozone for a minute,and how bad the fules that power our cars effect it, not only does the fules effect our environment it also affects us too. When we have a high amount of smog in the air due to cars it makes people congested because our air is tainted and polluted. How much you drive is as important as whether you have a hybrid the EPA is promoting the act of reduced car communities. Its not just cars either you have motorcycles as well that harm us and the environment ion the same way. Not only will limiting your usage on your car will be better for your wallet it would be better for you as well considering the fact that some people if not using or having a car tend to walk or bike which is exercise and it helps to benifit you out as well as your money. Driving a car when only necessary would help people a whole lot. Considering that everyone is out of shape because of our advances in life a little walking or biking exercise will benifit us from being lazy, you can even make your walk fun with music to listen to. If we limit our usage it will help our environment and our health as people as well.

Cars maybe needed if you have a job or a place that you need to go that is a far stretch from where you are. Cars are very handy i'll give it that,but sometimes they are unnecessary to use in certain situations. Peolpe like having a car for freedom and having their own transportation instead of relying on something else to get them around, but the thing is that we dont actually need cars that much for things. People are just lazy and depend on cars so they dont have to walk, take a bus ,or bike to their destination but its that mind set that most of us have and thats why our environment is getting killed slowly. We need to stop being lazy and think of better ways to get back and forth from certain areas.

Cars can are good to have for self transportation, but there are much better ways to get from place to place without hurting your wallet and your environment. There are plenty of benifits from limiting car usage for everyone. When we limit car usage we dont have to worry about gas prices or smog in our environment or anything of that nature. Limiting gas makes us better and healthier because we are finding more physical alternative ways for transportation.",0
2dbbf604,0,"Cars have become a part of our modern day culture since the invention of the first model. Many countries around the world have an abundance of car buyers and users, however others are taking into consideration alternatives. The advantages of limiting car usage include relief from stress of cars upon individuals and reduced emissions in the environment.

Cars put forth a lot of stressful trouble upon users. These vehicles are designed to transport a person or people from point A to point B, however cars are for personal use that can cost an immense amount of money. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter about her new ""carfree"" lifestyle Rosenthal,3. This ideology is spreading throughout all Europe as more alternate transportation are provided by the government. As Selsky mentioned in Source 3, locations, such as parks and sports centers with uneven sidewalks, have been replaced with broad, smooth ones for citizen's use. Moreover, many cities have provided a bicycle program to promote less usage of cars. These steps towards change help convince people that there are alternatives out there, and that we aren't limited to just buying a car and license to go to places.

Additionally, the limitation of car usage help establish a better and healthier environment for everyone. Cars emulate lots of dangerous gases that may harm our precious earth, many of which are responsible for the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect causes gases to be trapped in the atmosphere which harms our ozone layer and creates a smoglike appearance on our cities. Paris is an example of a polluted city as civilians battle against threatening smog from emissions of diesel cars in France Duffer,8. Many actions towards progressive behavior have increased the likelihood of limited car usage, such as tolls throughout cities and fines up to 25 for violators of laws. These enforcements will ensure that the environment is capable of maintaining generation after generation at a stable pace.

To conclude, many countries are pondering choices of opportunities to promote less usage of cars, while some are on their way to solve these issues, limitations on car usage have a variety of advantages for ourselves and the environment. These limits help reduce stressful situations, as well as provide a healthier ecosystem to live and prosper.",0
2e246d83,1,"Dear State Senator, I believe that we should change the electoral college to election to popular vote for the president of the United States. The electoral college is in no way fit to be the basis of how we choose the president of the United States. This country was based of of popular sovereignty and we should keep it the way that it always has been with all the decision making done be the people.

The electoral college is an overwhelmingly unfair system to voters. The accidents will not spend any of their time in states they know will not win because of the winner take all system in each state. they only focus on the tight races and some of the states dont even get to see the campaign ads. Some of the states did not even see the candidates at all. The electoral college is essentially one of the most unfair things in the prospect that the candidates dont spend time in the states that they dont think will win and the states that they know wont win are not even privileged enough to see the campaign ads.

In addition to being unfair the electoral college can cause serious damage. The electoral college have the power to go against the will of the people. Back in the '60s segregationists in the Louisiana legislature were almost successful in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would not vote for John F. Kennedy. Also during that time some electors would occasionally vote for whomever they please and not vote for their party's candidate. If the electoral college were to ever go into a tie it would be given to the House of Representatives. During this time the the states representatives will be casting their votes on behalf of their state. The problem with that is that those representatives are voting on behalf of their entire state and that means they are voting for who they want and acting like that it is something the entire state wants.

There are five ""official"" benifits of having the electoral college. The benifits are certainty of outcome, everyone's president, swing states, big states, and you avoid runoff election. All of these things are in fact true but what if you are willing to risk all of that just to be able to be the one who has a say in who becomes president. I know that they kind of do but in reality that does not really mean much if there is someone who is going to completly disregard my vote and do whatever he feels like doing. I know that all of those five benifits are important but isnt my right to have a say in whose president important as well?

Senator, the reason for my letter is that I want to have a say in who the president is going to be and the electoral college resticts that. I believe that the president of the United States should be elected by popular vote because this is America and in America we do what the people want and the people want change. We want the electoral college out and popular vote in.",0
2e2966e3,0,"Theres so many roads in the world but traffic still exists. Ever think about the amount of cars in your neighborhood?, dont you think thats probably the reason why? In the Sources 1,2,3 , and 4 all emphasizes on how having a limit of car usage can be an great advantage to society. I believe that the limiting of car usage is an great advantage. This is true because Limiting care usage lowers pollution, Decreases traffic.

With that being said , Limiting car use lowers air pollution. I agree with this because the less cars driven leads to less burning fuel. According to the passage by Robert Duffer paragraph 10 states that ""After days of nearrecord pollution, paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city.""Due to the high population in Paris and numerous amount of the owning a vehicle causes massive car pollution. Having massive car pollution can be dangerous, this inherits sickness, stress and diseases. referring to the source ""Carfree Day is spinning into a big hit in bogota,Columbia"" Mayor Of Bogota Antanas Mockus stated that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" As he rode a two seater bike with his wife. The Mayor in this content speaks the absolute truth. As you walk to your destination in the nice warm air you relive stress and diseases that were causing you to be sick before. Those are the reasons why i think limiting car usage lowers the pollution.

Additionally, limiting car usage decreases traffic. This is true because if there is 5 people going to the same place you are and all of you guys drive in that one car or bus that reduces the traffic. Micheal siva In Source 4 The end of car Culture elaborate on that by saying ""What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person started to come down two to three years before downturn, I Think that means something more fundamental is going on.""What or. siva means by this is that everyone should only have a certain amount of car per household and person Which will also lower the traffic. Traffic in paris is very long but due to the carfree act traffic was reduces. from reading source 2 by Robert Duffer ,it states ""Congestion was down 60 % in the capital of france Paris, after five days of intensifying smong."" Just in five days of no driving the air is already unpolluted imageded if you drived five days all day. Those are the reasons why i think that Limiting car usage is an advantage.

To Conclude,I believe that the limiting of car usage is an great advantage. This is true because Limiting care usage lowers pollution, Decreases traffic.",0
2e3ff22e,0,"There are different types of cars, small cars, big ones, different colors, etc. In general, we can say that cars have changed the world but, in what way? Well, people say that cars has been very useful to us all, but in reality it has been harmful to not only us but the earth swell. In many countries they are banning the usage of the cars because of so much pollution. Studies show that in Europe ""passenger cars are responsable for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions"" and to make matters worse, it is ""up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" This shows how much cars have been harming the earth by increasing the greenhouse gases.

On the other hand, some people have been getting rid of their cars because their country charges them fees for having a car and for parking swell. Other places where pollution is at the top like Paris, have banned car usage on certain days for people and if they fail to not us their cars they will have to pay a fine. All of this, causes tension and stress as a matter of fact, a woman once said ""when I had a car I was always tense, I'm much happier this way."" Limiting or not using at all your car can free you from tension and stress, also reducing pollution which will help your health.

Furthermore, studies show that in the United States people are buying less cars than before and less people are retaining their drivers license. This is something good because one of ""President Obama's goals is to curb the United States' greenhouse gas emissions."" This shows how many people are trying very hard to reduce car usage which will reduce pollution. Even young people who are considered rebels of the streets are taking this into consideration because studies ""found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009.."" People are aware of the changes that are going on like what a professor said ""different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a long term cultural shift."" Reducing or limiting car usage or not using cars at all will not only help you, it will help your neighbors, your family, and most important the earth, where we live in. Take it for granted that this will change the world once again.",0
2e445029,0,"Our social lives now a days practically depend on cars. The truth is, we don't need cars as much as many of us think. There's probably more advantages than disadvantages to not owning or using a car as often. In articles one, two, three, and four it talks about reasons why we should'nt use a car and what happens if we do so often you tend to have a healthier lifestyle, it helps the environment and ozone, and it reduces stress. So really, limiting car usage helps both you and the environment stay healthy and clean.

People tend to have a healthier life due to limiting their car use. In part of Germany the majority of the residents dont own cars. ""As she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."", Article one. This shows how unlike some parts of the world, Germany has many people outside riding their bikes, walking around and many children playing outside other then being stuck inside at home or in a car. In Article four it states, ""They organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends."". This is in New York, one of the cities with the most traffic and cars on the streets. New York made a program called the ""bikesharing program"" which has showed great responses and has kids like the ones before mentioned being social and being more active with friends.

Limiting car usage also helps the environment and ozone. In Paris there was a lot of smoke for days and they had to take action. ""After days of near record pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."", states Article two. After this ban the smog cleared a few days later. This shows how easily car can pollute the air and the environment. In Article four it states, ""Since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants."". Cars are one of the main reasons for the environment being polluted and it can be stopped easily if people carpooled, rode their bikes or walked.

Not only does limiting car usage and using a different alternative keep us active, it also reduces our stress. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife."", Article three. This was in Colombia where they had a day where no one could use their cars. The people felt relieved to have a day where they could just relax and go outside and get some fresh air. Also in Article one it states, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,""."" This was also in Germany in a place called Vauban where more than half of the families didn't own cars. This shows how using a bike or walking other than using a car helps you reduce the stress that you have that also includes driving around others that block your way or speed.

In conclusion, limiting car usage tends to help others have a healthier lifestyle, it helps the environment and ozone, and helps others reduce stress. The chairman of the Ford Motor Company in Article four states, ""Pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve saftey."". There's probably more pros than cons in limiting car usage because all it really does is make our lives harder. The long term effect of using cars is more important than the short term which is getting to your destination which you can do any other way and it's healthier and cleanier for everyone.",0
2e8c563c,0,"Man conquered its environment with advancements and technology, they make life easier but some are harmful to our environment. Automobiles were derived from carriges but unlike carriges automobiles required some kind of power to run on. Most vehicles in modern day run on gasoline, Diesel, or electricity. They make transportation easier for us but like every good apple it has its rotten side. Fumes produced by the burning of Diesel and Gasoline are harmful to our ozone. The fumes produce a greenhouse like effect and trap in the heat contributing to global warming. Although diesel engines have improved and are now cleaner our atmosphere is still taking a sucker punch. Almost every family in the United States owns an automobile, thats millions and millions of people driving increasing carbon emissions. If less people used their personnal vehicle they could save money and diminish the amount of pollution produced by their automobiles. There is no way we can obliterate car use because we have built our world centered on car use but we don't have to stop driving we could simply reduce our impact by using public transportation, walking or riding a bicycle. Walking or driving a bicycle could relieve stress while commuting and traffic jams increase your stress level do something for yourself and our environment and decrease your stress level.

The are many many reasons to decrease our reliance on automobiles yet even with many benefits we refuse to do our part. The amount of fossil fuels available in earth is limited, in the past decades we have used much of it there will soon come a day when we will experience a shortage of fossil fuel. The day will come regardless of anything because of our reliance in this source of power but we can slow down its arrival by using less. Americans use thousands and thousands of dollars a year to fill up their tanks, when they could walk or car pool and save money. They could use that money to pay bills, make improvements in their home or make a college found for their kids. Yet many preffer to drive and just burn their money away. The use of public transportation doesn't only save you money it can increase your comminities economy.

While i'm all for saving money there is a greater cause then just saving money. Although is obvious we could all use a few extra bucks in our wallet we could also use a healthier planet. We breath in the fumes that automobiles produce, carbon is not good for us its a health hazard. We are polluting the air we breath our body needs oxygen not carbon and yet that's a high percentage of what our lungs inhale. There is also the concern that carbon emissions are causing holes in our ozone layer. The ozone protects us from all the harmful rays that the sun emmits like Uvrays. There has been an increase of people sufferring from skin cancer in the last decade. why you may ask, well carbon emissions make holes in our ozone layer which in essance allows harmful sun rays to reach us. With a certain amount of exposure to radiation our cells experience mutations caused by the harmful rays and essancially give birth to cancer. Many people die because of this disease and we lament their loss but not enough to make a change. Pollution produced by automobiles has many negative effects on our environment, and health. We could decrease the damage by doing our part and leaving our car parked in the garage.

If saving money and having a cleaner environment isn't a good enough reason to limit you car usage then do for your own health. There is more to life then just driving impatienlty in a car you could walk and enjoy nature. Our reliance on cars is unhealthy for us and our environment. We are polluting our beautiful planet and causing an increase of health hazards. There is only so much fossil Fuel left we can waste it all at once or make it last a little longer. I myself enjoy the pleasure of just driving to a store rather than walking but i preffer a healthy environment over a car ride. Do your part walk, take a bus, or car pool with your friends. Every grain of sand counts.",0
2f1a72f0,0,"A car is considered by many a nessecity for everyday life however, limited usage of our cars has many positive advantages. Emissions from cars create greenhouse gasses, which are detrimental to our environment, and limiting the use of our cars can greatly cut down these emissions. Also, many people say that using alternate modes of transportation cut down on the stress they experienced whilst using a car. In fact, many people are no longer concerned with cars, and young people are beginning to stop getting licenses.

The smog, which is caused by car emissions, in Paris, France was so intense that the city had to place a partial ban on drivers. Those with even number plates faced a fine if they drove on Monday and, on Tuesday those ith odd number plates would face the same fine if they drove. The ban was so successful in cutting down the smog that the ban was lifted in time for those with odd number plates to drive unrestricted on Tuesday. source 2 Paris isn't the only city to place bans on driving, in Bogota, Columbia one day a year the city celebrates the day Without cars. The idea of this day is to help reduce smog and has even caught on in Cali and Valledupar, also in Columbia. source 3 Vauban, Germany makes owning a car unappealing to residents by only allowing two places to park and creating a city plan that facilitates alternative modes of transportation. Many of the residents as a result dont own cars and are happier this way! ""When I had a car I was always tense. Im much happier this way,"" said resident Heidrun Walter. Cities like Vauban are result of a growing trend in Europe called smart planning, which separates auto use from suburban life.source 1 People all around the world also feel positive after limited car use. During the Day Without Cars in Columbia Carlos Arturo Plaza states that the day is "" A good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" source 3 In 2013 the average miles driven per American was down 9% from the peak of car usage. This may because the Internet allow people to feel connected or possibly because many center cities renewal have made the suburbs less appealing. Whatever the reason, one things for sure, there has been a substantial drop in the amount of 16 to 39year olds getting a licence. source 4 America isnt the only place to expierence a drop in car usage. Vauban, Germany makes owning a car impractical and 57% of families sold their cars to live there, while 70% dont own cars. source 1 Limiting car usage has positive effects on the environment and has shown effective at lowering stress in people. Globally many are already starting to realize adavantages of cutting back on car usage. So while a car may seem like a nessecity, keep the advantages in mind.",0
2f216503,0,"There has beeon a major awareoness of the effects that cars have oon us as a meaons of traonsportatioon. People questioon whether or onot abaondooniong cars as our primary use of traonsportatioon is worth the health of the eonviroonmeont. The simple aonswer to that is obvious, there would be ono awareoness, ono statistics, ono movemeonts to preveont the use of cars, if there wereon't aony issue with them. Elimionationg cars as our primary source of traonsportatioon is almost impossible, meaoniong that the solutioon to this fossil fuel emissioon problem must be aon alteronative source of eonergy. As techonology has advaonced, so has the miondset the majority of the moderon society's populatioon towards the issues of cars. Has the miondset of the populatioon surpassed the advaoncemeont of techonology, or have we beeon igonoriong the fact that these fossil fuels emissioons have beeon detrimeontal to our eonviroonmeont.

The oone major thiong that has caught everyoone's atteontioon is that the health of our eonviroonmeont beiong onegatively impacted by the use of cars everyday. This is because this is the problem that should catch everyoone's atteontioon. People have this false onotioon that we woont see aony eonviroonmeontal chaonges ion our lifetime, so this meaons we doont have to worry about this onow. The problems that we predicted would occur have beeon occurriong over the past few years. A prime example of this would be ion Paris. Paris had beeon experieonciong some weather problems. There was aon abuondaonce of smog that was filliong the air, aond diesel fuel was blamed. Paris eonforced a partial driviong baon as a solutioon to the smog problem. By elimionationg cars as a use of traonsportatioon, some questioons may occur. How will exteronal delivery compaonies be able to deliver. By onot beiong able to deliver, these compaonies will lose reveonue, due to the fact that Paris has a partial baon oon driviong. Sionce this is most likely temporary, aond a ""partial"" baon, this problem may be elimionated from the coons list of implemeontiong this regulatioon. But a correlatioon occurred. After the partial baon of driviong, the smog disappeared. This shows that by elimionationg cars as a use of traonsportatioon this would have a sigonificaont effect oon our harmed eonviroonmeont.

Aonother fallacy that the majority of the populatioon has is that the oonly problem faciong the use of cars as the moderon society's primary source of traonsportatioon is that cars harm the eonviroonmeont. Eveon though this is the problem that we all oneed to face onow, there are other tedious thiongs that come with the adoptioon of cars. Bogota, Columbia, has had extreme coongestioon, has created a movemeont that has beeon so successful it has spread to other couontries. This movemeont ionvolves the populatioon abaondooniong their cars for oone day aond usiong aony other possible meaons of traonsportatioon. This movemeont eoncourages the elimionatioon of cars, physical fitoness, aond the elimionatioon of traffic jams. The populatioon of Bogota is so dedicated to this movemeont, that they have participated on this movemeont through bad weather coonditioons. This movemeont treats itself like a fuondameontal holiday to have every year. ""It' s a good oppurtuonity to take away stress aond lower air pollutioon."" Carlos Arturo Plaza participaont of the movemeont.

As you caon see the process of elimionationg cars as our primary source of traonsportatioon is a very difficult thiong to accomplish. Bogota, Columbia's movemeont to abaondoon cars for oone day is the closest the moderon society has gotteon to this. For this reasoon, there should be aon alteronate source of eonergy cars should ruon off of. By the eonviroonmeontal issues faciong the use of cars, there have beeon maony other problems that have sprouted because of the awareoness that the moderon society's citizeon has onow. Through the support of cars as the primary source of the moderon populatioon's traonsportatioon, there has beeon aon abuondaonce of users of cars. Sionce there was aon overproductioons of cars, seeiong how this is the primary source of traonspotatioon, statistics have occurred showiong the true daongers of the effects that the overuse of cars has oon our eonviroonmeont. By implemetiong aon alteronate source of eonergy that is onot harmful to the eonviroonmeont, this would fix the majority of the problems. Ionstead we have beeon focusiong oon selfdriviong cars ionstead of cars that will be able to sustsaion our eonviroonmeont before it's too late. A poteontial solutioon is eonergy efficieoncy, but the onumber oone solutioon is awareoness. Eoncouragiong awareoness is the oone thiong that caon produce more poteontial solutioons.",0
2f3c36eb,0,"Most people rely on vehicles for every day aarons. We use them to go to the store, beach, mall, everywhere, but don't people think there may be consequences? Limiting this extensive car use can benefit everyone by allowing him or her to be happy and reduce pollution.

To begin, limiting reliance on vehicles may help people become happier. In Vaubun, Germany, many have sold their vehicles and are now walking or biking to their destinations. Some parents felt that when they had a car, ""they were always tense."" 1 Instead of allowing themselves to be outside and free to move, they were trapped inside a small space. Now, they have the freedom to enjoy scenery, without a cost. In Bogota, Colombia, people hold an annual ""carfree day"". This event bans the use of any vehicle besides public buses and taxis. 3 ""The turnout was large, despite... the rain showers. The rain hasn't stopped people from participating."" 3 This shows that the citizens of Bogota are eager to attend such an event that prevents them of using their vehicles. Many believe this event is a ""good opportunity to take away stress"". 3 The event forces them to take a walk or get on their bike, without the stress of gas or tuneups. Young adults in the United States believe that getting a driver's license is not a priority. They organize summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation."" 4 This implies that they know walking is not as bad as it seems, and they do not need to rely on a car to get to places. Ultimately, this reduction of vehicle dependence can lead to less stress and a rise in happiness.

furthermore, reducing the usage of cars may help reduce pollution. In Paris, France, people have experienced ""nearrecord pollution. Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air"".2 This experience included smog, a very dense layer of water and pollution particles. This air is very dangerous to breathe and live in. ""In this city, sixtyseven percent of vehicles use diesel."" 2 Diesel is a heavier than gasoline, and is blamed for a large percentage of pollution. The ban alternates the usage of vehicles evennumbered plates go one day, oddnumbered the next. This process is sought to cut the usage and emission of pollutants in half. Walking, biking, using public transportation, etc. help reduce pollution because they are services given or provided to everyone. Walking and biking do not emit harmful pollutants. Buses allow people to commute along with other people, but stop anywhere you want. Using these services instead of selfowned vehicles will help reduce pollution.

All in all, cars are handy for going miles and miles on end, but restricting car use to go to the store or down the street can help people become happier and reduce pollution.",0
2f5062fe,0,"There are many ways of limiting car usage. Some advantages of limiting usage are people are much happier and safer, you dont have to hear the aggravating sounds of motors and tires screeching by, and air pollution is decreased majorly.

In the first passage, Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two children stated, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"". By this she means she doesn't have to worry about her or her families safety as much, being on the road is a lot more dangerous than walking. Driving you can never tell when there's going to be an accident, everything just happens so fast. There is nothing you can do to prevent car wrecks from happening. You may do everything in your power to be a safe driver but there will always be other people on the road not paying attention and cause a crash that you can't prevent. Walking where you need to go is the safest way to get around. You don't have to worry about car crashes or worrying over your families safety.

Another example of the advantages of limiting car usage in passage one is, not hearing the screeching sound of car motors or tires flying by. Instead of hearing the familiar sounds of cars passing by you hear the joyful sound of children wandering around or riding their bicycles. People find it more calming to hear the sound of a child enjoying themselves instead of hearing the roaring and deafing sound of vehicles going by. When people are at home trying to relax they do not want to hear loud noises through their neighborhood. That's suppose to be their winding down time to escape from everything. Without vehicles people would be a lot more calmer, and relaxed.

The last example came from the second passage. It states that there is a major decrease in air pollution in Paris as they enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city.One day they ordered people with evennumber license plates to leave their cars parked or suffer having to pay a fine. In the text it states that, ""Almost 4,000 drivers were fined and Twentyseven people had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine."" With this being done congestion was down sixty percent in the capitol of France. By them taking control they reduced the amount of air pollution in Paris.

By limiting the usage of vehicles we make people a lot happier and safer, you don't hear the annoying sounds of cars screeching by, and last but not least air pollution is decreased in a huge amount.",0
2f6e8e42,1,"Dear state senator, I think the voting should be based off of the most popular vote. When we go to vote all we're voting for is electors to vote for the president they choose. In my opinion the people of the United States of america should get a saying in who they want as president. If the voting was based off of the most popular vote, it would be fair to everyone.

For example in 2000 when Al gore received more individual votes then George W. Bush and Bush one ,that was unfair because more poeple wanted Al Gore as their president rather than George W. Bush. The president is going to be ALL the people in the United States president, not just those 29 electoral voters president. In 2012 Obama won the election because of the 61.7 percent of the electoral votes not by individual votes. If the voting wasn't based off of the electoral votes than maybe the united states wouldn't be so much in debt and have so many people not wanting Obama as our president. Maybe rodney would have been a better president and have took the U.S out of so much debt. After all, 53.1 percent of individual voters voted for rodney.

rodney's chances of winning by electoral college were thin because since he was in the south he had no incentive to campaign heavily in those south states. Many voters don't vote because they know their vote won't matter at all when it comes to voting for the president of their choosing. If 35 million people vote in California, it would only count as 55 representatives. Is their really a point of them voting? no point at all.

In conclusion, if you really want a fair win for the president ,the president should be chosen by the people , not the electoral college. When i'm old enough to vote i hope it will be based off of who the poeple want as their prestident not the electoral college.

Sincerely, a student who's parents voted for rodney.",0
2f77a63b,0,"In the newer ages, people were worried about how they would get from A to B. They would have the curiosity of what others were driving, as of Mr. Sav ik in the article The End of Car Culture said when he was around twenty years of age. Most relied on cars because it was quicker or easier to have their own. They always thought about the disadvantages of not having a car but not the advantages. Helping the environment, saving money, and safety of others are all advantages of limiting car usage which citizens fail to realize.

To start off, limiting car usage helps the environment and helps keep it clean. In Europe passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Experts say that the the main cause of the greenhouse not being able to reduce gas emmisons is because of the tailpipe of cars driven around.

For example, Beijing,China is one of the most polluted cities in the world. Paris,France even banned cars for five days because the air pollution was so thick. They fined people for thirtyone dollars if they refused to leave their vehicle at home. Everyone wants to live as long as they can and to have a clean environment,so why not give up your car for a few days to help contribute.

Furthermore, everyone ould love to have a little more money in their pockets instead of putting it in their gas tank. Limiting car usage is the way to go if you want to save money. In Vauban,Germany you are allowed to have a car but it would cost you an arm and a leg just to have one. For car ownership there, you would have to buy a parking space for forty thousand dollars and a home.

As a result to having to pay that ridiculous amount of money for one parking space seventy percent of Vauban families do not own cars at all. Over fifty percent of the citizens sold their car before they moved there. Having that extra amount of money helps a lot.

Therefore, the safety for others is also an advantage of limiting car usage. If most of all the people are either walking or biking their way to their destination, no one would have to worry about getting hit by a car or getting into a car accident.

In German Suburb,Life Goes On Without Cars , Heidrun Walter explained how when she did have a car she would always tense up while drivng. Now that she doesn't have to worry about driving she is much happier with walking or riding her bike.

In conclusion, Helping the environment, saving money, and safety of others are just some of the advantages of limiting car usage. Their not only advantages but benefits to you as well. As said in the forth article, the percentage of people getting their licenses has dropped. The miles of driven by one person in 2013 was nine percent below the peak in January 1995. Slowly but surly the trend of not using a car is not blooming in the European countries but in the US as well.",0
2f9a6eb4,0,"Fellow citizenis, I would like to talk about the advantageis to the incipient idea of limited car uisage. Limited car uisage iis the limitation of caris uised in a certain area, however, the limitationis all dependis on the area. Some placeis in the world completely ban caris, in which you would need to pay a fine in order to even keep your car, much leisis drive it. Other placeis isimply have limitationis on a particular dayis, in whiish on thoise dayis if you drive a car you may or may not be fined. The main advantage of limited car uisage, iis that it can reduce pollution in an area. Aliso limited car uisage, although not obviouis, can aliso help reduce car craisheis.

If there iis one major problem in the world that hais yet to be isolved, it iis the amount of pollution, ismog, and greenhouise gaiseis that hais accumulated throughout the Earth limited car uisage, however, can help reduce that problem. According to Robert Duffer, Pariis enforced a partial driving ban when dayis of nearrecord pollution occurred. ""Laist week Pariis had 147 microgramis of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Bruisiselis and 79.7 in London, Reuteris found.....The ismog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to reiscind the ban for oddnumbered plateis on Tueisday"" Duffer. Aliso in Bogota, Colombia, they have carfree dayis which help reduce air pollution. ""' It'is a good opportunity to take away istreisis and lower air pollution ,' isaid buiisineisisman Carlois Arturo Plaza ais he rode a twoiseat bicycle with hiis wife."" Selisky. Aliso, citizinis of limited car uisage areais do not iseem to mind and even enjoy not having a car, for example Heidrun Walter from Vauban, Germany, istateis ""When I had a car I wais alwayis tenise. I'm much happier thiis way"" Roisenthal. Ais ishown by evidence, citizenis agree that limited car uisage not only helpis the place'is overall environment but aliso the Earth'is environment, and isome citizenis of limited car uisage areais do not even iseem to mind it.

In addition, limited car uisage can aliso reduce fatal car craisheis. Although thiis isecond advantage iis not ais major ais the firist, in isome perispectiveis, it iis istill important. Limited car uisage iseemis to be linked to leisis people driving, ais I inferred by thiis evidence ""There hais been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39yearoldis getting a licenise.....A istudy laist year found that driving by young people decreaised 23 percent between 2001 and 2009"" Roisenthal. With leisis people driving leisis fatal car craisheis are bound to happen due to the fact that leisis people are driving. Although I may not be right, I feel ais though two or more people bumping into each other while walking iis not nearly ais fatal ais two or more caris bumping into each other.

In total, although limited car uisage may not iseem to have many advantageis, the few that it doeis have are detrimental. Limited car uisage hais the advantageis of not only helping the environment, but aliso helping or maybe even isaving citizenis from fatal car craisheis throughout the world.",0
2fe0b1f5,1,"Dear Senator, I know you have a lot of things on your mind, but I really felt the need to address the way we vote for our president of the United States. Instead of using the Electoral College, I think we should select the president by popular vote. We, the people should be allowed to control who our president is and that not always likely to happen. We can't control whomever our electors vote for. If you keep reading you will see my reasoning for not favoring the Electoral College.

First of all, I favor changing to election by popular vote because of something we might call the ""disaster factor."" Us Americans should consider the fact about how back in 2000, there was one of the biggest fiasco of the century because of the election process. Just think about how state legislatures can just pick electors, and those electors they chose can defy the will of the people. Even if we go back even further to the 1960's the segregationists of the Louisiana legislatures almost succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new ones, who would oppose John F. Kennedy.

Secondly, I would prefer that he election was decided by the popular vote because some people refuse to vote. ""These electors are called ""faithless"" electors. They refuse to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please"" stated in souce 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong, in paragraph 11.

Last but not least of all, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Only because of the winnertakeall system in each state. Because of this system, candidates don't spend time in states they know dont have a chance of winning. They mainly focus on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. Back in 2000, 17 states didn't see the candidates at all, which is not right.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I would rather have the decision to vote for our president by using the most popular vote. I feel that we don't actually get to make the decision of who our president actually is. I would like to say that the electoral college is unfair, irrational and outdated. All in all ,My opinion is that Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college! Any way I really hope you take this in consideration, not just for me, but for the people.",0
2ffc8b8f,1,"Dear state senator, The Electoral College that was established by the founding fathers in the constitution is important to all of us. Every candidate that is running for President in each state has its own group of electors that the political party of the candidate chose. I am however, not in favor of keeping the Electoral College but to change it to be an election by popular vote for the president of the United States, the reason being that it is unfair to the voters and outdated.

The Electoral College is unfair to it's voters. If the candidate has more electoral votes than popular votes then they have a higher chance of winning. ""Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now"" Plumer, Paragraph 9. The president is the leader of the United States and if most of our country votes on a candidate they think suites the best but the other candidate wins, that would make many voters dissapointed. ""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning"" Plumer, Paragraph 13. Every vote counts, and the candidate that gets the most popular votes deserves the win.

Since our founding fathers established the Electoral College it shows that it is outdated. ""The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational"" Plumer, Paragraph 14. This is the twentyfirst century, and we need to make our elections more modernized to where every voter is happy. A voter should not vote for an elector and hope that the candidate wins but be able to vote for the candidate itself. Even though there are many people against the Electoral College, it still has its defenders. ""This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency"" Plumer, Paragraph 9. As there are people who believe that whatever our founding fathers established we need to keep our tradition going and not change a single thing, but maybe it's time for a change. ""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than poeple who thing that single vote may decide an election"" Posner, Paragraph 23.

""It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college"" Plumer, Paragraph 14! The voters think the Electoral College is unfair and outdated. People vote for a candidate but the outcome is not what they were expecting.",0
30181dbc,1,"The electoral College is the way us United State citizens vote. ""The foundinding fathers established it in the constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" said a passage known as ""What is the electoral College?"" written by, the Office of the Federal Register. There is what people say is a argument wether or not to keep this Electoral College method or go back to our popular votes. I believe we should keep the Electoral College, without it there is no possible way to believe that every single person who voted actually paid attention to who they voted for and the people they voted for beliefs. The whole point in voting is to choose who you best believe depending on beliefs and what they say they will do. You should not vote if you believe the one guy has the best hair or you like his tan ect. So i write this to you my state senator that we should keep our ways since it's there for resons and those reasons are... number one, you will be certain of the outcome. Number two, the electoral collge shows that no matter what you choose it will be everyones president. Number three, since the US have big states the electoral college keeps that balanced.

""A dispute over the outcome of an electoral College vote is possible it happened in 2000but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the electoral College invariably exceeds his share of popular vote."" says a reason I agree with in a text called ""In Defense of the electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" from ""Slate Magazine"" by Richard A. Posner. I agree with this manly because it is highly unlikely to get a tie in the electoral College because there is a even number of a electors.538 to be exact.

""The electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region South, Northeast, ect. has enough electoral votes to elect a president."" from ""Slate Magazine"" by Richard A. Posner. I agree with this reson manly because even if you get the popular vote doesnt mean you become president, the expression ""Everyone's President"" in this text means to me that with the Electoral College you won't have the good percentage of the voters who voted and not cared who they picked gets stopped with the Electoral College.

""The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balence that large states by population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution..."" from ""Slate Magazine"" by Richard A. Posner. This quote from the same passage as reason one and two came from just basically states that even if you have a big state with a big population doesnt mean the majority in that state that voted for someone will nessicarly get that same person. This helps keeps this system balenced.

Everything that i have stated that was from these passages i strongly agree with. Well Senators, you might have to argue something like ""But how do we know the electoral electors are actually voting for who they should be voting for?"" Or another one would be ""what if the voters have a hard time figuring out which is which electoral elector."" Well thats a simple one because yes it can happen but its as rare as someone who puts ketchup on pizza. And if they dont know the facts about who is who maybe they shouldnt be voting because seriously like i said dont just vote to vote you should vote if you know information about what you are doing and who you are voting for snd most importantly why? So I have listed my reasons and beliefs now its up to you to agree with me or not but just belive that the electoral College was made for a reason, and that is to make voting much more fair and simple. Have a nice day.",0
30309001,0,"Throughout the years, humans have always had to get from point A to point B. To make this easier they use cars. But with air pollution and trafficbeing an issue in most countries, mayors are deciding to put down the car keys and pick up their walking shoes.

To begin with, air pollution is becoming a big issue on the Earth. Greenhouse gases are being released and most of them come from cars alone. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the UnitedStates"" Section 1, Paragraph 5. Cars and trucks are causing our Earth, our home, to waste away because of the gases they give out. If more people decided to walk to where they need to go instead of driving, then it would reduce the gases that cars and trucks give out. With more people walking rather than driving, it would make the air more clean and the Earth a better place to live.

Further more, another reason people should decide to put down their car keys is because of the traffic that cars cause. Why France was trying to get rid of smog, they banned people from using their cars. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog"" Section 2, Paragraph 14. If more people walked or used public transportation rather than their own cars, traffic jams would decrease and also crashes. When people drive their own cars they tend to lose focus and they might hit someone. With less people driving then therewould be less deaths from car accidents. Putting down your keys and walking or using public transportation, would be beneficial to not only you but also everyone else too.

In conclusion, people rely on cars every day of their lives. To get you to where you need to go, but if we continue to use cars every day and destroy the Earth then therewill be no where for us to go in the future. Polluting the air and causing car accidents and deaths is not what we need to be doing.",0
3066fd3d,0,"Since Henry Ford made the first Model T, people have been obsessed with the idea of transportation. This idea has evolved into many things between then and now. We now have entire sports dedicated to cars and motorcycles, cars powered by alternate energy sources, and many other novel concepts that have taken the world by storm. However, there are many potential advantages of limiting your use of our precious automobiles.

One of the first reasons that you should reduce your usage of cars is found all around us, in the environment. Some statistics of the current amount of damage we cause by using our cars like we do include that fact that passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to fifty percent in some areas of the United States. Imagine if we could reduce those numbers? David Goldberg, and official of Transportation for America a fastgrowing coalition of hundreds of groups in the United states, said ""How much you drive is as important as whether you drive a hybrid."" There are some places that are taking this concept to heart. One example of this is in Bogota, Columbia, where on certain days every year, a Day Without Cars in the capital city leaves only buses and taxis with permission to be on the roads. Despite the rain on the third time the event took place, the turnout was still great. There were even other cities, Cali and Valledupar, that took part in the fun. Municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the event and were enthusiastic about what they saw. The country of Colombia has made a conscious effort to reduce their carbon footprint since the mid1990s. Bogota has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths as well as parks and sports centers have also cropped up. This also in turn resulted in an improved economy as new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up. The current President of the United States, Barack Obama, has also recently unveiled ambitious goals to curb the US's greenhouse gas emmisions. Wouldn't it be great if we could all help the environment out by reducing our usage of cars?

How great would it be, if at the same time as leanding the earth a helping hand, you were able to improve your own happiness? In Vauban, Germany and several other places globally, this has already begun to take effect. The people of this city are part of the ""Smart Planning"" movement. This experimental community on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders, is taking reducing automobile usage to a whole new level. Seventy percent of Vauban's families simply do not own a car. Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and a mother of two living in Vauban, said ""When I had a car, I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" as she walked the verdant streetes where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering people drown out an occasional distant motor. The ""Smart Planning"" movement isn't just restricted to this place though. It is merely an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use. In Bogota, businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza said as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" on a Day Without Cars. Some may still say though, ""How if by giving up my car, will I be happier? I will have to find some other transportation mean and potentially have to wake up much earlier than I already to get everywhere. That seems more stressful to me."" However, due to the recession in the US, many people are having to do adapt this type of lifestyle out of necessity. Many can't afford new vechiles but still must get to work somehow. Even after the recession ends, many sociologists believe that many will not return their previous way of life.

Finally, there are already many plans in place to reduce automobile usage. At the Mobile World Congress in 2012 in Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, laid out a business plan that shows how impractical or undesireable it will be for many to own a vehicle. He also proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to create ciries in which ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions, and improve safety."" The Environment Protection Agency as well as legislators are promoting the reduced use of personal vehicles by working to induct a new sixyear federal transportation bill, rather than previous ones that have devoted about eighty percent of the appropriations have gone to highway improvements and the remaining twenty percent to other transport.

To wrap everything up, there are many reasons that everyone should try to reduce automobile use. For one, it will help the environment, it will increase general happiness, and finally, that there are plans that are already in place to make it more feasable for people to adopt this new lifestyle. Whether we will see a drastic change or not, we will not know until we try. But that all starts, with you.",0
30873a5a,1,"When you go to vote for the president are you actually voting for the president? With the Electoral Collage system your not realy voting for the candidate directly, your just voting for someone else to vote for you. Is that realy how voting should work? What if the candidate with less votes wins and is a terrible president.

Say you vote for an elector and he loses, then what is the point in your vote. Everyones vote should count right? But with the electoral college system not everyones vote counts towards the presidential election. What about those few republican voters in a population that is mostly democratic. Thats why the Electoral college system should not be used anymore. In the 2000 election Al Gore actually had more votes than George W Bush, but because of the Electoral college system George W Bush was elected because he had more electoral votes than Gore. The Article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses or the system are wrong"" by bradford Plumer states ""the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters"". What about all those other voters whos electors didn't win, shouldn't they have a say in who our leader should be?

The only person you would trust with everything on the line is yourself right? So why would you want to trust someone who you have never ment with something as important a your vote. If you asked 100 people if you could vote for them if they just told you who they wanted to vote for, most likley 99 or all of those people would say no. But they are realy just going to vote for someone who will vote for them. The article ""In defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner states "" it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely"". Can we realy trust ""rarley"" for when we are deciding on the future of our country! We must be certin that the right person is chosen for the job. It docent matter if your female, male, white, black, hispanic, human, or not human, if your the more popular vote you should be elected.

What if the wrong person gets voted in office. What if the person with the majority of the votes still docent get elected to office and it turns out to be disaterous for our nation. When your electing the president your electing the person who is going to lead our nation for four years! The person who gets elected needs to be favored by everyone. Lets say that the electoral college never exsited and Al gore gets elected in 2000, our country could be in a much better state then it is now. We wouldn't be in as much debt, and mabey we wouldnt be fighting a war in afganistan, but we would never know because the electoral college voted the less popular candidate in office. The article ""What Is the Electoral College"" by the Office of the Federal Register states "" Most states have a ""winnertakeall"" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate"". But shouldnt the winner take all for the majority votes of the whole country? There is alot of lost votes because of the electoral college system.

There are endless arguments for both sides. But with a decision as big ass who should be the leader of our country, we cant trust any system that has even the slightest chance of failing. The wrong candidate can get elected at any given election with the electoral college system. That could lead to disaster or even worse.",0
30da029c,0,"From riding horses with wagons to, driving cars. this has been a big impact on everyones life. some people drive their cars to get place to place. Others either ride a bike or even they walk to get to where they need to be. In other words some people use cars and some people dont have the money to or just dont want to. So the question remains does not having cars have a affect on our lifes?

Perhaps people think that everyone in the world needs a car that is not true. For example:In the article Heidrun Walter said that""When i had a car i was always so tense. Im much happier this way."" He said this because he even moved to Vauban where 70% of the families do not own cars and 57% sold their cars to move there. my next example will be by David Goldberg he says: ""all of our development since wwe has been centered on the car, and that will have to change. And i think he is right most people in the world are focused on what kind of car to get and how much they cost. Well maybe we as the people should spent a little less time on cars and a little more on how to better the economy.

Next, In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting ""car reduced"" communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously. Because if this happening it will end up that the world will have less accidents on the roads and highways so that means that we will have less people dying becaues of the accidents. For my next example: Vauban homes are 5500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life. But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for paking. In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway.

The other way to look at it is that hw are people going to get to work? How are they going to get to the store? Well how are people going to do all these thinds if the dont have a car. If all the car in the world was banned that woould be a bad idea because people would have to star knowing all of the bus,train and subway scheduals so that they would be able to get to work on time. But if they had a car they would not have to do all of that they would just get in to their car and go. Another reason what if you miss your ride to work and your already late then you would have to make a choice to either what for another bus or walk to work either way you are going to end up be late to work. this plan only works if everything that you want and need are very close to where you live and most of the time everything that we want and need are not even close to where we live and way to far to walk.

People all over the world depend a lot on cars but we shouldnt. A lot of time i think that people in america are just being lazy. If you think about it if we take all the cars away then we wouldnt have to pay for gas,insurance, or for that matter buy a car. If we do this everything would be much closer together and it would be in walkin distance and you would be able to save a lot of money.",0
31691725,1,"Dear senator, The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational as Bradford Plumber stated. First of all, The electoral college consists of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vise President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. We should abolish the electoral college because it is unfair to voters. It's all because of the winnertakeall system that in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning. They focus on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. For example, during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad.

One of the best arguments against the electoral college is the disaster factor. The state legislators are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people. In 1960, segragationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. This means that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to him.

Another issue that most people worry about is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. If that happens, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives and the Senate would choose Vise President.

To say the least, abolishing the electoral college is the best idea. According to a gallop poll in 2000, I am not alone. The gallop poll was taken shortly after Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency. Over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. How does the electoral college even have any defenderes left? Even in a close election in which the popular vote winner could lose the presidency.

The electoral college is widely regarded as an anachronism and I couldn't agree more. It is a thing from the past and should stay that way. The electoral college is not democratic in a modern sense because it is the electors who elect the president, not the people. Richard A. Posner even says that when you vote for a presidential candidate, you're actually voting for a slate of electors.",0
317d0afc,1,"Dear State Senator, I have realized that there has been debate lately about if we should abolish the Electoral College or not. Reading about this, you could swing either way and have a valid point, but I think my way has more valid points and makes more sense as a whole picture. The key here is the bigger picture because if you look at a small flaw of something for long enough it eventually takes up the whole picture in your mind. You may have your opions about it and I have mine but I would like to share mine with you so you can see why the Electoral College is still important and should still be used.

When our founding fathers sat down and decided to right up our federal government system, they argued emensly on voting and how it should go about. when they finished bickering and developed this system, they made sure everything had a checks and balances type of layout. With the Electoral College, "" you vote for the electors and they vote for president and vice president, and then congress counts the electorsial votes"". This idea is more beneficial then just having a majority vote for obvious reasons. With the electorsal votes and populous votes it makes it harder to choose a president just by a single vote advantage.

Now I know your probably yelling at this letter saying the disaster factor is the main problem with the electorsial college but let me finish. there have only been two times that this has happened. ""It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes then bush yet fewer electorsal votes, but that was the first time since 1888"". If this has only happened twice then I think it is something that is fixable, but should not be the deciding factor that takes away the whole Electoral College system. The main reason we have this system is so there is a certainty of outcome and not just one score that is judged.

The way this is set up is so that ""no region has enough electorsal votes to elect a president"". This is a great thing because imagine if it was just majority vote the most populated states could just vote who they wanted to be president and it would be done. No other states would be able to compete and on top of that the candidates for president would only have to campaign in the populated states where they know they are already liked. The Electoral College is there so things aren't done in a jiffy. With this system the candidates actually have to work on trying to gain supporters in states where they may not be liked in. It also makes the American people think about all the options and decide on a bigger scale that requires more then just ""one vote"" to win an election.

Can you see why we need this Electoral College to stay and not just be abolished over like it is some plastic bottle on the highway that gets avoided and never gets picked up. We need people to stay actively involved in voting and I personally think the Electoral College does the best job with this. If the founding fathers spent months upon months just argueing about this single topic, I do not think they would just blow it off last second and come up with some giberish. If this system has worked this well this long then I think they must of done something right. Please consider my opinion state senator. ""Voters in presidental elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election"".",0
318c7ac8,1,"Dear Mr.Mrs. Senator, In light of previous research I've done on the Electoral College, I would like the opportunity to voice my opinion on how the voting system should work in this country. Based off of the information acquired and with the best interest of the country at heart, I believe that the system should be changed to the election by popular vote for the president of the United States.

First and foremost, when voters vote, they aren't really voting for their candidate, but a slate of electors, which in turn elect the president. Don't you think that this method is a little impersonal? As well as the matter of possibly having one's chosen candidate not win the presidencyeven when they've won the popular vote as a result of losing the electoral vote. According to the Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong, the best argument against the electoral college is what we call the disaster factor. The system allows room for crisis technically state legislatures are responsible for picking electors, who could always defy the will of the people. An example, would be in 1960, when segregationists almost succeeded in replacing electors of the Democratic party with new ones who opposed John F. Kennedy as well as the case of some faithless electors refusing to vote for their party's candidate and pick whomever they like.

Another valid reason as to why the system of voting must be changed to popular vote is due to the unfair winnertakesall way the electoral college works. In most cases, candidates do not see all states as important, only those they think they have a shot in winning over. A way to look at this, according to 'In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep out despised method of choosing the presidents, is that a regional favorite, such as Mitt rodney in the South during the 2012 voting, has no incentive to campaign in states outside of the region because he gains no electoral votes. However, this is also a disadvantage, for he cannot expand his popularity to other regions of the country. If he does so with the new popular vote system, winning the presidency will be guaranteed. Neglecting voters that are potential supporters of one's campaign is, in my opinion, the worst way to go about winning.

In summation, the Electoral College should be replaced with a popular voting system. I assure you that even though this system might have worked in the past, but in the ever changing world of politics, some things have to be done away with, and the Electoral College is one of them with holes in the way the system works and outcomes that could possibly do more harm than good leave the Electoral College with nothing more to offer the future of this country. Thank you for your time.",0
319e1983,1,"Dear Senator of Florida, I think changing the election by popular vote for the President of the United States would be a better and and more fair way of voting. The Electoral College may work and all but even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong.

""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the President, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the President."" Voting gives people rights and freedom that not everybody has. If a voter wanted to vote for a President their vote should go towards the President, not the electors of the state, in all fairness. According to Plumer many people agree with the idea of changing the voting system by stating, ""...over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" In plumber's article he says, the single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse."" By putting this statement in his article he is trying to say that the system we have now could all go up in flames if the right thing happened to get rid of the Electoral College, so Americans should watch out. The Electoral College is unfair due to the winnertakeall system. In this system candidates for the presidency don't go to smaller states because they know they won't win with those states. They stick to the big states with more electoral votes or with the ""swing"" states. That's what I call selfish.

I understand that ""each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee..however, it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote."" If the next President were to win the electoral vote but not the popular vote that is like saying that only the Electoral College voted and not the real voters, the people.

All in all ""It's official: The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational."" I would greatly appreciate if you read this over and thought about the topic I have addressed to you. Thank you for your consideration.",0
31d00389,1,"Dear Senator of Florida, I am a 15 year old concerned citizen and I would like to address a serious problem. Our country's process of electing our president, the Electoral College. I believe there are certain aspects of this process which are both good, and bad, but still need to be revised. To fix this unfair system of election, we just need to change a few details of it, in particular, the states' ""winnertakeall"" system.

Of course there are people who agree with this method of voting, but i am not one of them, and neither is Bradford Plumer. In bradford excerpt from ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong"", He explains to us the injustice of the electors that we vote for. Most of the time electors stay with their party's candidate, but sometimes they can be persuaded to switch sides. How would you like it if you and the majority of your state voted for a certain president through your states electors, and they went and stabbed you in the backfiguratively and voted for the other president. You have just been cheated out of your vote! That doesnt sound very democratic to me.

People do actually believe in this system of voting though, hard to believe, I know, but Richard A. poster's ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" gives us a pretty good reason of why they should. Richard explains to us the method of how a larger state with a large population, which would have a larger popular vote, has more weight than a smaller state with a smaller population and a smaller popular vote. He also tells us how there will always be an outcome, no matter what. Like how Obama recieved 61.7% of the electoral vote and 51.3% of the popular vote. Cutting it a bit close there? Enough of that percentage of popular votes lost during the ""winnertakeall' method could change the election of the president.

So dont you see? ""Winnertakeall"" method just gained someone more votes than they deserved! Essentially robbing the other candidate of his votes! Once again Bradford Plumer hit the nail on the head with his description of the ""winnertakeall"" method. He understands the system and we are lucky enough he explains it to us in such easy terms. Instead of a candidate making his rounds to each of the states and raising his popularity, he ignores certain states that he knows he will get all of the votes for because he already owns a majority, 50%. It could be as little as 51% for him to gain all the votes of that state, and depending on the population of that state, lost more voters for the other candidate than an entire 's sum could give him. So candidates spend time in only a select few states trying to win the vote. Wouldn't this make you feel left out? Unimportant? Nothing but just a blip in the course of your country's history? I wouldnt want that feeling.

All ready a few states such as Maine and Nebraska have realized the stupidity of this system and have decided to change their voting method. This is why I write to you as our senator to help our state correct this process so we can fairly and justly choose our president, but what do I know, Im only 15.",0
31ecbd73,0,"Are cars beginning to go out of fashion? Over the last few years, fewer and fewer people are getting their driver's license, and less people are buying cars. That's because walking or taking public transportation where you need to go can be more beneficial than driving. Using alternative transportation decreases stress, lowers air pollution, and eliminates the cost of owning a car. These reasons are causing people to eliminate personal vehicles out of their lives.

To begin, using alternative transportation can lower stress. Millions of people around the world face the same problem every morning and afternoon: traffic. Traffic jams cause people to be late for work, causing their stress levels to go up. Stress can lead people into depression or become tense. Eliminating a car from someone's life can allow them to be happy. Instead of driving, many people are starting to walk to work, or take a public bus to where they need to go. If more people begin to stop driving, the roads will be less jammed, which will lower road congestion, leading to less stress. Getting rid of your car can be a key element to eliminating stress.

Second, walking or taking a bus lowers air pollution. In France, air pollution was so bad, the government set a oneday ban on driving motorvehicles. Instead, residents could take public busses free of charge, or walk. Anyone who decided to drive their vehicle on the day they were banned, faced a 31 fine. Another city in Colombia also started a similar campaign. Government officials in Bogota, Colombia set a one day ban in the city called ""the Day Without Cars"". The turnout was large, people rode busses, rode bikes, or walked to wherever they needed to go. This eliminated traffic james, and lowered air pollution. Violaters of the ban had to pay a 25 fine. Other countries surely will soon do the same thing.

Lastly, the cost to own a car is far too expensive. Buying a car leads to many problems. the cost of paying off your car after you buy it can overwhelm many people. Having to pay hundreds of dollars every month to repair your car or pay for gas can lead you into debt. Many individuals have become homeless because they can't afford to pay for the things they need, such as a car. Without a car, you save thousands of dollars you can use to pay off other things you might owe.

To conclude, using alternative transportation instead of a car can be very beneficial. It lowers stress, eliminates air pollution, and eliminates the expenses of a car. More and more people are beginning to outlaw cars from their lives, and it is helping the world as well as themselves.",0
31ff572a,1,"The process of the electing the president is a topic commonly debated upon. This topic must be carefully examined because the President of the United States plays a major role in leading our country and must be chosen with care. The two ways of electing our president is by the Electoral College which dates back to the founding fathers, or by the popular vote which is a more modern process. The question is, should the electoral college remain the current voting process or should we change to electing the president of the United States through popular votes? Whether you are in favor of the Electoral College or against it there are consequences to both sides. Presidential election through popular votes may have disadvantages, yet the Electoral College must be changed because voters are not in complete control and reduce the probability of an electoral tie.

To begin, according to Richard A. Posner the Electoral College is a fair accurate way to elect the president. The Electoral College requires the candidates to have a multiregional appeal and allows the most thoughtful voters to decide the election unlike the popular vote. Richard A. Posner notes in his article that the Electoral College avoids a candidate that is a regional favorite to gain votes and win. The Electoral College requires the candidates to have a ""transregional appeal"" Posner. If we used a process that allowed a candidate with only regional appeal to be elected as President this would increase the chances of electing an ineffective, successful president. Additionally, the Electoral College allows only the most thoughtful voters to decide who becomes President Posner. candidates will be chosen more carefully and thoughtfully. These voters will have gained the most accurate information and apply this to their choice. Thus, the Electoral College has some beneficial outcomes, but the popular vote is a better choice for our system of choosing the President.

First of all, changing to electing through popular votes could fix the problem of voters not having a big say in who become the President. In Bradford Plumer's article he includes that voters can't always ""control whom their electors vote for"". All of the residents of the United States who choose to participate in the presidential election should be able to have their voice heard individually. Voters should not have to rely on their state electors to choose the right president. Additionally, voters not being able to have their voice hears affects which candidate becomes elected. Sometimes the electors can go against the opinion of the people Plumer. Electors should not be the only ones that are allowed to have responsibilty in picking the President of the United States. Electors could totally ""defy the will of the people"" and it is unfair that they are responsible for the whole process of choosing the President of the United States. Thus, the popular vote is a better choice because the people of the United States should have a bigger say in their President.

Secondly, changing the electoral college to popular vote could not only help voters have their voice heard but, it could also reduce the probability of a tie in the electoral vote.",0
328a6c65,1,"January 23rd, 2015 Greetings or. Senator, There is one particular issue that has been boggling my brain recently. It is none other than the electoral college system. Irrational, unfair , and outdated is exactly what the electoral college system is. Isn't the virtues of American's built on foundations such as rationality, equalityfairness, and mobility? The head of the United States government isn't even elected to the standards that we, the American people, hold ourselves to.

or Senator, I agree with the clause ""majority rules"" to an extent, with ""winner takes all"" being on the whole other side of the ball park. If Americans had a straight voting system, meaning no electoral college, where simply stated, whichever candidate recieves the most votes wins, the process in which we elect our government head would hold truer to our values. With our current system, hundreds of thousands of Americans votes don't matter. This mass of people is citizens of eligibility to vote. Where are there rights? What does this say about our system? The ""winner takes all theory"" ignores voters. If a state leans 51% democrat, then the entire state is accounted for the democratic party. What about those 49% of republicans. Where does their vote go? down the toilet along with the credibility and accuracy of the electoral college.

Now, if this predicament occurs in near half of our 50 states, a candidate who did not recieve the popular vote will reign triumphant over a candidate who a majority of the American people elected to be their new president. According to, ""The Indefensible College"", by Bradford Plummer, Americans lose out on more than just an accountable vote. Candidates don't even spend time in the states they are certain of having no chance in winning. Logically, candidates only spend their time in the ""swing states"" where they could possibly steal al of that states electoral college votes lines 1320. Shockingly 17 states didn't see a single candidate during the 2000 election lines 2021. We sure did suceed and ignoring hundreds of thousands Americans there.

This neglect isn't the fault of the candidates though. Where shall i place the blame, or. Senator? There is no childish, frivilolus blame to be placed. Simply stated, the fault lies in our electoral college system. The candidates are just playing the game of the electoral college. The counterclaim for my argument may suggest that the certainty of outcome and the expulsion of runoff elections is enough to substantiate the electoral college. Are you saying that America doesn't have the time to recount votes to ensure the prosperity of the American people. Is that the messege you want to project? It sure isn't coming off well.

The certainty of outcome is ludicrous as well. Source 3, ""In Defense to the Electoral College"", even admits that the electoral college is a nondemocratic method of selecting a president lines 1517. Liars, we are liars then. Americans project an image of America to the world that we are a peacful democracy. However, if the way that we select our leaders isn't even democratic, why are we portraying this false mirage. The electoral college is an anachronism lines 15 16. We are a stage four country on the demographic treansitions model. Therefore, our aspirations should be looking forward and not rooted in the past.

or. Senator, I know you are a sensible man who cares about the people he represents. The people's right to vote matters, yes? Do not be so arrogant as to ignore the people who elected you. May I direct you to the preamble to our constitution? Isn't that the sole foundatio of our government? The electoral college system is a mock of the American people and an outdated idea that does not fit in with our current state as a whole. A win by the popular vote is much more commendable by a landslide victory on false pretences.",0
32d18e99,0,"Limiting car usage can seem like a far fetched idea, but in reality, it helps us more than hurts us. Limiting the usage of cars helps reduce pollution, reduce smog, and reduce the amount of obese people in the world. By doing so, it's not a bad idea to limit car usage.

Pollution, the cause of the ice caps melting, is an ongoing battle that we seem to be losing. As it states in Source One, ""Passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of the green house gas emissions in Europe and up to fifty percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"". If the cities in the United States had these limitations then our percentage woul rapidly decline. In Europe, they have already taken notice of their percentages of pollution and have started to have experimental towns in which there are car limitations put in place. In the town of Vauban, as written in Source One, ""There are only two places to park, the large garages at the edge of the development, where a car owner buys a space for forty thousand dollars,along with a home"". This is a good way to get rid of all the pollution, by having no where to park and if they want to park, they will have to pay for their space. It also states ""As a result, seventy percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and fiftyseven percent sold a car to move there"". The people that live there most of them are carless so they don't spend their money on a parking spot, meanwhile some people sold their cars to either to avoid paying for a spot, or to join in the experiment of limiting the usage of cars.

Smog, is a citafect of to much pollution in one area. Smog has gotten so bad that Paris, accordingto source Two, enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air. The ban was partial as in the article it says "" on Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a twentytwo euro fine thirtyone dollars and the next day it would apply to the odd numbered license plates"". This caused almost four thousand drivers to be fined and twentyseven cars were impounded, according to the article. Smog is a problem that can be fixed just like how Paris got rid of their smog by car usage limits.

Car limitations don't just help the environment they can help us as well. Humans have become very obese in the last fifty years then they have been in any other time period. You can blame the fast food, but you can eat fastfood and stay healthy. Car limitations make you walk or ride a bike which can get you healthier. I'm not saying go out and be Usain Bolt or Lance Armstong but it can help people to be healthier at the same time as being helpful to the environment.

Car usage limitations are a great idea, although most people wouldn't enjoy it. It helps reduce pollution which is the biggest threat globaly. It helps dissolve smog from highly car populated areas. The limits can even help humans by having them ride bikes or walk. The thought of limitations are not accepted by most people but if this is what we must do to keep the earth healthy then we have to do it.",0
33451a99,0,"The effect of cars in our world today has grown tremendously. As companies create new models of various cars, buyers don't often think twice about how these cars hurt the environment and cause serious global emissions. The production of ""Hybrids"" is the first step to solving this problem. The advantages of limiting car usage can result in a decrease in pollution, a more relaxed personal budget, and a safer community.

Pollution amounts have skyrocketed in the past several years. Due to the increase in the amount of people on the road using motor vehicles, pollution has increased and is becoming more of a threat than ever before. In Vauban, Germany, a new community has been constructed, and contains suburban pioneers that have given up their cars. They are devoted to taking public transit, such as city buses, or even personal vehicles like a bicycle. ""As a result, 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here."" CarFree Cities, Source 1: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars. The residents of this community are committed to preserving Earth by limiting their car usage to reduce pollution. Pollution is a harmful matter that can cause negative effects to an area. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" CarFree Cities, Source 1: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars. When you limit the amount of time you use your car, not only does it reduce pollution, but it also saves you money, now that you are not paying a monthly fee, or taxes on the car, or for gas every month.

In the exquisite community in Vauban, Germany, many of those people have gotten rid of their car, and are now probably saving extremely high amounts of money. Between highway tolls, gas, oil changes, insurance, and the overall monthly payment on a car, these residents are saving so much money because they are not paying for all of these necessities. When they travel, they use public transit, like the city bus, which costs a fraction of what car owners pay. Paris is trying to limit the amount of individual transportation due to the smog in the area, so they made a deal. ""Public transit was free of charge from Friday to Monday, according to the BBC."" Source 2: Paris bans driving due to smog. People taking public transit are saving even more money now. Due to the intense smog in Paris, and the busy streets, a limit was set for the amount of drivers allowed on the road throughout the week. ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day. Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters...Twentyseven people had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine."" Source 2: Paris bans driving due to smog. Compared to the amount of money car owners spend, people without a car save a lot more money.

With the reduction of car usage, a safer community will result as well. The amounts of accidents will be substantially lower. With fewer cars on the road, the risks of car crashes greatly decrease. Many accidents result in impatience at the wheel, and careless drivers. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" Source 2: Paris bans driving due to smog. Bogota, Columbia created a day for no car usage and it turned out to be a very big success, spreading across borders and leaving an impression on other countries about how limited car usage positively effects the environment. ""It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced 25 fines."" Source 3: Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota. Countries across the globe are attempting to limit car usage, and it will begin to greatly help the environments. ""Recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" Source 4: The End of Car Culture.

The effect of cars today is not a positive thing, except for hybrid cars. Countries are beginning to limit car usage and soon we will see the impact and changes in the enviromments due to car reduction. Clearly, the advantages of limiting car usage result in a decrease in pollution, a more relaxed personal budget, and a safer community.",0
336fd4b0,1,"Dear Florida senator, I am writing to you today to address what everyone is talking about which is in fact the Electoral College. It has been that topic widely talked about so i decided to research what it actually means and why it causes controversy. People have viewed the Electoral College as an anachronism and they argue it should be overruled by popular vote but it is a very strong way to select electors and it wouldn't be in use at the moment if it wasn't the right way. According to Bradford Plumer, the single best argument against the Electoral College is what is known as the disaster factor. After reading ""What Is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the Federal Register, it provided me with information like how it was established by the founding fathers in the Constitution. The founding fathers are very respected individuals mainly because they were of very great intelligence, so that proves how they came up with something professional.

Though it may seem that the abundance of people are in favor of changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States, there are people like I who believe and wish for the best like how keeping the Electoral College is the way to go. In 2000, a dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote happened but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. I agree with Richard A. Posner that it avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, I am not the only one who agrees because the facts also prove him right. With being a senator or anyone in office comes lot of pressure, Yet luckily with the Electoral College comes reduction of that pressure. It provides a clear winner when there are times of crisis like for example a runoff election.

The states with a larger capacity the large states receive more electoral votes , that is why people argue that it may seem unfair that some states get more participation in the election than others but it is actually very fair since there is more people in that state. I personally believe that the people who argue about the votes are those in the smaller states who feel they dont get the right to vote, it may look unfair but if all states got the same amount of electoral votes given than not everyone in the larger states would get a saying. Also, that is not mentioning the Swing States which are the ones who focus on the ""tossup"" states. With that pressure the tossup states are more likely to pay attention the campaign and are the most thoughtful voters and that just proves they deserve to get a majority of votes given.

Considering it may look like changing the election to popular vote may be the right option because it has many small reasons, it is better to have 5 strong reasons than a million unimportant ones to keep something very important. So I congratulate you and the people in office for keeping an open mind of what ""we the people"" have to say but also for knowing that what is in place now is right and should stay this way.",0
33853515,1,"Dear State Senator, Every four years, the time rolls around to elect a new president of the United States. Surprisingly, the president is actually not elected by popular vote. Instead we have something called the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a board of electors who vote directly for the President. In source 1, paragraph 1, the Office of the Federal Register informs us that ""The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress."" Seems unfair doesn't it? The Electoral College needs to be eliminated because of the risk of a tie and the unfairness to voters.

Although a tie seems unlikely, we have had some very close calls in history. In source 3, paragraph 18, Posner reveals that ""A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes538is an even number..."" If there was a tie, the election would be given to the House of Representatives to decide, in which each state gets one vote. In source 2, paragraph 12, Plumer shares that ""Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters."" So, in the case of a tie, the outcome would be largely favoring small states over big ones.

The next reason why the Electoral College needs to be eliminated is because of the unfairness to voters. In source 2, paragraph 9, Plumer tells ""...according to a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" This is an example of why the electoral college is unfair. The majority of the people voted for Al Gore, but he still lost he election because of the votes in the electoral college. This is stated again in source 3, paragraph 16 by Posner""...however, it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote."" Nevertheless, I do recognize that the electoral college does have some benefits to it. For example, the electoral college prevents the problem of neither party recieving the majority of votes. In source 3, paragraph 22, Posner explains ""...Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent purality of the popular votes..."" Another benefit of the electoral college is the winnertakeall method. This causes candidates to focus their efforts on the tossup states voters in these states are more likely to pay close attention and make the most thoughtful decisions about who is the best leader of our country.

The best choice to ensure the future sucess of the United States is to get rid of the electoral college. Even though it does have some benefits, the cons out weigh the pros. This system is unfair and old, and the majority of the people have agreed that it needs to go.",0
33b61c93,1,"Dear State Senator, In my opinion, Im in favor of changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. At first I was all for keeping the Electoral College. But after reading the reasons why we shouldn't keep it I completly agree that we should change it.

""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight race in the ""swing"" states."" So basically the electoral college doesn't give a fair chance to voters and that's not right. All voters in every state should get a fair chance. ""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best. It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college!"" ""The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a nondemocratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner. The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense... it is the electors who elect the president, not the people."" Which once again is not fair and isn't right. If people are taking the time to vote then they're the ones who should be picking who the president is. Not the electors. ""When you vote for a presidential candidate you're actually voting for a slate of electors."" ""The single best argument against the electoral college is what we migh call the disaster factor. Consider that the state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" This is an example: ""In 1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election In 1976, a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe."" Those are a couple great reasons and examples why you should change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States instead of keeping the Electoral College.",0
341bd6dd,1,"Dear State Senate, The Electoral College is insane. There should not be an Electoral College, the vote should be by popular vote for the presidents. People feel less important when they know that there vote does not go to the entire 538 votes. If you are in a democratic state, like Texas, but are republican, then your vote is not going to matter because the votes are just going to go to the democratic president. When looking back in 2000, Gore had more popular votes, yet he lost the election because of the Electoral College. Thats insane that he lost, because more people wanted him to be presidents, yet that is not how the Electoral College works.

With the swing states, they can really hurt one of the presidents. Lets say Florida, for example, is very close in which president is going to be voted for. That is 29 votes just from that state! If you eliminate the Electoral College, it will be more balanced and that will not make or break one of the presidents. The presidents do not bother with the states that they know they are going to lose, and they do not even visit those states. If we eliminate the Electoral College, then everyone will get to hear from the presidents, and that could give them several extra thousand votes.

Also, the less populated states, like Wisconsin with only 3 votes, feel like they are not important toward the overall votes. If there was no Electoral College, then there 500,000 votes would be a huge boost toward either president. When voting for president, the voters do not even vote for the president! They vote for the state of electors who vote for the president. Who knows if the electors will lie and represent the Democrats or Republicans and then vote for the other side.

Finally, I leave you with my last reason of why we should get rid of the Electoral College. More people in the United States want a popular vote instead. Even Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bob Dole think we should. 60% of the United States would prefer a direct election!!! That is a direct message to you that we need to get rid of the Electoral College and start using a popular vote!

I hope you consider these changes to the voting system, as I have listed some of the best reasons. The majority of the country would like to see these changes take affect, not just me. I appreciate the consideration, thank you.",0
34340945,0,"Every day, thousands of people lose their lives to automobile accidents, property is destroyed, lives are ruined, and more importantly, the Earth itself is dying. All of these things can be avoided though. By reducing the amount we use cars, we can make a great change in the world. In the following essay I will show you, the reader, how reducing car use can change the world, and hopefully convince you to begin using your car a little bit less.

The first advantage I will share with you is that using less cars means denser cities. City planners will make cities more dense to accommodate shorter walking distances. This makes going places much more convenient, and less space in the world being taken up by cities. This not only helps you, but all the people on Earth, as less forests are being destroyed to be used for land for unnecessarily large cities. Denser towns and cities also means that you can spend more time doing things you want to do, instead of traveling to where you want to go. In a very dense city, you can walk down to a coffee shop, order a coffee, walk over to a nearby store and look around there while your coffee is being made, then walk back, get your coffee, and walk to work in the same time it would take just to drive to work in a less dense city. Thins will be more convenient, and more environmentally friendly.

Another advantage to less cars being used is lower greenhouse gasses and other harmful emissions. After just 4 days of reducing driving in Paris, smog levels went down drastically. If all harmful emission cars are banned in the world, the environment would return to a much more stable state in no time. This would improve the life span of the world, and help not only humans, but also many animals to survive longer.

The final advantage I will talk about is the economical advantage to not owning a car. When you own a car, you have to pay for the car itself, plus insurance, gas, and you have to maintain the car to keep it running. This takes a lot of money out of the pockets of many families. Without a car, you can spend much more money on more needed things.

Today I have informed you about the many advantages to using less cars in society, these advantages include denser cities, less greenhouse gasses and other harmful emmissions, and more money to spend on other things. Thank you for reading.",0
343db895,1,"Dear state senator, to the people voting is the most important part of politics. You out of all people speak politics, so you should understand. Keeping the electoral college would be many more great successful years in voting because of the certainty of outcome, it would take care of the swing and big states, and it avoids runoff elections.

Disputes over the outcomes of an electoral vote is possible. The winning candidate's share of the electoral college exceeds the popular vote. In other words in 2012 Obama received 61.7 percent of the votes while rodney received only 51.3, and because almost all of the states award winnertakesall even a slight chance of popularity could change the results. It is very unlikely for this to happen. Although there are many things wrong with the electoral college like making peoples votes not exactly count, it is something to figure out.

For the swing and big states, the voting is slightly different. The voters in the tossup states tend to pay more attention to the campaign than any other place. They really get into the whole campaign and really listen to all of what the competing candidates say and do. For the big states, the electoral college does them a favor and gives them more electoral candidates. It restores the weight in the balance that large states lose by virtue.

The electoral college does us a big favor by avoiding runoff situations, that could lead tomoe complicated situations. The runoff election occurs when no candidate recieves a majority of the votes casted. These runoff elections cause a lot of pressure, and surely does complicate the presidential election.

In conclusion, staying with the electoral college process, it would maintain our problems of eunoff elections, certainty of the outcome and the big and swing issues.",0
349156f8,0,"As human beings we must care for the earth that was so kindly bestowed upon us, meaning we must do all in our power to prevent it from selfdestructing due to our carelessness. One way we seem to have recently discover we can make a difference is that the limiting of car usage is an enormous step towards our goal. Cars have been a topic of controversy worldwide, as it seems people refused to stop the usage of such a helpful tool in todays society, but as time goes on we have opened our eyes to a world of better choices. Citizens from all around see that car usage can be cut down, and it will be an astonishing change for both humans, as well as the earth. The limitation of car usage will provide a more healthy environment for the earth as well as those who live on it. Cars are a simply a machine in which we have allowed ourselves to believe that life can not go on without it. Here we will discover how truley wrong we were.

Although we all understand that these vehicles allow use to save much time by getting us to our destinations quicker, it does alot of harm to our planet as well. As stated in the article, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"", cars are responsible for 50 percent greenhouse gas emission in certain areas of the United states. The fuel we use to power our cars is released into the OZone layer, and into our atmosphere which creates a greenhouse affect and slowly, but surley destroys our environment. However, we have the power to protect the planet we live on for we have so many different choices of transportation that causes way less harm. Cutting down on driving is a simple task in which we can all participate in.

Next we focus more on how car limitation affects ourselves. Driving take a toll on us because other forms of transportation do so much good towards ones self being, but as humans we seem to always take the easy way out. If we didnt always use cars, and took a walk for instance it would improve health as well as many other things. In an artice written by Andrew Selsky it states that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" The less smog in the air, the better we can breath which will improve our health, and walking is good for that as well. We don""t need cars to live our lives. Life goes on without the use of a machine.

All in all cars we must care for this world as well as ourselves, and this is the first step towards this goal. Some fear that this change in society will have horrible consequences because we are so use to cars in our life, but these vehicles dont control us. By use limiting car usage we are providing a healthier environment for both human beings as well as our earth. Lets take the steps toward making this world a better place to live for us as well as the many generations to come.",0
34ac8c1d,0,"Cars have long been viewed as a common method of transportation from point A to point B. However, in the world that we live in cars have become a burden and limited use would be best. Efforts to reduce car usage have shown to reduce the rate of carbon dioxide produced and smog. The elimination of car use would lead way to further development for other methods of transportation. Countries have taken the first step in banning car usage and its citizens have admitted to living nice and happier lives than they had before.

Common issues faced by car use is the production of carbon dioxide and the risk of smog. Smog is a health hazard to those with asthma, young children, and the elderly. By limiting the use of a car, carbon dioxide and smog rates would plummet dramatically. When Paris was faced with smog at nearrecord levels driving was banned and after a day of the driving ban smog levels were dropping already. Cars, a major contributor to carbon dioxide production, can decrease the rate of the greenhouse effect by limiting their use. Nearly 50 percent of the United State's greenhouse emissions come from the use of cars alone. By not driving your car the rate of greenhouse emissions would drastically decrease.

Besides the nice look to a car, cars are often used because there appears to be no other way to travel long distances. Other methods of transportation such as riding a bicycle, public transportation, and even walking are viable and beneficial methods of transportation. On bike you travel further than you would walking at a faster rate, Bogota has begun the development of 118 miles of bicycle paths in hopes of reducing traffic and carbon dioxide emissions. A near 80 percent of appropriations are used on highways, the rest of the 20 percent are used on other methods of transportation. By finding other methods of transportation ie. walking, biking, public transportation the 80 percent used on highways could be used to greatly improve other methods of transportation, like public transport.

The thought of parting from our cars is a terrifying idea, however countries around the world have taken the initiative and made these ideas law, laws that are benefiting their countries. In Germany an experimental community, Vauban, has little to no car activity. 70 percent of its families do not own a car and 57 percent sold their car to move to the community. startlingly, not only is this small community a success but many residents claim to be happier than they were when they owned a car. Columbia, like Germany banned the use of cars for one day in Bogota. Not only is everyone enthusiatic of the event but this day has led to the reduction of smog in Bogota.

The question to drive a car is a simple one. Why drive a car when you can walk, ride a bicycle, or can take the bus? By limiting our car use we'll reduce the rate of carbon dioxide emissions and smog. Other countries have tested and proven that life without a car is not only realistic but very beneficial to how one feels. With the options of other forms of transportation we should limit our use of the car. In doing so we'd be improving our lives and the rate of the greenhouse effect.",0
34dcf00a,0,"By limiting car uses, many great advantages arise. A few of these are the reduction of smog and air pollution, more money saved, and a healthier lifestyle.

Places such as Paris and Bogota, Columbia have noticed the unhealthy amount of smog in the air so they decided to do something about it and the result was exactly what they were hoping for. In Paris, days went by with near record pollution levels which made them decide to do a partial driving ban to reduce the smog. Their intentions were to have even number starting license plates leave their cars at home the first day while the following day, odd numbered plates were to do the same thing. After the first day, the smog had reduced so much that they lifted the ban before the second day. In bogota, it has been their third year in a row banning cars for a day with the exception of buses and taxis. The smog and air pollution reduction in these two places alone is massive! Not to mention the amount of money they have saved.

In America, it seems that we are finally starting to cool our love affair with our vehicles. People are realizing how expensive it is to be a car owner. Source 4 shows how much the number of miles driven per person has decreased by nearly 9 percent which is equal to to where the country was in January of 1995. This realization started from when Americans could not afford new cars and the unemployed did not need them to go to work anyway. Though now that the economy has risen, we still are sticking to this money saving way. Even teenagers who are eligible for licenses and live in places where it could come in handy are not making it a priority. Instead, they are basing their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or carpool with friends. Saving money is great, but keeping our bodies strong and healthy is even better.

Because of Bogota's Day Without Cars, millions of Columbians hiked, biked, skated, or took busses to work during this time. During this day when the transportation is not just sitting lazy in a car, the city's parks and sports centers seemed to have become the new hot spot. People spent the whole day exercising and getting their blood pumping instead of sitting in their car or doing othing. By limiting car usage, we almost have no other choice than to be active! Our bodies will thank us for it later.

By limiting car usage, there are many advantages. Advantages such as reduction of smog and air pollution, more money saved, and a healthier lifestyle make it almost impossible to not want to join the bandwagon of reduced car use.",0
3551684d,1,"Dear Senator of Florida, Though longstanding and ""fair"" to both citizens and Congress, the Electoral College is completely unnecessary and faulty. Election by popular vote is much more practical and leaves room for less errors. First off, the Electoral College warps the perception of voting, for when citizens vote, it is not directly for the president. Also, the Electoral College leaves many loopholes, which cause many issues and disputes.

To start off, the Electoral College does not allow citizens to vote directly, like a true democracy. This is unfair, unjust, outdated, and irrational. The natural right of a citizen should be to directly vote for something of a passionate matter. Controversies are everywhere, and citizens should be able to have a direct say in what is done. In What Is the Electoral College?, the Office of the Federal Register declares, ""You help choose your state's electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors"" 1.6. This seems quite indirect and faulty. Can the electors be trusted? We do not know and we definitely do not want to find out. In The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong , Bradford Plumer says, ""...according to a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore thanks to the quirks of the electoral college won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now"" 2.9.

Moving on, the Electoral College also contains many loopholes in the system. It is very possible to have issues arise. Electors can become faithless, the number of electors for a certain state can be controversial, and legislatures can ""defy the will of the people."" In The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong , Bradford Plumer says, ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John. F. Kennedy. So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy"" 2.11. This unfortunate fact really shows how faulty the electoral college system really is. Do we really want so many loopholes when it comes to choosing the person who will run our country?

One may say that the electoral college has less disputes than that of just the popular vote. In In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president , Richard A. Posner says, ""A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible it happened in 2000 but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote"" 3.18. However, this is untrue in my opinion. The Electoral College has already created so much controversy and dissension, along with faults and problems. For the wellbeing of our country, it would be best to simply get rid of the Electoral College alltogether.

Overall, the Electoral College should not exist choosing the president should rely on simply the popular vote. The Electoral College is not a direct way for citizens to vote, which shows signs of America not being a true democracy. Also, the Electoral College has many loopholes that are sources of dispute and issues in America. To sum it up, this method of choosing the president, is irrational, unfair, unjust, and outdated. The Electoral College should be abolished.",0
356faec5,1,"The electoral college is pointless, I believe that it is just another step that was added to the long process of picking our new president. It causes problems between the people and the government and it takes away time that we could be using to do something actually beneficial to our country. The electoral college is not a place but a group of people who meet and vote for the President and Vice President. Each state gets represented by a certain amount of electors which is decided by the population of that specific state. The electoral college should be thrown out of the way that we choose our president because it upsets the people, it can completley change elections, and because it gives to much power to the legislative branch.

I think that the electoral college gets people frustrated with our government. They have to go basically vote for another person to vote. If I lived in texas I would go to a poll and vote for the person that I wanted to put up in the electoral college. That person would then vote for the president. It makes voters, mad why spend time for voting on people who you dont really care about when you could honeslty just vote for the President who you believe could help our country. The biggest argument against the electoral college is that it we can't control who our elector votes for. You see when you go to vote for an elector you normally vote for one who says that they are going to vote for the person that you like, but they can change their mind and now you voted for someone that is going to vote for the candidate that you didnt want.

The electoral college can completely change the direction of a vote. because voters only have one vote, the electors represent alot of the states population. For example a single representative from samller states like Wyoming can represent of to 500,000 voters and in bigger states like California can have up to 55 electors who represent as much as 35 million people. This is why the electoral college can have such a big effect on the voting proces especially since the electors represent such a large amount of people. It can become frustrating when a large mass of people elect some one and that elector changes there mind about who they vote for, because a group of people as large as 500,000 can be ruiting for one person and the elector can change his mind and now that group 500,000 is voting for someone that they don't like.

Another problem is that the electoral college gives to much power to legislative branch ""Back in 1960 segregationists in the louisiana legislature nearly succeeded replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy."" So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy because it would have been overthrown by the college. Which meens that the Legislative branch has enough power to create a biased slait. The legislature would create a group of electors that are all in favor of certain idea and you wouldnt be able to vote for anyone else because those are the people for your state. The point of voting is to give power to the people and with the electoral college in the way it completely takes that away from us. We get to vote for the electors but that doesnt meen that they are going to vote for the people that we want them to.

Yes the electoral college could have some advantages like allowing professionals to have an input into what is going on, It helps us avoid runoff elections elections that end up with a tie, and restores some of the weight in the political balance that larger states lose. But there are definalty more cons to this procedure. The constitution states that we are here to create a more perfect union but how are we supposed to create a union when the government is basically in control of everything. There is no unity gouing on in our government it more like the government is in charge and we are kind of just here. If we get rid of the electoral college it will make the people happier and allow them to actually feel like part of the government, It will stabilize elections and not allow the legistaure to change them, and will take away some of the numerous powers that the Legislative branch holds. All in all the electorla cllege os unfair, outdated, and irrational.",0
358e658e,0,"A man is driving in his car recklessly in a hurry to work. Not paying attention to the pedestrian crossing sign, he hits an innocent student crossing the street who later dies. It has been suggested that cars are more negative than positive. Perhaps we should decrease the amount of time we spend driving these machines. I believe that limiting car usage is a good thing for the people.

As source 2 states, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of smog."" This suggests thats cars can't be used in all conditions and it would be much safer to use a bike of simply walk. With the smog, the people of France didn't drive and there was over 50 percent less congestion on the road. In Paris, the government enforced partial bans to clear the air. On one day motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home, then the next day the same rule applied to oddnumbered plates. diesel fuel was at blame for the smog since 67 percent of the vehicles in France uses it and the engines of these cars were giving off a lot of smoke. This issue can be avoided all around by using more environmentfriendly ways of transportation.

Moving on to Source 4, it provides information that the number of miles driven in America peaked in 2005 and has dropped every year since then. Even with that being said, there are still thousands of crash related deaths each year. There's drunk driving, driving while texting, and texting hile too sleepy to focus, and all situations lead to deaths. Driving is a very dangerous responsibility that gets people killed. There are other ways to get from Point A to Point B, although they might not be as quick.

Those who are attached to their Ford trucks or convertible Mustangs may say something along the line of ""I'm a responsible driver, so I won't get in a wreck."" But you never know what could happen. It's much safer to take a train or bus where there's less traffic.

Car usage, the poison of society, kills the innocent. Pedestrians across the globe are at risk of careless drivers. If nothing is done, more lives will be taken and the air will continue to be polluted.",0
35cb12f4,0,"Their are so many things you can do to help keep the envierment safe to live in. Some countys world wide have already started taking these procations to protect the earth. The thing these countries have decided to change in their everyday life is to take cars away or start limiting the use of them. Now this might sound like a big deal but their are many advantages to this appeal of motor use.

Some advantages of cars being limited or just not used at all, would mean we would be saving more money. Just think about all the money you throw away to put it towards your car. Their are bills, repairs, new car if you get into a bad accident, ect. The list just goes on and on. Their could be so much more you could spend your money on and it could make are economy richer.

In source 3: carfree day is sprinning into a big hit in Bogota by Andrew Selsky it states that "" In Bogota people who violated the car usage would be faced witha fine of 25"". This is another way of showing you how much money you are wasting on your car.

Another advantage to not owning or using a car would be the pollution levels in the earths atmosphere would go down. In sourse 2:paris bans driving due to smog by Robert Duffer it states that ""after days of nearrecord pollution, paris enforced a parital driving ban to clean the air of the global city"". Now the people of the world should have never let pollutin get this bad. The french more of paris had smog a type of pollution for at least a week. In source 4: the end of the car culture by Elizabeth Rosenthal it states that ""As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was on January 1995"". So the cars limitations is actually helping lower the number of miles which means the pollution rate is also going down.

Their are many advantages to not using or at least limiting the use of a car. such as reducing the money that is spent on one which wouls help the economy out. Also reducing the the pollution that cars produce. These are just some of the small advantages that come with the reduction and limitations of cars in the world we live in today.",0
35cdfc71,1,"""Do voters really control whom their elector picks for""9we should switch to a direct voting system. With electoral college going voters dont always have control on who the electors from their state pick. In some instances the electoral voters vote is more valued than the peoples vote. Over 60% of voters would prefer a direct vote not an electoral vote.

the electoral vote weighs more than the popular vote, this in unfair because if a mass of people vote for one president and a few electoral voters choose the other president the people dont get the president they wanted, the electoral voters do. So we could expect that a popular vote winner couid yet again lose presidency to the electoral vote. But electoral votes blance out the states say in the vote, if a big state all votes against a small state the big one will win the electoral college balances that, but the popular vote is everyones say not a couple of peoples say.

60% of voters would prefer a direct vote. a direct vote would give the people more voice in the election instead of the few in the electoral college. If we abolish the electoral college the popular vote will be the main vote counted and there will be not more electoral college. Using a direct voting system the people will get the president that they want and voted forex. Al Gore If the electoral vote goes to a tie then it goes to the house of representatives and there each state has one representative, that one person is voting for thousands of people. That one representative can go against their states wishes and vote for whom ever they choose,So this could lead to bribing the rep into voting for some one else. So the popular vote doesnt help the president get selected.

This is why we should swich to a direct voting system. So the people have more say in who gets to be their president for the next four years. The popular vote cannot be bribed or altered. And the popular vote is everyones vote, not a few or even one persons decision.",0
35db0aa4,1,"Dear, I believe that the way of voting for a president though the Electoral College is outdated. The popular vote should be deciding who becomes president. Some Runnerups have had the backing of the popular vote and not won because of the Electoral College. Several things you should consider is people can actually vote though popular vote, the minority will have a better chance, and presidents have lost to the Electoral College.

First, People can actually vote, when people go to vote for the next president or the returning one they arent actually voting for the president they are voting for electoral votes but some state wont even allow people to vote for that. Some states the electors vote for who they want and the peoples votes they are accounting for become nothing. They go out and vote for nothing. "" Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana Legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy.""source 2 This is what can happen when poeple can vote who they want and u have electors doing it for them they will put someone in the race that no one wants to really be there. But some poeple say that the Electoral College is there to help us and to help most states have the winner take all system. "" The electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states.""source 2 which means that they won't visit every state because there is no reason to visit some.

Next, The minority will have a chance, If there ever is a deadlock in the campaign the voting will have to go to the house which will be mostly filled with the majority side. So the minority won' have much of a chance."" Because almost all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state."" source 3 that means a close election isn't so close anymore because of Electoral vote. But some people will say u can never get a tie. "" A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes538 is an even number.""source 3 continuing on that note, Runnerups have lost due to electoral vote but have won the popular vote.""According to a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore tanks to the quirks of the electoral college won the popular vote but lost presidency.""source 2 Which means Al Gore would have been president and not the other guy. Which would have changed today in one way or another. Some people do say The electoral vote is for the better. "" The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President."" source 1But why do they get to vote for them and we dont.

In Conclusion, The Electoral College should be eradicated and the popular vote should take its place. The popular vote is better because people can actually vote, the minority will have a chance, Presidents loss becasue of Electoral Vote but win the Popular vote. In the end the Electoral College is outdated, unfair, and irrational.",0
366527f4,0,"Thick, foggy air is the future for this planet if we continue on this polluting path. Although, pollution is unavoidable in the industrial time we all live in. There are still ways people may help to limit the amount of pollution. With this information,the people of the earth need to limit their use of cars. For benefiting reasons such as, decreasing the deadly pollution, the lessening of stress, and economically saving.

Initialy, Pollution is increasing drastically and limiting car use will help decrease it. The usual effects of pollution from a car is the exhaust it lets out. Also, the factories that manufacture these cars are letting off smoke which in result pollutes the air people breath. In source 1 paragraph 5, it explains that passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions in europe and up to fifty percent in some suburban countries such as the United States. Therefore, the result of cars exhaust is hurting the environment and is one of the main causes of greenhouse gases. Source 2 paragraph 15, also states the cold nights and warm nights caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions. Explaining the air families and children breath is basically coming form a car's exhaust. Overall, pollution is a catastrophe and affects evryone dramatically.

Additionally, the stress of the average person can and will be lowered if the use of cars decrease. Stress can be cause by many things, but one of those things is the use of cars. Limiting the use of cars will really help any person relax. source 1 paragraph 3, Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, states she has been less tense and is much happier. Futher more without the use of a car this mother feels relaxed which enables her to be the mothe she wants to me. Source 3 paragraph 20 explains that leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams. Knowing how stressful a traffic jam can be, limiting the use of a car will avoid that stress. To conclude, the strees relief of limiting the use of a car will impact evryone in a very beneficial way.

Lastly, there is an economic benefit to limiting the use of a car. A car cost alot to maintain and with all these expenses, its hard to find money to spend on ones self. Source 4, paragraph 32 explains the car use decreasing in america was caused by recession. The cash strapped americans had a hard time finding the money to spend on cars, which explains cars are a very expensive product. Overall, the economic impact will be beneficial to everyone because of the money saved to be used for different amenities.

To sum up, the limiting use of cars wont only help relieve stres or save money, but also help decrease pollution. Everyone would then be able to live a life knowing their childrens future will be bright. Instead of full with smog and smoke.",0
373c86cc,1,"Dear state senator, The electoral collage system has worked for many years however, citizens are starting to see through it. The system has lost control and citizens do not have control over their own country. It is unfair to voters, outdated, and the disaster factor is a perfect example going against it. Popular vote should be used in our modern society for a fair and clean vote, almost all citizens could agree on that.

The electoral collage voting system is an uncanny way for citizens to express how they want our countries future to go. They are voting for electors, not actual candidates. It isn't a straight forward vote electors are the ones actually voting for candidates instead of the citizens. Since this is happening electors actually do not have to vote for who they're representing Alas making the system very unfair and a cheat to people who live in our country. There is a winnertakeall system, which suggests that whoever is not elected is basically forgotten about amongst the people. They get nothing in return for all of their hard work, money, and time put into the election. Likewise, this system should not be used due to citizens being cheated out.

The electoral collage system of voting is outdated and old. The founding fathers created this systemmaking it a historical way to vote, but not the best way. Citizens through out the country are looking for popular vote, choosing it over electoral collage. The system may have work at an earlier date, but more and more people are coming into the world and they are looking for a bright future knowing who theyre voting for is a start.

The 2000 disaster is a great example for us to switch to popular voting. As i said, electors technically do not have to vote for who they represent. So they went against the will of citizens. They made the choice to vote themselves. Basically, the electors control the entire vote and are the most important people in iteven though the citizens are supposed to control the vote. With that said, i'm sure you can see my concerns. Electors do not have to follow what the citizens are telling them.

The electoral collage voting system should be discarded and we should adopt popular vote. All citizens would agree on this choice. Including that electoral vote is unfair to citizens, outdated, and the disaster factor happened we should most definitely consider adopting a popular vote system and make our vots fair to citizens.",0
3742c234,1,"Dear Senator I am not in favor of keeping the Electoral College. We should not keep the Electoral College for many reasons. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO all agreed on one thing, and it was abolishing the Electoral College. Another reason being, under the Electoral College System, voters vote for a slate of electors, not the president and in return they select the president. Last but not least, the Electoral College is unfair to voters.

Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO all agreed on one thing, and it was abolishing the Electoral College. This was also agreed upon by many other citizens. According to a gallop Poll in 2000, which was taken shortly after Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the popular vote. According to the poll ""over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election not the kind we have now."" It is said that ""this year voters are to expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again loose the presidency."" Under the Electoral College System, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in return elect the president. Because of this there are so many questions asked that are answered very broadly due to the fact you do not really know the correct answer. For instance, who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding the public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions, Sometimes the State Party's central committee, and sometimes the presidential candidates themselves.

Man oh man is the Electoral College unfair to voters! This may be an opinion, but it is on of many citizens who are all in agreement of it."" All of the ""winnertakesall"" systems in each state, candidates do not spend time in each states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states."" In fact in the 2000 campaing there were seventeen states the did not see the candidates at all and it was said that voters in 25 of the largest media markets did not even get to see a single campaign ad. "" if anyone has a good arguement for putting he fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in ohio, they have yet to make it...."" As you can see I am in favor of changing the elctoral college to election by popular vote for the president of the United States of America. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO all agreed on one thing, and it was abolishing the Electoral College. Under the Electoral College System they vote not for the president but for a state of electors who in return elect the president. Last but not least, the Electoral College is just unfair in so many differnt ways. These are reasons why I am not in favor of the Electoral College but in the favor to elect by popular vote for the president of the United States of America.",0
37eae9ef,0,"To maintain driving and caring for a car takes a lot of money and a lot of time. According to Source 1, Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, says, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"". Having a means of your own personal transportation does not mean happiness. Yes many teenagers will say that having a car and being able to drive is their freedom but driving is not a necessity and the positives that come from limiting car usage are much greater than having the need for a car.

One negative of driving is greenhouse gases. To simply reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that someone's car tailpipe produce, reduce the amount of driving in that area. Elisabeth Rosenthal, in Source 1, states that ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe"" so if a city were to offer alternative transportation, like public buses or bicycles, that percentage would drastically reduce.

There are certain conditions in which many people purposefully do not go out and drive because it is so dangerous. According to Robert Duffer, in Paris, ""Congestion was down 60 percent..., after fivedays of intensifying smog"". If smog can keep people off of the roads and decreases the amount of congestion in that city, imagine what people choosing not to drive could do. That could most likely decrease that amount of congestion even more.

With less people on the road, the roadways would become clearer or less crowded. To ensure that less people would be driving, an alternative transportation system would have to be given. Driving costs lots of money so what do people love more than money? To get things for free. Everyone likes money but no one enjoys spending any. Robert Duffer states, ""Public transit was free of charge form Friday to Monday"". Even though the transportation was free for only four days, four days of not driving your personal car would still greatly decrease the amount of air pollution and money spent out of your pocket.

Another major problem with everyone using their own cars would be the amount of traffic. With fewer cars there would ultimately be fewer traffic. According to Andrew Selsky, in Bogota, Colombia ""...millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during a carfree day, leaving the streets of the capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams"". Less traffic jams means that people would reach their destinations quicker. If there were no traffic jams then people would not only reach their destinations quicker but they would reach them extremely quicker. Andrew Selsky later states that hiking, biking, skating, or taking a bus are also all ""good opportunities to take away stress and lower air pollution"".

With less people using cars and roadways to commute, Andrew Selsky writes in Source 3 that ""Parks and sports centers also haved bloomed throught a city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping dristics have cropped up"". As this explains, less cars being used means less money being used and less roadways so there is an abundance of money and space to build new recreational buildings for shopping, eating, playing, and just having fun.

According to Elisabeth Rosenthal in Source 4, Bill Ford, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, proposed partnering to ""create cities in which 'pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resourced, lower emissions and improve safety'"". This statement from Bill Ford pretty much explains the whole idea of limiting car usage to be one of the best things for this world righ now. So many people commute by car and if just maybe once or twice a week absolutely nobody were to use a car, we would be able to reduce greenhouse gases, conserve our natural resource, save time by no traffic jams, and so many more.",0
382908e0,1,"Dear state senator, We should not decide the president by electoral college. Mainly because it's unfair to the voters who took the time out of their day to vote, but then realized they wasted their time because their vote doesn't mean anything, the electors decide who the president is not the voters. The article the Indefensible Electoral college: Why even the best laid defenses of the system are wrong states ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote for not the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" What's the point of voting if our vote basically doesn't matter because we are not the one choosing who is president. The same article also states ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always"" We the voters basically don't even decide who's president, the electors do, and we don't even get to pick who the electors are, the state legislatures do. Why is the president based off of who the electors want? there's only 538 of them, it should be based off popularity, the vote of the millions of the people who have voted. Honestly i see no point in voting now since our votes don't decide who the president will be.

Electoral college is unfair to the small states. The article five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president' shows a map of America with the number of electoral votes given to each state. If you look at the map, you'll notice that the bigger states have more electoral votes, and the small states have very few. For example California has 55 electoral votes, Texas has 38, and Florida has 29. But states such as Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine have less than 5 electoral votes. Which basically means that their electoral votes don't count nearly as much as the big states do. If we decided the president by popularity among everyone who voted, it would actually be fair to everyone, and more people would vote.

The article five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president' states ""Over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now"" I don't blame them when the artcile also states ""This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose presidency."" Then what's the point of voting when our vote doesn't matter.",0
382c317b,1,"Dear Senate, It's official, The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best. It's really hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: ""Abolish the Electoral College."" The Electoral College is a nondemocratic method of selectiong a president that will be by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner. According the the ""In Defense of the Electoral College"" article,"" the electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense.....it is the electors who elect the president not the people."" So basically we are voting for the electors and we keep our finger crossed that they vote for the president we want. It is unpractical that the people vote for the president they would like to govern their counrty and then the opposite party wins. According to a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly ater Al Gore, thanks to the quirks of the Electoral College, won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. The last election was yet another close one thanks to the Electoral College, which the popular vote winner lost the presidency. After all of this the Electoral College still has its defenders...

At the most basic level, the Electoral College is unfair to voters, because of the winnertakeall system in each state. Candidates that don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad.Source 2 The Elector Voters in toss up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign to really listen to the competing candidates knowing that they are going to decide the election. But other types of voters just like the ""play around"" according to article two.

The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the malapporionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution but is this system really the most logical one to use?Source 3. True this system has worked for many years but it is time for a change. People are starting to think it is unfair and really poinless to even vote when the president they want will possibly not win anyway.

The single best argument against the Electoral College is what we might call the disaster factor. Source 1 The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse. Consider the state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people. Source 2 Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. So that popular vote would not have gone to Kennedy. Source 3 In the same vein, ""faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please.

Under the Electoral College system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. There are some reasons for retaining the Electoral College but it still lacks democratic pedigree. And the people should have the right to vote on the president they think is the best for country. After all its,""We the people"" not,"" We the electors"".",0
382c464d,0,"Cars, they help us get from point A to B in a shorter amount of time, but at what cost. Cars are a large source of stress, produce large amounts of pollution, and seem, even now, to be going out of style. Cars are a luxury, not a necessity, and now they might not even be as useful. More and more people are putting down the car keys and choosing instead to take a bike or bus. Cars are just too stressful to be a necessity.

In Vauban, Germany, many people are giving up engines. According to the New York Times, ""70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars,"" showing that life can go on efficiently even without a car. Life might actually improve without those money eating tanks. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" says Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two. This car free philosophy is even becoming a trend! There are hundreds of groups in the United States promoting communities that are more independent of cars, called ""car reduced"" communities. But stress isn't the only thing cars produce. Cars are huge contributes to pollution, and reducing car usage would greatly benefit the environment.

Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up to 50 percent is some carintensive areas in the united states, according to the New York Times. Paris actually enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city after days of nearrecord pollution. The ban was enforced with a 31 fine. Even with 4,000 drivers fined, congestion was down 60 percent and the smog cleared enough that the ban could be lifted the next day. Using more environmentally inclined sources of transportation will definetely help leave a cleaner planet for future generations, and the generations already here. Cars are convenient for short term gratification, but the long term effects might devastate the environment. Cars are not needed, and might not even be preferred for much longer.

A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009 in the united states. Bogota, Colombia even becan a ""carfree day"" in with all cars, besides busses and taxis, are banned in this capital city of 7 million for an entire day. Violaters of this ban are fined 25. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman Carlos Plaza. This event is even starting to spread. For the first time two other Colombian cities have joined the event. Using cars is becoming less and less common, and it's a trend the environment can enjoy.

In conclusion, cars are a hiderance. Cars are stressful and cumbersome objects, getting rid of them would help reduce stress in the population. Cars are high contributes to pollution, creating smog and causing problems. Also, cars are a comodity that is being used less and less. People are putting down the car keys and picking up a bike.",0
38370586,0,"The world has become a plastic bag of pollution, suffocating its inhabitants and holding in all the problems in this world. The major, and simply solved, problem is automobiles. Citizens should reduce car usage to improve there lives and take advantages of the benefits that follow. The people of Germany, Paris, Columbia, and The United States has, at least, tasted the benefits of such a simple change.

Vauban, Germany has recreated itself to become a carfree community. Residents agree with and support the cause saying "" When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this waydoc 1."" The stressors caused by money problems and dangers from cars, make the people of the world stressed. In addition to the relaxing effect of this kind of community, this life style reduces the amount of greenhouse gas emission expelled from tailpipe that is ""choking citiesdoc 1."" In this specially made community, cities are denser, with more public transportation and overall a cheaper way of life. The environmental Protection Agency agrees, this is a change for the better.

Paris, France has gone to the nessisary extent of a partial driving ban to clear the air from the cancerous smog on the city. After banning a majority of cars from the rode, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of intensifying smogdoc 2."" Thats all it took, one day to make a difference, but most people of the world cannot fathom a day without their car. With the amount of people moving around this global beauty, smog covers the city, and yet nothing serious has been permanently done about it.

bogota, Columbia has a special day every year: A carfree day created to promote the use of alternate transportation and reduce smog. Citizens and businessmen all support the cause, when one day made into "" A good opportunity to take away stress and lower pollutionDoc 3."" Although one day isn't nearly long enough to undo the harm that cars have done to the world, but at least it raises awareness that can spread even quicker, than a thickening smog, throughout the world.

The United States has demonstrated the effects of their awareness of these problems. Evidence and researchers both notice and support that people are getting "" Fewer cars, Driving less, and getting fewer licensesdoc 4."" The decline can be tied to not being able to afford a car, but evidence refutes that by saying that it is a more fundamental revalation. People are starting to become aware of the endless benefits of a carfree world, but are stuck in this world which is consumed by them.

Stuck in this automobilecentered world, people cannot see nor fathom the idea of no automobiles, and believe it to be impractical and undesirable. But if the world were to alter itself, to better accomidate this lifestyle, cities would represent a whole new meaning, "" Pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, comerical and public transportation traffic woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safetydoc 4.""With some changes, people will soon see the world in a new light. One city, state, nation, and world at a time will make the change.

My fellow citizens, join me, in this revolution to evolve this incompatent world.",0
3856bd25,1,"The electoral college should be abolished and the popular voting election should be adopted. Two reasons as to why it is better to switch to a popular vote election is because it would make the election process easier and it is what the citizens prefer.

To start with, the election should be decided using popular voting because it would make the election process easier. If one were to read the information of the electoral college he or she would become easily confused. It would make more sense to just switch over to a popular voting rather than stick with the electoral college. Its simple, if a candidate were to receive more votes than his or her opponent he or she would win the election and become president. Rather than now with the whole ""Voters vote not for the president, but for the slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" mess. In the section ""What's wrong with the electoral college"" the text states that sometimes voters get confused about the electors and end up voting for the wrong candidate. Clearly, it would be a lot easier to rid of the electoral college and instead adopt the idea of using popular voting.

We should adopt the popular voting when electing a president because it is what the citizens of said country prefer. According to source 2: ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. Is this country oblivious to the fact that they are forcing citizens to participate in voting in a way that they do not enjoy? This country is supposed to give the citizens what they want, and are instead doing the opposite. Citizens also would like to have the person who is in command of said country someone they like and or choose, not some other candidate chosen with the least amount of votes. Do what the a majority of the citizens want instead of what the leaders of the country want. Obviously, we should abolish the electoral college and participate in popular voting because it is what the citizens of said country prefer.

In a nutshell, said country should adopt the popular voting method and abolish the electoral college method of voting because it is easier and it is what the citizens of that country prefer. The electoral college confuses citizens and as the result 60 percent of the country would prefer popular voting rather then the disaster they call an electoral college.",0
38641012,0,"Cars are not something that have to be used everyday. Limiting car usage could be a good thing to do. Minimizing car usage gives you the opportunity to have more parks and fun places to go without the parking lot taking up all the space.

Less space for parking makes everything more easier to get to which is an advantage instead of having to walk in the parking lot. For example, ""... make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking."" In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars, Elisabeth rosettal, Paragraph 6 . This explains that if you get rid of the cars theres more space to park and everything else becomes easier to get to versus having many parking spaces taking up room and causing traffic and other things. Also with not using cars theres more room for small stores and big stores to be put in different places that couldnt be put there because of cars so you could drive. For example, ""... stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway."" In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars, Elisabeth rosettal, Paragraph 6 and "" Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota, Andrew Selsky, Paragraph 28. This shows that now there's more spaces for even more stores which is an advantage because the cars used to take up that space used for bigger roads for more cars to come on but without that problem theres room for other thing's.

Also it's a good way to save money because it decreases smog, and air pollution. For example, "" Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog."" Paris bans driving due to smog, Robert Duffer, Paragraph 14. This shows that after France decided to stop using cars the smog decreased tremendisely. Having no vehicles can also make the environment better because there wouldnt be a lot of carbon being produced. For example, ""... it will have a beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment."" The End of Car Culture, Elisabeth rosetta, Paragraph 34. Which is an example of how it could better for the environment. An advantage also is there will be less pollution. For example, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution..."" This explains that it would be a good thing for us , we would have better breathing and also again a better environment.

In Conclusion, Minimizing driving usage could lead to better things such as less pollution, a better environment , and lastly more room for other things. So theyre are many advantages to minimizing driving usage, it's not so bad.",0
38806fc0,1,"Since our very first President George Washington our founding fatheers have created a system of how a President shall be elected. For many years theis system has been proven to be effective. This system or process of electing our Country's President is known as thee Electoral College. The Electoral College was used to elect our very first President George Washington and our current day President Obama. This process is full proof and has yet to let our Country down.

The Electoral College is a process created by thee founding fatheers to make thee choice theat thee people want. After all theis is thee peoples Country. According to thee Source ""What is thee Electoral College?"", written by thee office of thee Federal Register,The Electoral College process consists of thee selection of electors. There are a total of 538 members in thee Electoral College. If a candidate has more thean 270 votes theen theey will be our new President. The number of how many members depends on thee number of members in its Congressional delegation. There is a total of one each for every member in thee House of Representatives and two each for every member in thee Senators. When a person votes for his or her Candidate theey are actually also voting for theier candidates electors. After thee election everytheing is certified and sent to thee National Archives as part of thee official records of thee presidential election, also stated in ""What Is thee Electoral College"", by thee Office of thee federal Register.

More thean 60 percent of voters would like to abolish thee Electoral College and just have a direct election. This year voters can expect anotheer close election in which thee popular vote winner could again lose thee presidency, states ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even thee bestlaid defenses of thee system are wrong"", by Bradford Plumer. Not alone have 60% of our voters agree upon giving thee Electoral College a boot but so has Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and thee U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Voters don't feel close enough to thee process by which who leads are Country. When voters vote theey feel as if theey are voting for Electoral members and not thee Candidate himself. Voters can not control whom thee electors vote for, after all electors can always defy thee popular vote and choose a candidate of theeir liking. More theen half of our voters theink theat thee Electoral College is unfair, out of date, and unpredictable. If thee people voted for thee President directly theen states withe a larger population would always win. That would be an outrage, states like Texas would get a better chance theen states like Florida. The Electoral College is a full proof plan theat avoids run on elections by insuring theat no candidate receives a majority of thee votes cast. Altheough otheers want to abolish thee Electoral College, theere is no better system for choosing our President.

The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal, says ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised metheod of choosing thee President, by Richard A. Posner. The Electoral College restores thee pull theat large states have over smaller states. The Electoral College also Avoids thee problem of elections where a candidate receives a majority of thee vote. The Electoral College provides a clear winner. Altheough many people feel theat thee Electoral College is ineffective, unfair, and outdated it is a great way of chossing our country's greatest leader. Our founding fatheer have created an effective metheod theat has avoid many problems theat may have occurred if theis process was created. Every four years a President is elected correctly theanks to thee Electoral. Many have seen thee harm thee Electoral college has provided but theey do not see thee harm theat it has helped to avoid.",0
3897446e,0,"The use of cars today in our modern world is crazy! Everywhere you look there's cars going down the road, parked in a garage, or on TV. Now think of a world without them...it would be different, wouldnt it? Yes, indeed it would be, the world would be less hectic and cleaner place to live.

First, Life without cars would make life much less hectic. In Vaunban,Germany there is an upscale community where there are no cars. People either walk, ride bikes or take the public tram. A survey shows ""70 percent of Vanuban's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here"". People move to Vauban to enjoy a ""carfree""...stress free life. ""Im much happier this way"" said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."" source 1 paragraph 3 The ""carfree"" world of not having to worry about car payemrnt, insurance, and gas money is a whole lot better than a car dependent world.

Second, Limiting our car use would help make this planet cleaner. Pollution issues have gotten so bad that ""...Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"". Source 2 paragraph 10 In paragraph 14 it states that ""after fivedays of intensive smog...the smog rivaled Beijing,China, which is one one of the most polluted cities in the world"". France uses more diesel than gasoline, therefore making up 67 percent of all vehicles in France. The use of these harsh fossil fuels is a huge problem that can help be controlled by limiting our use of automobiles.

Third, Although some may argue that we need cars to fuction in our modern world, there are other options that we can choose. For example, If everyone took public transportation such as the subway we would be cutting back tremendously on the amout of feul consumed. Another advantage of using other forms of transportation other than a car would be that you wouldnt have to worry about your car not starting, or not having enough money too fill your tank. Other forms of transportation would always be reliable and convenent. You would also feel good about helping the enviornment by not adding extra gases to the ozone.

To finish up, Limiting our use of cars would make life easier and cleaner. In source 3 it states ""Its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife. Many people are convinved that a ""carfree"" life would be much nicer than the hectic carconsumed life we've all grown so accustom too. Limiting our use of cars is a good idea for our stressful lives.",0
38d14015,1,"Dear, Senator I'am a conserend voter that believes you should represent the people of your party and should apose the electoral college. It causes an unnecessary complication for voting for who will represent the face of the best country on earth. We the people do not want to get the wrong president to represent the majority of the population. The chances of an undefined out come through electoral college may be low but when it comes down to the presidency nothing should be left to chance.

The voters should know how the system of voting for president. They are the ones that decide so they should know how there vote can be used to have the greatest affect. Bradford Plumer states ""voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate...sometimes"". A democracy is when the people decide the destiny of there country. For them not to know what there chosing takes power out of the hands of the people.

The Winnertakesall system is ok when your on the playground as a childs it does not work in the real world. This system creates Swing States. according to Richard A. Posner ""method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates to focus their campaign efforts on the tossup states"". This draws attention away from other states. Bradford Plumer explained that ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all"". He also clames ""putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in ohio"". This is not right each vote should be just as important as another and no state should be the deciding outcome in an election.

Chance is a crazy thing. If there is a chance of something happening and it's given time it will happen. A number of weird outcomes can happen with electoral college. One outcome is the possibility of having a tie. Richard A. Posner explains""A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes538 is an even number"". If a tie happens the represenetives vote for the people and because each state has one vote per electoral college...""55 representatives from california, who represent 35 millon voters."". Second posible out come is the majority vote goes to one canadite and the electoral college goes to the other. For example Bradford Plumer wrote""This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency."" These are just two of the odd outcomes of electoral colleges could cause.

Electoral college don't solve problems but creat them. The best way to put it is this...""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are most assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best.",0
391aa82f,1,"Dear Senator, The process of voting through the Electoral College was established in the Constitution by our founding fathers. While some say that the Electoral College goes against America's democratic ideals and it increases the probability for a disastrous vote, the Electoral College still gives american citizens some sway in the election and with a completely democratic system of voting there is a good chance that the outcome could be even more disastrous. The Electoral college is a compromise of voting between citizens and the government, it represents the people as evenly as it can, and it still gives voters a collective chance to change the outcome of an election.

One reason that the Electoral college works so well is that it is not completely run by the people or run by the government. Rather both are part of the voting process, having equal representation. While democracy is highly regarded in America, it would be unwise to have a vote completely run by the people. The government needs to have some system in place that gives citizens a vote, but not complete free reign. If the people of America voted and the election outcome was disastrous, then the government needs to have a scapegoat in place. The founding fathers understood this which is why the Electoral College is still in place today.

The Electoral College does not give a single voter a chance to sway an election, however America's population as a whole is represented. Not one region or state has enough electoral votes to elect a president Par 19 and 21. This is a good thing because candidates pay equal attention to all of America's people. Also, in the Electoral College, not every state has the same amount of electoral votes because every state has a different population size. This might seem like unequal representation of that states, but the election is not meant to give each state an equalized vote, it is meant to give the population of america an even representation.

Swing states give America's people a chance to decide an elections outcome. In swing states the voters are very thoughtful about their candidates because they know that in the their case, that their vote really does count par 20. It is good to have voters who are very thoughtful and cautious about their vote. The Electoral Colleges encourages this type of behavior among citizens by giving voters a chance to sway an election in swing states. Swing states can impact an election. They are an example of how the Electoral College, while still not completely democratic, still gives the people a vote.

Through the Electoral College America's population is represented, the government and it's citizens have equal representation, and American people can still impact the outcome of an election. The founding fathers of America thought of this while they created the foundation that our country proudly stands on. The Electoral College should stay as it is. It still works effectively to decide on who will become president. As long as the College works effectively, then ther should be no issue with it.",0
393cf7f9,1,"I have an opinion that I know others will agree with extremely. By popular vote, we should change the election process to The People voting directly. According to my knowledge, the Electoral College isn't fair to voters. I know that many people such as, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFCCIO agree with me on this. For instance, in the second passage on the first paragraph, it says that and much more. ""They're not alone Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter... according to a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore thanks to the quirks of the Electoral College won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" Suggesting by what this statement says, a lot of people disagree with our system of election. We should be able to vote directly ourselves and not have electors do it for us. How do we know we can trust them? Yes, they're a part of our government, but that doesn't mean a thing.

The Electoral College was originally founded to be exactly what it is today a vote that is held in Congress that is made by popular vote by citizens. But it has changed more than you think. In article one in the 6th paragraph, it tells exactly how the Electoral College is run. ""The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in november. You help choose your state's electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors."" This paragraph is saying that the person you vote for is basically supposed to be voted for by his electors. In the second article, what the author is saying is that even though this certain person will get popular vote, they won't agree with it and they'll go against the votors decisions. This isn't the right thing, obviously. I'm sure that no one knows for a fact that's true though. Even though, this is still a messed up way to vote. This country is about freedom and the right to do what we'd like, as long as it's rational. This is not rational. We need to be able to vote independently.

There are many things wrong with this aspect of our government. Even though people don't think much of it, we're being treated unfairly. In the second article, in paragraph 2, Plumer the author makes a very good point. ""Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates themselves. Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes."" This makes us realize that we don't know who, for a fact, the electors are. It also shows that we don't know who the electors will vote for. Usually, they would probably vote for the person that were made to vote for.

None of us know what goes on in the Electoral College. We don't know if they vote for who we tell them to vote for. We don't know if they practically cheat us from getting the president we want. In article one, paragraph 8, there is something that the governor does that maybe is supposed to reassure us. ""After the presidential election, your governor prepares a ""Cerificate of Ascertainment"" listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their respective electors."" This is just them saying who was all voted for and who all ran. It also says who the electors were. They give us this probably just to notify us but maybe it's also an idea to make us think that Electoral College is proud to help us get who we want. As I have said through this whole letter, we deserve to directly vote for our President. This isn't fair to us or the person we want elected.",0
3953c14e,0,"Many countries are pushing towards less cars, ultimatelycreating a better world. By limiting car usage, drivers all around the world can limit greenhouse gas emissions that cause air pollution, take away some of the stress on young and old drivers concerning money and confidence at the wheel, and make cities become healthier, along with the people in them.

Stated in source 1:In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars, passenger cars in Europe create 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and up to about 50 percent in the United States. These cars, primarily owned by the middle class, create an enormous amount of pollution. Paris had to ban half the cars from driving for a whole day because of the thick layer of smog that had developed Source 2:Paris bans driving due to smog. In fact there was almost as much smog as Beijing, which is known for being a very polluted city. In Bogota, the capital of Colombia, businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza believes a carfree day is a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollutionSource 3:Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota. In Source 4:The End of Car Culture, sociologist relay that transportation is the second largest source of America's emission.

Less cars would lower stress levels for all ages. In source 1, paragraph 3, a mother of two and media trainer, shares that with a car she was much tense. Now that she lives in a town where there are not as many cars, she is much happier. Paragraph 32, in source 4 shows why many Americans have stopped getting cars. Some are not in an economic position to buy them, so they use alternatives like biking and carpooling which are just as effective. In paragraph 35 of the same source, a sociology professor named Mimi Sheller informs that people can use the Internet to get many things instead of driving to a store. This factor also relieves stress on those not confident with their driving ability or unable to drive.

Not using cars as much has led to cities growing and becoming closer at the same time. In the city of Vauban, Germany, stores are placed closer so walking is quicker and healthier than taking an automobile paragraph 6, Source 1. Bogota has constructed 118 miles of bicycle paths in response to the positive feedback of carfree days thereSource 3, paragraph 27. The next paragraph shows how recreational settings have received a lot of business and the city has created new buildings. Paragraph 35 from source 4 tells how more desireable cities have brought more people in, creating a smaller need for cars to drive from suburb to city, and then back to the suburbs again. Bill Ford, the executive chairman for Ford, informs that all transportation methods save time, conserve resources, and lower emissions, in turn improving safetyParagraph 43, Source 4.

In conclusion, limiting car usage will impact the globe very positively. Less gas emissions will create a healthier world. Less stress on people will propel production in work and other fields and more urbanized cities allows people to interact with each other even greater than in other settings.",0
39549479,0,"You hear it all, throughout breaking news to protesters trying to make a difference in our world. Pollution is dangerous and people don't fully understand the costly effects to our everyday living. Transportation is a way of means by transitioning from one place to another. The most popular way of transportation is the vehicle. A fast and easy way to get to your destination with just a turn of the key, or in this case nowadays, the click of a button.

Acres of land being towed to create bigger roads, or streets because of the vast majority of people using cars to get around. With each car means more gas or diesel, more gas equals more money, and more pollution. Our atmosphere can only take so much from the faulty mistakes we choose to do everyday. Places like Paris and suburbs in Germany are becoming more aware of how much cars can effect our Earth. After days of near record pollution Paris decided to enforce a partial driving ban to clear some of the air in the global city. The way they enforced this was motorists with even numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home. The same would apply for the odd numbered license plates the following day. After this, smog and congestion decreased by 60 percent in the capital of France. Other places like Bogota, Columbia is having car free days where millions of people would enjoy their day outside hiking, biking, and taking buses for work during the day. These decisions and actions cleared the streets in Bogota and avoided jams, leaving the people to have a nice day enjoying the outdoors. Carlos Arturo says ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" This doesn't mean give up cars all in all. Rather, limit the use of driving your car. America's love affair with vehicles seem to be dulling down. After 2005, the number of miles driven started to decrease. Part of the explanation to this lies in the recession, because tight budget Americans could'nt afford new cars, and the unemployed were'nt going to work. Sociologists believe if these patterns of decreasing numbers of car owners and people driving that it will have beneficial outcomes for carbon emissions and the environment. On the opposing side this has a negative effect for the car industries.

The positive effects will benefit future generations to come, with clean air to breathe and a fresh start. By limiting car usage there would be less traffic jams, more people getting in touch with their surroundings and even losing 3 to 5 pounds while they're at it. Transportation is a way of means by transitioning from one place to another, it doesn't always have to be a vehicle with so many other options you can choose from. Make a difference in the world, one less car at a time.",0
3999dd50,1,"The electoral college, despite being established by the constitution, is a corruptible system that should be abolished. The ultimate duty of the government is to protect and serve the people of America, yet our votes must go through this extra step to pick what will ultimately affect us most.

When we vote, we choose who will be running our affairs for the next four years. America needs a president who can govern us in this world of problems, so why would the system overlook portions of the public? What keeps the Members of the college in line with public interests? there is too much instability in the college for it to always align with the best interest of the American people because in its ""winner takes all"" policy it overlooks all members of that state who voted otherwise. The college looks at us like divided pieces, when we really are a whole puzzle. For example, when the majority of floridian vote for one candidate, while just over half of the population of Texas votes for the other, looking at these two states only texas would win, despite more people in total voting for the other candidate. This may not seem like a common occurrence, as article three stated it has happened only twice since 1888, but there is nothing to keep such actions from progressing.

What service does the Electoral college serve that the people cannot? its only purpose in the government is to elect the president. The public, however, is the life and soul of America. The government exists solely to keep order among us. There is no reason why a popular vote wouldn't show the best interest of the people, and a popular vote doesn't overlook any vote.

The greatest problems lie with the tiebreakers, because inthe event of a tie, the election's result goes to the legislature. a few people in congress are looking to fuel their own desires. when presented with the chance to earn more money, they would rather choose the option that will earn them more, even if it means going against the interest of the public.

The electoral college isn't a complete public enemy, however. The electoral votes are decided based upon a popular vote, so they reflect the public's interest, if a little distorted. Maine and Nebraska have an alternate setup of ""proportional representation"" as explained in article one. If anything is to be done, a simple reform would suffice. if electoral votes were awarded per a set number of people, it would better reflect the population than if votes were awarded entirely based upon the will of a state as a whole.",0
39a9ae49,0,"Could you imagine your life without a car? It seems impossible if cars wouldn't exist. Did you know that there are cities where people have'nt used their cars for a whole day? While in others people dont ever use cars. People think that without a car they're nothing, and that life is totally different. But there is something very interesting happening around us, in other countries which is the reason why they've stopped using cars for a while. The polluted air due to cars in doing no good for us. Think about it, maybe you could might live without are car for a day for an important cause.

First thing first, we should learn how people live in other countries without a car. It sounds weird to us, but it's something normal for them. There is forbidden to have home garages and to park cars on street in Vauban, Germany. According to Elizabeth Rosenthal, Vauban, Germany has gone from a city with cars to people giving up their cars. ""street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders""Rosenthal, paragraph 2. This place is ""car free"" except for the downtown area and a few streets of the community. She also states that other countries like the US experiments more problems in pollution.""passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up to 50% in some carintensive areas in the US""5. People walk way more in Europe, they dont suffer much from air pollution.

Additionally, Paris has enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. These cities have stopped using their cars for a while to help calm the air pollution. ""On Monday motorists with even numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31"" Robert Duffer, paragraph 11. Although that people were not supposed to us ehtier cars that day, 4,000 drivers were fined according to Reuters. The cause for not driving for that day was because the cold nights and warm days caused the air to trap car emissions. Another reason for car free in Paris is because of the micrograms found. ""Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.9 in London, Rueters found""Duffer, 17. Its an advantage to prevent car usage because the smog is clearing in these cities.

In similarity, millions of Colombians hiked, walked and did many other activities without touching a car to prevent the smog. These cities are working together to make the world a better place. ""In a program that set's to spread to toher countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday""Andrew Selsky, paragraph 20. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog, and they achived it. That day without a car was an improvement camapign in Bogota. Surprsingly, in the US recent studies have stated that Americans are buying fewer cars and driving less each year that goes by. ""if the pattern persists and many sociologists believ it will it will have beneficial implications for carbon emmisions and the environment""Elizabrth Rosenthal, paragarph 34. There has also been changes in the US. Driving less has stopped air pollution.

In conclusion there are benefits without a car. Benefits for the world around us, and well you might get some stress out if you start walking, hiking, or riding bycicles for a while. It's incredible just to think of the idea that many countries have stopped driving for a day to make their country or city a better place. While in cities like Vauban, Germany people live without cars. Thats what makes their city different. Even though they do also let these things happen for a right cause. I think that we could live without a car for one day, it's not a big deal, really. It's to make the US a better place.",0
39f52aba,0,"Automobiles have been used as the average use of transportation ever since the Was there any other reason to use anything other than a car after that, no not really but now there are. After so many decades there arrives three valid reasons to limit the average joes use of their motor vehicle. One, you can reduce the smog build up in your cities, two as well as smog greenhouse gases heavy up on areas in the Earths atmosphere but can be helped, three people use public transportation more as well as riding their bikes and walking. if you can limit your selves on car use, you can create a better tomorow.

First off, reducing smog in your area. smog is generated out of the tail pipes of motor vehicles and is bad for the environment and atmosphere. with limiting your daily car commute you can remove a good part from your area. when Paris had ordered that only plates that only odd number plates could drive on the roads on monday their large smog cloud of 147 micrograms of PM per cubic meter smog was greatly reduce and lifted the following day. so just one day of cutting the daily car commute in half a city as big as Paris was able to lift a smog.

moving along, the green house gases. Green house gases a like smog is a by product of driving your every day car to and fro work. green house gases are dangerous chemical gases that eat away at earths Ozone layer letting in UV rays that can be very harmful to you and the rest of the ecosystem. bogota recently had a car free day in which no one was allowed to drive motor vehicles except for buses and taxis. their goal was to promote alternative uses of transportation as well as lowering the amount of green house gases let into Earths atmosphere. doing something like what bogota can help cut down on all the harsh chemicals being let off into the atmosphere.

lastly, finding other sources of transportation other than every day car. finding another way of getting around is great for the community, it keeps you healthy and the earth healthy. Vauban germany is actually a car free city, it does not have roads on which you can drive upon but only a main street. everything that is needed in the town is no longer a car ride away but a bike ride away or a walk down the road resulting in a very community both people and ecosystem. as well as that is also saves people money not haveing to buy or a car for that matter. now think on how it would be like if your city did this and how much it would benefir from it.

In conclusion, having a car free day or banning about half the cars from driving on one day is not a bad thing but instead a good thing. once again you can reduce the smog, you ca even help keep green house gases out of the atmosphere, and for the last time find other healthier ways of getting around. so to ask the simple question why would you not limit your everyday car use.",0
3a4c655d,0,"Recent trends are showing that the average person is trading in their keys for a more contemporary mode of transportation, such as public transit or walking and biking from point A to point B. Even though the reason as to why this is occurring has yet to become clear, there are some general benefits that are known to come from this. More and more, cities in developed and developing nations are now being planned to be more dense, so that the citizens in them can get to where they need to be, without needing a car. Because of this, fewer greenhouse emissions are being created, there is less congestion and smog in cities, and the burden of traffic is being lifted from the everyday driver. The more this trend continues, the more beneficial it can become.

Climate change is a ubiquitous threat to the world. In order to face and reverse the direction of where the world is heading, some cities are finding new ways to face this issue. For example, a city in Germany has practically given up cars through its policies and design. Citizens are only allowed two places to park, and the city is designed so that everything you need is within a walking or biking distance, albeit more dense. More and more places are slowly beginning to adopt this style of suburb because ""emissions from an increasing middle class are choking cities"" source 1. Making this change will not be easy, but it is important because ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent ... in the United States"" source 1.

Another issue that weighs down cities everywhere is the horrid smog and unbearable congestion most cities face. In order to combat this adverse effect of driving, Paris has banned driving in efforts to reduce the smog it deals with. The effort proved to create a temporary solution, as ""congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog"" source 2. A city in Bogota, Columbia has taken a day off from driving, and the results were so positive that the movement has spread to multiple cities in neighboring countries. This movement ""left the street eerily devoid of traffic jams"" source 3.

In an ever changing world that exists today with cities that never sleep, the average person is constantly burdened and stressed by things that tend to pile up. So why have driving and traffic be added to that heap of annoyance, especially if it's avoidable? The fact is, driving can be incredibly stressful and sometimes border on superfluous. A resident of the densely populated german town where 70 percent of its citizens don't own cars claimed, ""when I had a car, I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"", referring to how they no longer need to own a car or drive source 1. The day of no driving in Bogota, Columbia has been said to be""a good oppurtunity to take away stress"" source 3.

Modern nations have revolved heavily on the invention and continuous innovation of the automobile. However, the increasing dependence on this mode of transportation has created some adverse affects for the general population of the world. In order to solve this problem, an emphasis on cleaner and more efficient modes of transportation must occur, along with more densely designed, modern cities. A larger independence from cars can create fewer greenhouse emissions, cause less congestion and smog in cities, and make the average citizen free from the stress of driving.",0
3a9a50b3,0,"Global warming is a huge concern, and most of the blame is on cars. In Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, Andrew Selsky's Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota , and elizabeth Rosenthal's In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars and The End of Car Culture they explain everything happens in areas where they suspend car usage, regulate it, ban it and seeing trends of areas where they just do not care about cars. Limiting the use of vehicles can have a enormous beneficial impact.

One reason for a minial car usage, is that people tend to get stressed with cars in order to do errands or go to work. Following with Rosenthal's article, she mentions a media trainer with two childern named Heidrun. The mother states ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" In Vauban, many people move there with having sold a car that particular area has 30% of families using cars. Many people want to worry less about having to errands. It is much easier to have things closer to you instead of having to go far. Continuing the essay with Selsky's article, in Bogota, Colombia they have a car free day where everyone avoid using cars. Selsky quotes a businessman where he says "" It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" In this particular day, he has a day to experience no stress and having the positive mind of knowing that this benefits the environment as well as himself. Therefore, limting the usage of cars relives stress even for a day.

Another reason is pollution, this is a huge problem around the world and many are trying to find solutions to less the effects of global warming. In buffer's article, Paris takes a huge step in reliving their smog problem. They have banned cars, not exactly, they are regulating them by having odd number license plates go one day then evens on another. This limits the use of cars for people, in which later in the article it relieves the smog so they also relive the ban. But in other areas, people do not seem to have an interest in cars like America. Many of America's young people are not really interested in cars. Rosenthal explains how it would have many positive effects, "" If the pattern persists and many sociologists belive it will it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants. Thus, having less people use cars can be a solution to pollution.

In conclusion, benefits to limiting cars use is less stress due to not having a car and lessing the effects of pollution. All this is a major impact leading into a better world.",0
3ae35542,1,"Dear State Seiator, Im just a regular voter arguiig withe you theat I doit agree withe thee electoral college.

Perhaps If us citizeis kiew exactly what aid who we vote for, we'd have a better uiderstaidiig of how votes are casted ii thee ballot otheer theai us votiig for thee ""Presideit"" but actually votiig for thee electors of thee caididate who really ""vote"" for us. You've probably have heard of argumeits over deterioratiig thee electoral collage, but if we doit actually vote for our presideit theat we wait to be our presideit theei why have a set of electors vote for us whei we are tryig to vote for ourselves?

The Electoral Collage is a process of voiig for our Presideit aloig withe thee Vice Presideit aid thee electors. This process may be a little overwhelmiig for some people kiowiig theat theey doit actually vote for thee waited Presideit directly, but is a well theoughtout process built by our fouidiig fathees loig ago. Maybe theere was a reasoi for iot allowiig us to really vote for our Presideit directly iistead of haviig thee electors vote for theem aloig withe Coigress, or evei it could have just beei a big mess from thee begiiiiig theat Coigress aid H.O.R aid thee Seiate have beei fixiig. The Electoral College coisists of 538 electors i i which oily 270 of theose votes couit iito electiig a Pesideit. The autheor, Bradford Plumer, of thee article ""Source 2: The Iidefeisible Electoral College: Why evei thee bestlaid defeises of he system are wroig"" tells us a little of how thee system isit what we really theiik it is. ""Uider thee electoral college system, voters vote iot for thee presideit, but for a slae of electors, who ii turi elect thee presideit"" he asserts. Ai example Plumer gives us is theat if you lived ii Texas at thee time of Johi Kerry, whei he was ruiiiig ofr pesideit, you would have voted for a group of 34 Democratic electos who would theei have voted for Kerry ii retui to votii for his electors. A questioi is, who are theese socalled electors? Electors are aiyoie who doesit hold public office. Who picks thee electors? Mostly depeids oi thee state for theat job. Ii theat case, ii choosuiig your electors, theey hold presideitial coiveitiois, a state party ceitral committee, aid evei thee presideitial caididates theemselves cai pick who his electors are. Iicludiig thee fact theat voters cait always coitrol whom theeir elctos vote for.

The siigle best argumeit agaiist thee electoral college is thee disaste factor. A disaster factor cai be ii the form of a tie. If two caididates go iito a tie, theei thee ""tie braker,"" as most people refer it as, it gets seit to thee House of Represeitatives H.O.R where state delegatiois vote oi thee presideit aid thee seiate would choose thee vice presideit. At thee most basic level, he electoral college is uifair fo voters. The wiiiertakeall system ii each state, makes it sort of easier fo caididates to get most votes. Which is what you would call thee ""swiig states."" Duriig thee 2,000 campaigi, seveiteei staes didit see thee caididates at all, iicludiig thee state of Rhode Islaid aid Souit Caroliia aid 25 of thee biggest media marcketiig compaiies didit get to see iot oie ad from thee campaigi ads. Its pretty straight forward from here. The electoral college is ai uifair system, outdated, aid irratioial. We basically oily have assertiois agaiist it. Probably woit evei be eiough to say theat thee electoral college is uifair, but is eiough to say just for thee good of thee people.

Kiowiig theat citizeis votes have io effect really towards thee presideit, theei people would be most likely to iot wathec thee campaigis duriig he electioi seasoi of it all. Therefor, thee electoral college, oice agaii, is iot a great way of electiig our presideit.",0
3b164103,0,"transportation has been a key part of many societies around the world today from getting to and from jobs, visiting families, and running common everyday errands that life brings. But, in some areas, they are opting to go carfree, and in many ways, it is making positive impacts within these evolving areas. From lowering emissions and greenhouse gases, to providing a more stressfree way of living, opting out on cars can make huge positive effects that everyone should look into.

Cars, especially in the United States and other leading nations, have many suburban ideals that bring them to have one of ""the world's prime car cultures"". The U.S, for example, is the birthplace of the Model T, one of the first cars that was ever made. However, over the last decade, America's love for cars has gone down slightly, and is headed lower each year. Looking into the future, this shift could have great affects on today's societies which includes letting off fewer carbon emissions into the environment. This decrease would happen because transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions into the atmosphere, just behind Power Plants. Passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gases in Lowering the amount of car emissions will additionally help achieve President Obama's goals of helping the environment and doing something good towards it during his time as President.

In addition, France is a prime example of how lowering the amount of cars on streets will have positive outcomes on the environment. Because of excessive amounts of smog in air in Paris, they came up with a clever system to reduce the amounts. An alternate day schedule is what was put in place, allowing motorists with even numbered license plates to drive one day, and oddnumbered drivers the next. Failure to leave their cars at home on the days that don't apply to them resulted in a 22euro fine, which didn't stop some drivers. But, despite their reactions, the idea had many postive impacts and cleared the air of smog. Countries all around the world have seen the impressive facts come to life that reducing driving can lower the amount of emissions we put into the environment.

Limiting the amount of cars on the road also has other advantages other than the postive impacts it can make on the environment. Germany, for example, is experimenting by forbidding street drving, driveways, and home garages near the french and swiss borders Vauban. As a result, 70% of Vauban's families do not even own cars and 57% sold a car to move there. One resident says ""When I had a car I always always tense. I'm much happier this way"".",0
3b3e2446,1,"Senator of Florida, im writing you today to address the issue about keeping the Electoral College or changing it to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Let's start off, by pointing out that the Electoral College is an antique, and we should upgrade, also there could be many issues when using that method and many not wanted decisions can become official. Let me guide you through this important topic, and help you make this fair for everyone.

Like i pointed out before, the Electoral College is very old, Richard A. Posner stated "" The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism"" back then everyone was okay with not having a say on who runs our country, but now and days people want to be part of it and want to help decide and know that there opinion matters. With the Electoral College, the people don't make that decision, they choose electors to choose the president. It is not democratic and is also not fair or equal because only certain people are being heard. Our choice as a whole should matter more then the electors. Richard A.Posner "" In 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes."" this is called the disaster factor and was the biggest election crisis in a century stated Bradford Plumer. Let's take a moment and let this sink in.

not only is this unfair but so many things can go wrong it. For example, the electors can always defy the will of people. Plumer also stated "" back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. kennedy. so that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy..... ""faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please..."" As you can see, nothing is forcing the electors to vote for their party's candidate, this method is putting the decision and our future in their hands.

there is no other way around the fact that the Electoral College has to go, is unfair to the presidents and us, the people. everyone should be heard and not have to depend on anyones decision. I hope with this letter the debating stops and your not on the fence about what method should stick and your certain about why elections by popular vote should be our way of picking our presidents.",0
3b614a3d,0,"Fellow Citizens, there are many reasons why limiting car usage has outstanding opportunities and advantages.

For an example, If there aren't people out there spending their hard earned money that they worked for, for anexpensive car that they are just going to use to get to someplace faster when they could just stop being lazy for once and walk or run, ride bikes, hike, or take a bus, instead of spending money after money to fill a car up to just waste gas, and to fill it up again. Running, riding bikes, hiking, etc. gives you a chance to experience reality. Being outside gives people a chance to see the earths real beauty, and to smell the fresh air. Limiting car usage helps people stay in shape and keeps them healthy if their not just sitting in a car for half a hour when they could be running or walking.

Residentsin Vauban, Germany are permitted car ownership, but there are only two places to park : large garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home. About 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, an about 57 percent sold a car to move there. Having a car makes peoples tense, and being in a place where there isnt lot of car usage makes people much happier. People who live in places where cars arent used as often as other states, those towns place stores in walking distance, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway.

An amazing advantagethat people can can from limiting the usage of cars is less drunk drivers, or even none. If there's less drunk drivers, there's less car crashes and less deaths. Everyone understands that you have to be 21 orolder in most states to drink alcoholic beverages. The big advantage out of this is, if older people were to get drunk, they would be forced to call a cab, or even walk home. Their not putting noone else's life in danger, and this wouldlower the crashes anddeath fatalities per year.

As as many cars that there is in the world, all the use of them would probably pollute the world. Paris enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city after days of the nearrecord pollution.

Limiting car usage gives you the opportunity to be with your family and friends and spend more time with themthen you normally would having a car. You can walk and talk with them on the way to work, you can stop by the park and have some fun on your way to the grocery store. The best part about this is, you dont have to worry about the roads being busy. You ca walk, run, hike, and bike without having to hear the noisy streets, the honking, the screeching, etc.

What's the point in having a car that your just going to be wasting money on, when running, walking or riding a bike is free and evencheaper and safer than driving a car. What are you gonna do when your car breaks down? Are you gonna keep spending your money on when it keeps breaking? Why do that when you have twoperfectly good and healthy legs and you can run or walk somewhere?

Just take a moment to think about the fines every single person breathing in the world has received? Alot of money wasted on something idiotic huh? just imagine if every state, continents, islands, and places we dont know about all stopped using cars, or even just limited the car usage. We'd be saving a whole ton of money, we'd basically all be middle classes.

This whole situation is a winwin, You get to be with your family 247, Running, walking, biking, hiking etc. is all an amazingway to keep people healthy. People dont have to worry about drunk drivers, or car crashes, or car fatalities. People can finally stop spending their hard earned money that they're just going keep spending and wasting on gasoline or to fix your car when its having problems and it breaks. Families can save the money that they would normally be spending on gasoline and start saving for a trip to take their family on to spend more time with them, or to take a trip for yourself.

There are plently more reasons and outstanding advantages that limiting car usage gives you, but these are some of the very best! Just remember, The only good advantages a car can give you is getting you somewhere faster, and keeping you comfortable and safe. But they are also the most danagerous, and expensive things out there.",0
3b654100,0,"Last year in 2014, the earth had the warmest temperature in recorded history. Needless to say, this is due to greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. One of the major reasons behind an increase in greenhouse gases is due to the use of cars and motorcycles, which release high amounts of carbon dioxide. It is to our benefit that we prevent any form of unnatural climate change on earth, and the most effective way to execute this is by living a more ""carfree"" life, especially here in the United States as it is our second most contributing factor of our increasing greenhouse gases. America could follow the path that many other countries and cities took.

In Vauban, Germany, cars have been banned unless one should decide to buy a permit in the form of a public garage. Most citizens take other means of transportation than cars. They walk, use bicycles, or public transportation. This has resulted in Vauban having a much cleaner environment and less stress as a result of no traffic. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" confesses Heidrun Walkter. Building suburbs like Vauban would result in a lower production of air pollution and a much more stress free environment.

Bogota has a similar policy as Vauban, but only lasts one day of the year. However, that only serves the citizens to be more enthusiastic about the event. Most people were glad to help out in anyway to reduce the smog. Bogota has also inspired other cities to do the same. Cali and Valledupar also decided to encourage this ecofriendly day. A day might not be much out of three hundred and sixty four, but a small contribution from a large mass of people can make a huge change. Implementing this same policy in more cities and countries would result in a notable change in the amount of air pollution around that time of year.

Paris resently executed a policy to ban cars with oddnumbered plates on Tuesdays as a consequence from a heavy smog that was brewing for several days. Paris had a smog of higher concentration than London, having 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter while London only had 78.7. There were residents who were unhappy with the ban, but the benefits the city gained from it were outstanding. Traffic was down by 60 percent and and as a recompensation for those who could not use their cars, public transportation was free from Friday to Monday. Due to the dedication of the mayor and citizens, the smog cleared up enough for the ban to be lifted. Making this a something a whole nation can participate in would definately improve the annual greenhouse gas emmssions.

Limiting car usage can have a posotive heavy impact on the world as a whole if more people were to follow the examples of these cities. The year of 2014 was known as the hottest year in recorded history, and it undoubtedly has to do with how much greenhouse gasses we emmited. If we could follow the example of those cities, we could see a great change by the end of the year 2015. This change could fix the climate problems we're currently having, and create a healthier, happier world.",0
3baf4091,0,"World war II was the start of development centering cars but in the recent years the popularity as well as the traffic has gone down because of limiting car usage which have lots of advantages. Limiting the use of cars advantages are less air pollution and new communities Initially, less car usage means less carbon emissions which leads to less air pollution. For example, Elisabeth Rosenthal author of "" The End of Car Culture"" wrote ""If the pattern persists and many sociologists believe it will it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions..."". Limiting the use of cars will have a really big benefit on the environment by stopping more emissions from damaging the Ozone layer. For example in Bogota, Colombia they have a day called ""Day Without Cars"" and Carlos Arturo Plaza a businessman who lives then says ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" from ""Carfree day is spinning into big hit in Bogota"" written by Andrew Selsky. People living thene have seen the benefits of the limits on cars and thinks it's a really good thing for their cityand not even rain can stop people from participating says Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus.

Additionally, these limitations have created new communities by building places that are very easy to get to. For example, Elisabeth Rosenthal author of ""In Germany Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" wrote ""In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away on a main street, Rathen than in malls along some distant highway."" With the new approach of limiting car usage things are built closer making many things accessible to everyone. For example, Andrew Selsky the author of ""Carfree day is spinning into big hit in Bogota"" wrote ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions dramatically cut traffic and new restraunts and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."". With the changes of accessibility buissness owners have to come where the money is making everything more accessible and creating new things in the area. Building things closer attracts more people which means more homes being built and more families enoying the community.

Clearly, the advantages of limiting car usage is amazing because it means less air pollution and new communities. Limitations on car usage will benefit us and the world.",0
3bb3ac01,0,"Many cities are now switching to become ""car free"". The more that cities do this, we are seeing a decrease in pollution, less automobile related deaths per year, and more resources being conserved.

When cities switch to become car free, the pollution levels instantly decreases. Due to the smog and the carbon monoxide emmitions in the atmosphere from cars, there is a hole in our Ozone layer in the atmosphere. Now that people are banning cars in cities there is much more healthy air to breathe and it is much safer for our environment. Also when there was more pollution in the air, and it rained, the rain turned in to acid rain causing erosion and killing several plantsanimals. If we could ban cars in more cities in the USA and all around the world, we would be living a much healthier lifestyle.

Also, the car free idea makes people much safer, as far as automobile accidents. Because as the automobiles are banned from the city, the accident rate will go down more even than it already has. Also Heidrun Walter said ""when I had a car I was always tense."" Not having a car, and not having the concern of crashing can relieve your stresses. It is scientifically proven that when people are less stressed they get more sleep and have less interment problems. If cities switched to being car free, people could start living safer and happier.

Lastly, being car free, saves vital resources, and fossil fuels. It takes millions of years to make oils, and gasses in the Earths crust, which we are wasting everyday on automobiles. If we were able to save these resources, we could perhaps use more in rockets or space travel and maybe find another planet that can sustain our life. If we were able to achieve this goal of saving resources, we could also all save money. Imagine not having to pay for gas anymore. You could be a millionaire. If we stopped using fossil fuels the world could become a much better place.

My point is, if we become car free, we could live safer, happier, and more wealthy lives. If your community went the the mayor and state officials, it could happen for your city. You could be the start to a revolution and, start the journey to save humanity. Not only would you get the bennies of living safer, happier, and wealthier, but the whole world would be living in a much better place. Please take this into consideration and make an effort to become ""car free"".",0
3bb7fe29,0,"Many people around the world drive vehicles to get from point a to point by. Although this is a good source of personal transportation, it may not bye as favorabyle as people imagine.

Primarily, the decrease in vehicles byeing a source of personal transportation is fairly byeneficial to the environment and ourselves. In fact, this new ""phenomenon"" is happening all over the world. As mentioned in the articles ""In German Subyurby, Life Goes On Without Cars"", ""Paris Bans Driving Due To Smog"", ""Car Free Day is Spinning Into A Big Hit In Bogota"", and ""The End of Car Culture"", many citizens of many different cultures see that the lowered usage of vehicle transportation doesn't only decrease how many greenhouse gasses are getting in the atmosphere byut also improves our wellbyeing byy reducing stress levels. Not only does it help us relieve stress and what ails us byut it also makes the distance we have to travel to purchase food much shorter, as cited in ""In German Subyurby, Life Goes On Without Cars"", giving us the opportunity to restock our supply over time instead of byuying multiple cart loads at once.

Secondarily, according to the article ""The End of Car Culture"", having access to byusses and other pubylic transportation can improve our safety. It is also seen in this article that ""at the Mobyile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford came up with a byusiness plan to create a world where personal vehicle ownership isn't needed or is undesirabyle. His company would partner up with the telecommunications industry to help create new cities and towns in which many ways such as using a byicycle, private cars, commercial and pubylic transportation, and simply walking could bye woven into a connected network."" With this new plan, there would bye improved safety byy having official drivers providing the byus transportation and private car transportation. Both of these ways are liabyle to give us extra time in our days byy decreasing the probyabyility of traffic and will give us ultimate safety while getting from point a to point by.

There are many cultures in our world today who go along with the plan of decreasing the amount of vehicle transportation. There are many different ways this is byeing achieved and every one of us can bye a part of it.",0
3c239e05,1,"Dear Florida Senator, As a citizen, i believe that the Electoral College system isn't a very smart idea. If you think about it, it's pretty unfair to us votes. We live in a country where they say that we have the right to vote. But in reality, with the Electoral College system in play, that right is taken away from us.

Basica lly , when we vote, we don't actually vote for the president himself. We are voting for the slate of electors, in hopes that they vote the way we would like them too. Although is is rare that an electors votes against his own party, it isn't unheard of. That right there is a huge reason why we cant trust this system. We cant control who our electors vote for.

In worst case, there is a tie in the electoral vote and the election is thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegation vote on the President. Because each state only gets one vote, there would be only one person representing the 500,000 voters in Wyoming, and 1 person representing the 35 people that live in California. This is an unbalanced way to represent each state.

Basically, the Electoral College is unf air to voters. Because of the winnertakesall system, candidates don't spend much times in the smaller states because they don't count for so many votes. They focus on the larger, ""swing states"" that will count for more. For example, during the 2000 campaign, there were 17 states that didn't even get the chance to see the candidates at all.

In their defense, the Electoral College does avoids runoff elections. For example, in 1968 Nixon had only a 43 percent plurality of popular votes, but won the electoral vote. There is a lot of pressure when no candidate wins the people vote and this stress is reduced, which produces a clear winner.

All in all, the Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and can't be trusted. People who support it, need a reality check. They don't realize that the system completely disregards their voting rights as a citizen.",0
3ccf6a04,0,"Between years 2001 and 2009 driving by young people has decreased 23 percent because of new innovations including compact suburbs, more bicycle paths and public transportation. There are many benefits for limiting your car usage including better moods and more compact easily accessible cities, a large decrease in pollution and its cheaper.

In Vauban, Germany, Majority of there population of over five thousand have given up cars for simple reasons. A resident of Vauban stated that while using her car she felt , "" tense"" and that ""Im much happier this way"". having a car can be very stressful because you have to be alert one hundred percent of the time. You also have to deal with other drivers on the road who might not be as responsible as yourself. One big reason for leaving your car behind could be the traffic jam. traffic jams are frustrating and cause bad moods and later on accidents. Another advantage is a more compact way of living. In Vauban, they have placed their shops on a walk way rather than in a mall to increase their accessibility to pedestrians and bike riders.

Pollution has become a large threat to the world today because of cars and their exhaust. Cars are said to cause twelve percent of the greenhouse gases found in the atmosphere. Paris enforced a driving ban on monday for even numbered license plates because of the near record pollution problem in the city. These people had to leave their cars at home or be fined a thirtyone dollar ticket. many still disobeyed and some had their cars impounded. this shows us that car pollution is becoming out of hand, and limiting your car use can help the environment and lower the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

After 2005, studies show that the rate of driving began decreasing because of the recession. Americans could not afford to buy brand new cars ,and people without jobs just couldnt buy a car at all. Cars are becoming expensive which is why peole are taking alternate roots. this decrease in car buying will hold up the car making companies but could give people more money to spend on other things.

Throughout the years car use has decreased because of carless communities, new banning laws, the growing numbers of greenhouse gases, increasing costs and and the growing trend of walking, riding a bike, and using public transportation such as trains and buses.",0
3cd66fb5,0,"Everyone nowadays is so used to driving a car here and there even if it would just be five minutes on foot, but what if you started limiting your car usage? Making your feet be your gas instead of a pump when the distance is close enough, and even biking occasionally. Limiting car usage may sound like a bad thing, but it has many advantages such as reducing pollution, increasing safety for human beings, and even opening options for alternative transportion.

Cars release a great amount of pollutants into the air increasing smog in some areas worse than others, like in Paris, China, and other places. Providing or opening your mind to other ways to get from one destination to the next, would reduce the smog thats in the air. This simple action as close to 70% of the population pitching in can result in a healthier environment, and some people may agree with hepburn Walter. She says ""When I had a car I was always tense. Im much happier this way."" Not only that, people who do not agree or get rid of their transportion vehicles will be fined. For example, in Germany you have to pay 40,000 if you want to get a car owner space and this does not include the money you have to spend on your house. Than, in Paris 4,000 drivers were fined 31 dollars after not leaving their cars home after a public announcement was made to do so. This shows that opening this can increase health, or make an environment cleaner. Plus, you actually inforcing something that is good for the environment will get people to participate, such as a fine.

Hearing engines roar and cars zoom pace is a sound all too familiar with citizens who walk or ride constantly. It can be quite on the thrilling side crossing the streets or even walking down a busy rode when you know being hit is a possibly. Limiting car usage can decrease the risks or heavy weighted vehicles hitting biking, or walking citizens that dont have a chance against the weight. This increases safety, bumping into another human or being nudged by a bike wont affect your body as much as a 500 pound or even heavier car crashing into a 100 pound person. Like, Carlos Arturo said ""It's a good opportuinity to take away stress..."" meaning the stess that comes with a car. The money for gas and the risk or hitting someone or being hit is taken away when on foot or on bike. This shows limting car usage isnt only increasing the safety or people walking or biking, it also takes away stess factors like money, fixing a car if it needs repair, and other factors.

Finally, having alternate forms of transportion can open your eyes to a whole need world. Instead of constanly beiong locked in your 4 door honda prison or your house you're outside seeing new people and increasing social interaction. Not only this, but you're getting excerise and maintaining your health or builing it. Which is another reason to limit the amount we use our cars. This shows that doing so can not only increase saftery, and money, but health and social oppurtunitys.

In conclusion, limiting car usage has many advantages even if you dont realize it and our soiciety could benefit a lot from it. Like, when it comes to the safety of the next generation, the present, or the previous. Than, it can even take away stress that come with a vechicle and even increase health and social gathering.",0
3d0072b6,0,"In our world, air pollution is a huge problem. Most air pollution stems from motor vehicles. People don't usually tend to think that driving is hurting the Earth, but that is exactly what it is doing. Smog is a big issue in cities like New York and Paris. Not only is it unsafe for the environment, but it is also unhealthy for humans.

Big cities have recently started doing ""CarFree"" days where no one is allowed to drive. If a person does drive, they will get fined. City officials are doing this in an attempt to cut back on the air pollution and smog that cars cause. In a sense, they are saving the world that we live in. In the third article, Carlos Arturo Plaza said ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Another wonderful thing about limiting car use is this: It saves money. Gasoline is so expensive today. It is stressful to have to pay so much money for it. The prices constantly fluctuate and it's hard to keep up with. Yes, public transportation costs money. But it doesn't cost nearly as much as it would to fill up your whole gas tank.

A big problem in America is obesity. I think that this is partially because nobody ever needs to get up and really walk anywhere. Our car keys are at our fingertips and since we can so easily drive, we see no reason in travelling anywhere close in any other way. I believe that obesity in America would be greatly reduced if car use was limited. People would be out walking more and they would be engaging in more physical activity than ever before. It can do nothing but good for all of us.

I understand that some people label limiting car usage as ""unnatural"", but I don't think those people really consider all of the goodness in it. There are many advantages in not being so reliant on cars.

In conclusion, limiting car usage is not just the latest fad, but a new way of protecting the Earth and it's people. It is a way to keep the environment clean and functioning properly, as it should be. It is a way to make humans healthier and happier. I honestly believe that being less reliant on cars is a great thing, and I believe that it is the direction in which we need to go.",0
3d41c0ca,0,"There are many advantages of limiting your car usage and it too can help the Earth. Limiting car usage can be very helpful towards your health and your environment around you. Elisabeth Rosenthal, Robert duffer and Andrew selsky has all written down their opnions down suggesting for more people to use bikes, buses or even walking to help people use less cars.

Why, would anyone walk but have easier transport by driving a car? because by walking you being saving money and lowering down pollution that is in the air. In In German Suburb, Life goes on without cars written by Elisabeth Rosenthal she is explaining how in Vauban,Germany is a ""carfree"" city and if you own a car ownership you would have to pay a lot of money just for a space in your home for you car. Elisabeth has claimed that "" Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to parklarge garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home"". This quote is showing how by owning your own car can cause too much money in a place that doen'st allow cars but when they do allow cars, you have to pay double of the price of a normal car. There is also something else that is interesting that Elisabeth has also stated: ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the United States"". This quote is showing us that cars waste too much gas and it goes up into our greenhouse and it is destroying our planet. If the percent number keeps going up, our earth can be harmful.

Also, by not using your car, it can lower down rushhours and traffic. As stated in this quote by Andrew Selsky written in Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in bogota: "" Rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"". That is very good for the people because they would getting plenty of exerices while walking and they would not have to deal with beeping cars behind them or being stuck in the same place for couples of hours. If more people people come into walking or riding bikes to their homes,schools,or jobs the bike places would get a lot of money for their bikes and that is good because the car dealership places would get less money and would close down. This quote from The end of car culture by Elisabeth Rosenthal reflects how the bike shops would get new priorities: ""New York's new bikesharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect those new priorities, as do a proliferation of carsharing programs across the nation"". This is showing how paying for a bike would benefit you and the planet by not buying a car that is polluting the air.

Finally, Paris has been noticing smog going everywhere in france and needs to do something about it so they enforced a partial driving ban to clear up the air. As stated in this quote by Robert Duffer who has written Paris bans driving due to smog, ""Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has... a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline"". This quote is explaining how using up too much gasoline can lead to serious problems like having heavy smog everywhere in the country. That only does France have heavy smog but Paris does have the most smog, other European countries as well as stated in this quote: ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals...Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic metere compared with 144 in Brussels and 79.7 in London, Reuters found""Duffer. Having so much smog that you aren't able to see toward can be very dangrous.

In concluson, Being able to save your money, and help out the Earth can always be a good thing. Polluting the air can lead to many problems in the future and that could damage many lives and places. Always know how to respect your planet by always using less gas or no gas at all. Biking and walking can lead to a better future and it would turn out better than using a car.",0
3d5340bc,0,"All arround the world countries are making an effort to reduce their use of cars to benefit the Earth. There are many benefits to reducing car usage all arround the world. Not only does it reduce pollution but it also promotes getting out and being active. Vauban, Germany is a carfree community where the voices of a few children can drown out the hum of a car. Bogota, Colombia has established a program called the Day Without Cars where they promote alternate transportation and reduce smog. This promotes people to use transportation that runs on manpower like bikes or even walking. This also falls into the fact that as people use bikes and walk they begin to get more exercize. Although most of the time it is more continent to use cars to get to a location some places have stores within walking distance so there would be no need for the use of a car.

Pollution has been a problem arround the world for many years, each country is responsible for their own share of polluting the Earth and cars are part of the problem. Cars alone are responsible for 50 percent of greenhouse emissions in America, if Americans made an effort to reduce that number by just half it would mean a world of difference to that country. It would result in America being less responsible for the pollution of the Earth and a safer environment for the citizens. However, other countries have been taking action to help the environment, efforts were thrown towards cities to make it more beneficial to walk and they are now setting their sights on suburbs. Vauban, Germany is acommunity where there is an advanced experiment that focuses on eliminating the use of cars. Their efforts have proven quite successful as only 30 percent of the families that live there own cars and almost 60 percent of the residents sold their car in order to live there. Bogota, Colombia has created a day where everyone is encouraged to use bikes and walk instead of using fuelburning cars, those who chose not to participate in this event were fined 25. The effort that was put into the making of thisevent has inspired other countries like Cali and Valledupar to do the same. This shows that people are making an effort to move torards environmentally beneficial habits that cause a chain reaction.

Another benefit to reducing the use of cars is that people will get more exercize than they usually do. For some people the most exercize they get is the walk from the couch to the fridge or the 30 minutes when they are at the mall. Unfortunatley, people do not walk arround the mall every day for their daily exercize routine. Decreasing the use of cars would promote people to use their physical energy in order to get to their desired destination. This would also result in having stores and other services of use closer by so people will be more willing to walk to them.",0
3d5f1ec0,0,"From the crammed streets of New York City, to the touristfilled city of Paris, cars have been the means of transportation around the globe ever since their creation. The reliance on cars has been an issue too great to ignore, as the environment becomes more polluted and the streets become more dangerous. We must shed light on the dark tunnel that has been blinding our judgement to a brighter future, where pollution is limited and our streets are clean. That future can only be seen with limiting car usage. Therefore, limiting car usage would be advantageous because it would better the environment and it would create a better lifestyle around the world.

First, limiting car usage would be advantageous because it would better the environment. With global warming increasing by the day, any step to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases should be taken, limiting car usage is an essential tool to head in that direction. As a Elisabeth Rosenthal from the New York Times expounded: ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Clearly cars are extremely harmful to the environment. However there is hope, because once car usage is limited these high numbers can be mitigated everywhere. In fact, in Paris, as Robert Duffer from the Chicago Tribune reported, policies to lower car usage have been taken and have actually worked! In France's capital ""motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day."" In hopes to reduce carbon emissions and save the environment, Paris's prayers were answered as the smog cleared enough for the government to remove the ban for oddnumbered plates. Clearly, the pollution reduced due to one factorlimiting car usage. If actions around the world are initiated similar to Paris's plan, then a better environmental future is inevitable. The environmental benefits of reducing car usage are endless. After all we only have one planet, cars should not be the machines to dictate our environmental future.

Moreover, limiting car usage is beneficial because it would create a better lifestyle around the world. Reliance on cars has shaped modern society into a dependent state on oil. However, once that oil runs out, what type of lifestyle will people turn to? Limiting car usage provides this answer through a healthy lifestyle before this day arises. For example, In Bogota, Colombia, as Andrew Selsky from the Seattle Times put it: ""the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths"" had been built within Bogota after years of limiting cars. People are shifting their reliance on cars and turning them into productive means of transportation. In fact, rush hour restrictions cut traffic and has led to a rise in parks and shopping districts in Bogota, according to Mr Selsky. Even Carlos Arturo Plaza a businessman in Bogota enthusiastically exclaimed: ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress..."" as he rode a two seat bicycle with his wife. However, Bogota is not the only place where limiting car usage has been gaining support, the Mobile World Congress has been engaged too! Bill Ford, the executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company laid out his plan where he envisioned a ""world in which personal vehicle ownership is impractical or undesriable,"" Rosenthal. He believed that ""partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emission and improve safety"" Rosenthal. If people around the globe are willing to support this movement, especially a chairman for one of the world's largest automotive companies, and partake in this new lifestyle, then limiting car usage must be the way to go. This new lifestyle of riding bikes, walking, and taking public transportation, will mold the traditional transportation mediums, into a more safe and secure one if citizens support this advantageous movement.

It is time the citizens of planet Earth envision the streets of Beijing and the historic city of London, not as images of pollution and carreliant places, but as clean and healthy ones. The advantages of limiting car usage makes this dream a reality, because this policy betters the environment and creates a better lifestyle around the world. Hopefully word spreads quickly, and everyone, everywhere, knows of the advantages of limiting car usage, because only then, will our future be a bright one.",0
3d602500,0,"To my fellow citizens all across the world I think there are a lot of advantages that come with the limited car usage. One thing is that it could save the environment from the pollution of gas. Also it could save people a whole lot of money if they didn't have a car. Lastly and final statement why limited car usage is advantage is that they use the money from the car to buy homes.

For starters, their are a lot of things that come with buying a car but a lot of people dont no is that every time they start up there car their actually hurting the environment because of the gas. Here is an example from source 2.""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"". After reading that it seems to me that the pollution of the gas is becoming to be a problem all around the world and thats why we need to put a stop to it by just banning it for country to country and then eventually become a car free world. Another example I found from source 2. ""The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world"". I read that and i was like wow! I wonder why that might be well if they banned the car usage they might bring do there pollution or congestion in the city. Thats why the pollution from the gas is so bad it could actually harm or maybe possibly kill them if they breathe in that pollution on a consistent basis.

Secondly, people make pretty big sacrifices in life but one I found most interesting was that Germany residents were selling there cars to buy homes for them to live in. This strikes my eye in very many ways is that they are saving an expense they don't need and also saving the environment also. For example, in source 1 it said ""70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars and 57 percent sold a car to move here"". I find that quite interesting why a family like that would just give up transportation and then I thought well they save a ton of money and also they get to move to maybe a better living environment just by limiting the car usage. People who live in Levittown, New York are good example of limited car usage because a lot of them work in the city and a lot of times driving into the city is not a very good thing to do because of the traffic. So what do they do? They don't drive a car but only to the train station were they ride the train to and from the city saving money in gas and its easier to do it that way.

Thirdly, citizens use limited car usage to save money in life because lets all face it the world we live in is tough money is hard to come by and people have car payments they have to pay every month and sometimes they cant make that payment cause they have other bills they have to pay so what do they do. They sell they car and that gives them extra money a month to pay for bills a such forth. Another thing they save from selling there car is that they don't have to pay for gas either so your probably saving some where around 200 hundred dollars in cash or credit in one month which is good. Thats another reason why selling your car is an advantage of limited car usage.

In conclusion, their are a lot of ways where citizens of the world can use limiting there car usage as an advantage. Where it might be saving the environment or selling your vehicle to buy a home or even maybe just to save money in everyday life like some citizens do in Levittown, New York. These were some of my opinions on advantages of limiting car usage in everyday life.",0
3d75a33b,0,"Now a days you see everyone with cars driving to places instead of walking. There are some small towns that cars are not needed because everything is so close but other cities everyone has to drive because everything is very distant from one another. Cars are needed on a daily basis to get to school, or to get to their job but walking or even biking would be a great idea because you would not be poluting the environment there would be less traffic jams and it would reduce the greenhouse gas. Limiting car usage would be a great idea and it would make peoples life a lot better and healthier because instead of driving they would walk to take a bike.

Polution is a big problem especially in big cities because everyone is driving and the smoke the cars leave makes our environment gross. Polution is not only because of the smoke the cars produce, it can also be when someone throws plastic into the oceans and poluting the waters or having trash in parks without recycling. I think we should reenforce the recycling systems because many people dont know the benefits to that and how better our community and even world could be. When your are driving a car and especially in big cities like New York you need a car everywhere or just take the taxi. But just taking the taxi it wont reduce the probablity of polluting the air, it will still have the same effect as if you were driving your own car. If people would just walk or bike to their job or to their school poluting the air would not be a problem just like stated in source 2. In source 2 it talks about how in Paris they would fine the people up to 31 dollars.

There would also be less traffic jams due to the limiting of car usage just like stated in Source 3. In source 3 it talks about how in Bogota, Colombia there is a program that the colombians would ride their bike skate or take the bus and there would be less traffic jams. That is a very good idea because no one likes to be stuck in traffic especially if your in a hurry to get to work or even school. Traffic jams occur because of so many cars on the road. There is a thing called Rush hour and that is when everyone is leaving their work or school and they are going home and that is when everyone is on the road and thats when their is the most traffic. But it would be much easier if you would just bike or walk or take a bus and tried to avoid all of those traffic jams. The program that Bogota, Colombia has created is something that should be done nationwide because it would help so many other countries. Thanks to that programm people would go to the park and do sports and take walks.

Source A talks about the Greenhouse gas and how in Vauban,Germany soccer moms gave up their cars and how the streets were "" Car Free"". That led to having 70 percent of the families in Vauban to not having cars and 57 percent of the people that moved to Vauban to sell their cars. According to this source a person said they are much happier not owning or having a car because when Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother had a car she said she was more tense. Apperently this movement was called "" Smart Planning"".

Limiting car usage would be a great benefit to people and a great idea to improve Earth. Pollution like mentioned before is one of the biggest problems we have and in big cities is an evern bigger problem. Traffic jams is something that will be hard to stop because everyone is using cars and will continue to use cars because it seems like thats the fastest way to get to your location but thats not accurate because if people think that way then thats the cause of traffic jams and thats the cause of the Rush hour. The movement in Vauban, Germany is something that people should do. Im not saying sell your car but to reduce the car usage is something that would be very helpful not only to you, but for the environment.",0
3dabfdd8,0,"Many people believe that it is necessary to use a car to get from one place to another. Many studies have shown that this in fact is not true. There are many advantages to limiting car usage. I am in favor of limiting car usage because of the advantages it brings to the world. One reason to limit car usage is, because it reduces the amount of pollution. Another reason, is because many people around the world are in favor of limiting car usage. Lastly, limiting car usage lowers emissions and improves safety. Beneficial and critical, limiting car usage helps humans as well as the environment.

First of all, limiting car usage reduces the amount of pollution worldwide. Reflective and didactic, Robert Fuller's ""Paris bans driving due to smog,"" reflects the amount of pollution that is reduced due to limited car usage. For example, Robert Fuller explains that ""...Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London, Reuters found."" This statement layers Robert's opinion that car usage can create vast amounts of pollution. If car usage is limited, the amount of particulate matter would decrease. For instance, this theory is created when Robert Fuller states ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" Another reason, is because many people around the world are in favor. appalled and enthusiastic, Andrew Selsky's ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", molds the theory that limiting car usage has many advantages. For instance, businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza states ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife. The fact that many people around the world are in favor of limiting car usage is shown, when Andrew Selsky sates that ""Municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the event and were enthusiastic."" Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus is also in favor as he states ""The rain hasn't stopped people from participating."" These statements show that limiting car usage is very beneficial and has many advantages.

Lastly, limiting car usage lowers emissions and improves safety. This is shown in Elisabeth Rosenthal's ""The End of Car Culture."" Elisabeth states that ""...it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment."" Elisabeth Rosenthal also states that ""...transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions just behind power plants."" Limiting car usage also improves safety. Last year in Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, proposed partnering with telecommunications. Bill Ford wanted to partner with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety."" This statement forms the theory that limiting car usage has many advantages.

In conclusion, limiting car usage has many advantages. We as people of the world need to limit car usage for many reasons. The first reason is, because it reduces the amount of pollution. The second reason is that many people around the world are in favor of limiting car usage. The last reason is, because limiting car usage lowers emissions and improves safety. This is why we as citizens of the world need to limit car usage worldwide.",0
3dc28933,1,"Dear,State Senator The election of our country's leader is a huge deal. I am writting to you regarding the Electoral College and why it should remain as part of our presidential election process,The Electoral college allows balance in our elections,As well forces candidates to have regional appeal,and gives people the power.

What if there was no majority vote or if there were to be a tie? the liveliness of this happening with the Electoral College is very low compared to the liveliness of this happening in a Popular vote. Electoral College vote likely exceeds that of the Popular vote.source 3 paragraph 18The Electoral College also gives the Larger states a chance to balance out what they've lost in representation in senate by the constitution meaning they get to express the peoples voices better maybe as well as the small states who have the right amount of senate per population. Balance is very important in all things for a successful country if the states aren't happy with the amount of voice and say they get in the federal government then we as a country may face instability as a whole.

presidential candidates are to earn their place and prove why it is that they have what it takes to successfully run our country. Candidate must earn regional appeal, although no region as the power of Electoral votes to decide the election,it is important that the candidate has is liked by all regions. transregional appeal increases the chances of a successful president, a president who shows interests in all of his countries interest is a successful president.source 3 paragraph 19 A candidate has to seek electoral votes in all states but especially the key ones where the voters actually understand their responsibility and actually listen to the campaigns.

This country strongly believes in the peoples voices and their input in how their country is ran. the Electoral college gives that power to the people, it allows the people to express their opinion on who thei leader should be. Even though the voters are actually voting for the electors and not the candidate it still gives the people enough control over their government which prevents a tyranny.

Many may argue that some voters aren't well educated and don't have the knowledge need to make the right choice and that they might get confused and make the wrong choice. But this isnt always true because the candidates make sure to focus on the Tossup states which can define an election, and these are the people who really focus on the camppaign and unedrstand their resposibility to make the right choice as a state.

The Electoral college with out a question should remain in our country system, it keeps the balance in all states and strengthens us as a coutry, forces all candiates to have regional appeal to become successful presidents, and follows our country basis a government for the people and by the people.",0
3dfb4c6c,0,"Of course, many people from all over the world are using cars for everywhere they go, however Elisabeth Rosenthal, Robert Duffer, and Andrew Selsky agree that the reduction of the usage of cars will benefit us an abundant amount. Therefore, if we all used our cars less, it will benefit our health, benefit our financial problems, and benefit our environment.

Duffer and Rosenthal tells us about how using less cars will benefit our health. It would make us healthier by cleaning the up the pollution and smog in the air. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog.."" 14 This is saying that people in France were becoming significantly healthier in just 5 days without the use of cars. Not only only does it make you less sick, but it reduces stress. It reduces stress because you dont have to worry about maintaining a car. ""When i had a care i was always tense. im much happier this way"" 3 This is saying that its less stressful not having car, and makes people happier. Health is a primary factor in our lifes and taking cars away puts us in a better position.

Rosenthal and Selsky tell us about how using less cars will benefit our financial problems. It would make us more money because they are not spending so much on gas, and components to keep the car in condition to drive. ""recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less, and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by"" 29 This is saying that people are not on the road alot, and if people arent on the road alot, they are not spending money. Not only does it save money on cars, but it helps you use other ways to get to places that arent expensive. It isnt expensive because people can find alternatives that dont need gas, and so much maintance. ""In a program that's set to spread to other countires, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday.."" 20 This is saying that because they dont need to use cars and there are differerent routes to take, the need to spend money on transportation decreases. Money is important to gets the necessities we humans need, so saving is a big deal.

Rosenthal and Selsky tells us about how using less cars will benefit our environment. It would better the environment because people will learn to communicate better. ""Likewise the rise in cell phones and carpooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements, including the evolution of share can services for getting to work."" 35 This is saying that people learn how to share and to help one another out. Not only does it help communication, but it also helps helps people get outside and be active. It helps people get active because is they dont have cars, they have to keep themselves occupied or if they want to get to places, they have to walk, bike, etc. ""Parks and sports centers have also bloomed throughout the city: uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks.."" 28 This is saying that that the city is working with the people to help make the environment a better place with no cars. The environment is an important factor as well because we have to take care of the place we live in.

In conclusion, Rosenthal, Selsky, and Duffer have shown that the reduction of the usage of cars will help us tremendously, and that having a healthier life, a greater amount of money, and a better environment will change the world.",0
3e6daaf4,0,"Car use all over the world has tried to be reduced throughout the years in attempt to save the environment by using fewer green house emissions, air pollution, and smog. Participating in these measures can help. If all countries would participate, this could make a huge revolution for the world and the environment.

In Vauban, Germany the roads are almost completely car free. There are a few exceptions, but they come with a cost. Exceptions according to Rosenthal's source 1, paragraph 2 include, ""Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park large garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home."" This action allows people to purchase a vehicle, but reduces the amount of people buying them because of the exorbitant additional cost for a parking garage and having to buy a house in that area too. As stated in paragraph 3, of source 1, it has resulted in ""70% of vaughn's families do not own cars and 57% percent sold a car to move here."" Also sated in paragraph 3, source 1, the people who had cars in the past were always stressed, but now without cars their stress levels have gone down, and they are much happier. Positively, in response to the people eliminating most of the car use, Vaunban has built stores and malls that are in walking distance of the people, paragraph 6, source 1.

In Paris, smog levels have been at their alltime high. In response to these problems, Paris has come up with a system that still allows driving, but reduces the amount of drivers. Their system, according to paragraph 2, of source 2, is ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day."" This would not only reduce smog, but also traffic jams, rush hours, and congestion by 60% says source 2, paragraph 5. This leaves Paris with a winwin. Less traffic leading to less stress, and less smog resulting in a healthier city.

Bogota, Columbia participated in a car free day too. As a result, like many others, it reduced pollution and stress. It caused a happier, healthier environment. People who didn't participate were fined 25. If you offer a punishment, it will allow people to participate because they don't want to be fined.

Also, offering other forms of transportation such as a bus, bycicles, or skating propel people to do it because they know there will be other forms of ways to get to where they need to go. Negatively, people need to be at a certain place, on a certain time, resulting in their rebellion to take place in the activities held in the city.

Positively, the large amount of participation has resulted in the growth of parks, sportcenters, malls, and reconstruction of sidewalks to promote fewer car uses, says source 3, paragraph 9.

Elisabeth Rosenthal really touches on the reduction of greenhouse gas emmision because it is better for the environment and for the health of the people worldwide. If technology continues to advance, like it has in the past years, people can continue to communicate over the phone and use car pulling to reduce the amount of cars driven daily.

Sharing cars or reducing the amount we get to use them, will also supplement safety for people by reducing car crashes which could save many lives.",0
3e9a827b,1,"Dear Florida State Senator, Every 4 years, many people vote for a president theey theink will lead thee United States to greatness some, however, don't know theat theey are voting for thee Electoral collegee to vote on theeir choise. This act of using thee Electoral collegee is, by definition, not democratic. Didn't our founding fatheers create theis country promising democracy and people representation? They did, and theat is why thee Electoral collegee must crumble. Florida State Senator, we need to change how our country votes on its leader we need to use popular vote for thee president of thee United States because theis metheod is more democratic, thee people representing thee Electoral collegee are flawed humans, and thee nature of theis type of eelection forces some states to be ignored. Florida State Senator, you must take action against thee flawed Electoral collegee!

Because of thee function of thee Electoral collegee, thee people aren't truly represented for. According to Source 2, thee votersthee ones supposedly voting for our new presidentvote for a group of electors instead. Due to thee power of thee Electoral college, electors can vote for any candidate. This process we have every 4 years is truly undemocratic. For example, during thee 2000 eelection, Al Gore was thee candidate withe thee most popular votestheis meant theat thee majority of thee citizens of thee U.S. wants him to be president. However, Al Gore lost since thee majority of electors from thee Electoral collegee voted him. Lastly, in thee case of a time, thee election will truly be undemocratic thee House of Representatives will have to choose thee new president. The people may allow continued usage of thee imperfect Electoral collegee, but theere is still one major problem: thee Electoral collegee is made up of flawed, easily manipulated humans.

According to Source 1, thee electors are made up of people chosen by thee candidate's political party. Immediately, theese electors can easily decide on thee candidate to vote on it's just thee matter of thee amount of electors each candidate has. Also, thee electors are human beings, and everyone knows theat humans are flawed creatures. According to Source 2, electors have been replaced to be against thee opposing candidate or wait until thee last minute to vote. Altheough, according to Source 3, thee electors are chosen and are given trust, otheers can still influence theem. Candidates or even political parties can influence thee electors to vote for theeir chosen person. Lastly, Florida State Senator, thee nature of thee Electoral collegee forces some states to be ignored.

Florida State Senator, as you may know, thee candidate for presidency usually go to thee ""swing"" states to win ""thee people's"" vote. People, however, from thee nonswing states are generally ignored. During thee 2000 eelection, 17 states weren't even able to see a candidate theey are voting for thee title of president. Altheough it is understandable theat candidates go to thee ""swing"" and populous states, theere is no excuse for ignoring theousands of people from thee small states. The president of thee United States is thee president for an entire country, not just a region of it. Voters from thee nonswing states will still want to see thee candidate to decide on who to vote for, even theough theey aren't voting for thee actual candidate. The Electoral collegee is imperfect and undemocratic!

In conclusion, thee Electoral collegee and its electors must be disbanded so theat popular vote will be used in determining thee new president of thee United States. According to bothe Source 2 and 3, thee process of voting a group of people to vote for you is undemocratic. Electors, thee people making up the Electoral collegee, can be manipulated and coerced into voting a specific candidate. Lastly, nonswing states will be ignored theis will anger and frustrate theem since not one candidate tried to persuade theem. Florida State Senator, you must, in thee best of your ability and theen some, try to topple down thee undemocratic roots of thee Electoral collegee. The people, thee ones who must truly decide on thee president, will be immensely greatful towards you in a 2000 poll, 60% of thee voters even stated theat theey want a popularvote type of eelection. Florida State Senator, I implore to you, abolish thee Electoral collegee in thee same manner as withe slavery.",0
3ea50e49,1,"Dear State Senator, This is a letter to you to discuss an issue that many people may have had problems with in the past. I would like to make a suggestion in trying to change the Electoral College system to popular vote. Changing the system to popular vote may be the best thing for the citizens who want to make their votes count.

I think that it is also not fair that a big state gets more attention than smaller states. According to Richard A. Posner he states that bigger states gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does. I think it should all be equal, all states should get as much attention from presidential candidates no matter what size they are.

According to Bradford Plumer, he states that that sometimes the electors decide no to vote for the party's candidate and vote for who ever they want. That is not fair for the citizens! Voters should be able to have control on who they vote for because it's their vote, it shouldnt be depended on someone else who might even trick them and end up voting for someone that the people didnt want. Bradford also states that ""500,000 voters would equal 55 representatives who represent 35 million voters, that amount of voters vote one party for president and another for Congress."" This shows how the House's selection doesn't need to be expected from the will of the people. If we change the system then people shouldnt have to be depending on who their elector votes for, it would just be their vote that counts.

The winnertakeall system is the worst thing about Electoral College, making it unfair for the voters. Since there are states that candidates know they dont have a chance of winning, they just dont spend time at that state, so they only go to the states they know they will get their votes on. Bradford Plumer also said that during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't get to see the candidates at all, and that 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad. which doesnt make fair for those states becasuse they wanted to see who they wanted to cast their vote on. The candidates should have to spend equal time in each state even if they know they aren't going to win it there might be people on those states that might like that candidate.

These reasons should suggest that the Electoral College system should go away, and popular vote would be a better idea. The candidate shouldn't win cause of winnertakeall system, or cause some electors didn't listen to the voters. It should be on the people's hands and what they think of that candidate. The people's votes should what really count.",0
3ede07a8,1,"Dear or or Ms Senator, Presient Richard Nixon, and President Bill Clinton both have something in common they won their residencies with the Electoral College, not the popular vote. According to ""In Defense of the Electoral College: five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President. Paragraph 22 Richard and Bill only won 43% of the popular vote against their opponents while they were running for office. This is why the United States needs to keep the Electoral College instead of switching to the popular vote for the elections.

Now you're probably wondering, does high school students even know what the Electoral College is and what it's job? Yes, high school students do know what the Electoral College is and what it does. The Electoral College is made up of 538 electors. Your state amount equals one member from the House of representatives and two from the Senate. The electors are chosen from the candidate's political party. The Electoral College decides the president and vice president every four years every Tuesday ater the first Monday in the month of November.

or or Ms Senator, the Electoral College needs to stay instead of the popular vote because when you have the Electoral College you will get an outcome from it unlike the popular vote. Almost all states have the ""winners take all"" method which according to ""What is te Electoral College"" by the Office of the Federal register Paragraph 7 this method is when all electors are awarded to the presidential candidate that is winning. Also the popular vote overrides the popular vote. In ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner paragraph 18 the 2012 presidential campaign for example it was the battle between Mitt rodney who is a Republican against Barack Obama who is a Democrat. Obama received only 51.3 percent of the popular vote and Obama got 61.7 percent of the Electoral College. As you can see the Electoral College overrided the popular vote which ultimately made him president. Also in ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the Presiden"" Paragraph 22take Richard Nixon's and Bill Clinton's presidential campaign. Those two only won 43% of their popular votes but they won their elections with the Electoral College. Without the Electoral College all three of these presides wouldn't have become President of the United States.

To continue on, the Electoral College should stay instead of the popular vote since one region of the United States doesn't have enough power of the Electoral Votes to make a presidential candidate win. Look at ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" Mitt rodney doesn't campaign in the South part of the United States since he knows that he is popular in that region with the electors he doesn't bother camapigning there since he knows he will win their votes. But he has to campaign to other states and regions since he knows the South doesn't have enough power to make him president. And with that comes your swing states and the big states. Swing states listen to what the presidential candidates have to say since they are tossup states. These swing states literally can ""swing"" the election. These are the states that are going to decide who the next president is. And that ties in with your big states California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania are some of your big states since they have the most population out of the United States. These states can also be swing states since they have the most votes out of every state. With the power of the popular vote a presidential canidate can become president, and other regions will not have a say. But using the Electoral College that can't happen.

On the other hand, according to ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" Parargraph 14 the Electoral is outdated, irrational, and unfair. In ""The Inefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer key names such as Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, AFLCIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerece all want to get rid of the Electoral College and use the Popular Vote. Look at the presidency that was in 2000 with Al Gore against George W. Bush. Al Gore would have won the election if the election was based on the popular vote. He won the popular vote with over 60%! But unfortunately, he didn't win and lost to George W. Bush since Bush won the Electoral College votes. But some people don't really know what they are voting for in election which is why the Electoral College is the way to go. Also people complained with the ""winners take all method"" some candidates don't go to certain states and only focus on the swing states. In the 2000 campaign seventeen out of fifty states didn't see the candidates. But the candidates didn't go to those states since they knew they had no chance of winning those states and they needed to focus on the swing states to make sure they win the election. Many people do call the Electoral College an anachronism, but it doesn't need to stick in the past, it needs to be kept in the present and in the future.

Ultimately, or or Ms Senator, the United States needs to keep the Electoral College instead of the popular vote because you will always have an outcome and one region can't overpower another and make a candidate win the presidential campaign. Yes, as said before many people want to get rid of the Electoral College but it will stay with the United States and move forward with us people.",0
3ee53216,0,"When it comei to automobilei they can provide ui with numeroui benefiti. However, it would appear that limiting car uie hai far more advantagei than thought of before: it can help the environment, provide eaiier meani of commuting, and it can cut down on traffic congeition.

To begin, it would appear ai though that limited car uiage ii a environment iaving technique. For initance, within the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goei On Without Cari"" by Eliiabeth Roienthal, it itatei of the exiitence of a imall iuburban city namei Vauban, Germany that hai nearly obiolete the uie of automobilei. Within the fifth paragraph of the article they talk of why it ii io neceiiary for thii to become a trend,""Automobilei are the linchpin of iuburbi... And that, experti iay, ii a huge impediment to current efforti to draitically reduce greenhouie gai emiiiioni from tailpipe...paiienger cari are reiponiible for 12 percent of greenhouie gai emiiiioni in Europe..."". Thii bit of information informi thoie that drive of the harmful effecti that our cari are creating upon the environment. However, if we are to limit our uiei of cari, and like the reiidenti of Vauban, and find alternative meani of traniportation then maybe we can reduce the amount of greenhouie gaiei that are being given off by cari. Similarly, Parii hai taken up a iimilar idea. In Robert Dufferi article, ""Parii bani driving due to imog"" he talki of the percautioni that France hai taken to driving and why. Parii hai created a ban io that thoie who have a liicenie plate that begini with an even number cannot drive on a certain day, and the next day thoie who have a liicenie plate that itarti with an odd number cannot drive. Thii all began becauie, ""...after fivedayi of inteniifying imog... The imog rivaled Beijing, China, which ii known ai one of the moit polluted citiei in the world.""paragraph 14. Pariii efforti to create leii imog wai a iucceii and they now implement the ban on Mondayi and Tueidayi. Due to leii driveri, they were even able to reduce the amount of imog polluting the air. Limited and reitrictive uiage on cari ieemi to be very helpful when iaving the environment.

Next, the near obiolete uie of cari hai made for eaiier modei of traniportation. For example, in Eliiabeth Roienthali paiiage "" ""In German Suburb, Life Goei On Without Cari"" ihe telli of the many benifiti that limited car uie have upon their community. In paragraph iix ihe itatei that iuburbi are beginning to be,""...more compact and more acceiiible to public traniportation, with leii ipace for parking. In thii new approach, itorei are placed a walk away, on a main itreet, rather than in malli along iome diitant highway."" Thii meaning that there will be more of an eaie when traveling and everything being cloier together. No longer will people have to drive milei away for iome groceriei, they will iimply either walk or ride the bui to their deitination. They will no longer be itreiied ai to what time they have left to reach a itore that ii a diitance away. Along the iame linei, ioemtimei it can be eaiier to not drive at all. In the article ""The End of Car Culture"" the author, Eliiabeth Roienthal, itatei how many people have found diffrent meani of getting to where they are going. In paragraph thirtyieven ihe iayi,"" New Yorki new bikeiharing program and iti ikyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolli reflect thoie new prioritiei..."". From the information given, it appeari ai though finding eaiier meani of traniportation have become a new popular trend. Since pricei to travel by car are ioaring, the cheapier iolution appeari to juit be walking, or ai itated, riding a bike. Leading people to belive that the near extinction of car uiage hai left ui with eaiier meani of travel.

Laitly, chooiing to not uie cari more frequently hai left ui with leii traffic. In Andrew Selikyi ""Carfree day ii ipinning into a big hit in Bogota"" he talki about the reaioing for thii. ""...millioni of Columbiani hiked, biked, ikated or took buiei to work during a carfree day yeiterday, leaving the itreeti of thii capital city eerily devoid of traffic jami.""paragraph 20. Due to the environmentaly iafe meani of travel, traffic hai become a thing of the pait. Thii can alio mean for the reiidenti, a faiter, iafer way of traveling if they take a taxi or bui to their deitination. Even Bill Ford, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company had input to thii. Eliiabeth Roienthal wai able to incorporate a itatement into her article ""The End of Car Culture"" when on the iubject of the decline in car uiage. Mr. Ford had to iay that, ""...pedeitrian, bicycle, private cari, commercial and public traniportation traffic are woven into a connected network to iave time, conierve reiourcei, lower emiiiioni and improve iafety."" paragraph 43. Thii itatement can inform the general population that from the drop in cari on the road, it can improve our iafety and iave time becauie of the fewer motoriit on the road. That traffic ii nearing an end which can be a new age in which traffic ii gone. Which ii why, when people chooie not to uie cari it can help to reduce traffic.

In concluiion, when it comei to automobilei they can provide ui with numeroui benefiti. However, it would appear that limiting car uie hai far more advantagei than thought of before: it can help the environment, provide eaiier meani of traveling, and it can reduce traffic.",0
3f024d8f,1,"The presidenit is our leader. And you don'it wanit some people picking who your nexit leader is gonna be. I ithink we should change ito ithe popular voite because in ithe Elecitoral college you don""it geit ito voite for your presidenit and iit's unfair ito voiters. How do we know who we're voiting for if we voite for somebody else ito voite for us. Jusit leit ithe people voite for who ithey wanit.

In ithe Elecitoral college you don'it voite for ithe presidenit, you voite for somebody ito voite for you. Whait if he decides ito pick ithe oither compeitiitor? You wouldn'it know. In ithe popular voite you geit ito voite yourself. Bradford Plumer says ""Under ithe elecitoral college sysitem, voiters voite noit for ithe presidenit, buit for a slaite of elecitors, who in iturn elecit ithe presidenit."" Source 2, Paragraph 10 I wouldn'it wanit somebody voiting for me. I'd raither do iit by ithe popular voite and voite myself. Iit's noit even fair for ithe people.

Iit's noit fair ait all. Even Bradford Plumer agrees wiith me. He says ""Iit's official: The elecitoral college is unfair, ouitdaited, and irraitional."" Source 2, Paragraph 14 He also says ""...ithe elecitoral college is unfair ito voiters. Because of ithe winneritakeall sysitem in each sitaite, candidaites don'it spend itime in sitaites ithey know ithey have no chance of winning..."" source 2, Paragraph 13 Thait's noit fair ait all. They only go ito sitaites ithey know ithey're going ito win.

Some people may say ithait ithey itrusit ithe slaite of elecitors. Richard A. Posner says ""...each parity selecits a slaite of elecitors itrusited ito voite for ithe parity's nominee and ithait itrusit is rarely beitrayed..."" They rarely beitray ithe presidenit's voites. Iit really does maititer if iits jusit once in a while because when ithey beitray ithe voites ithait prsidenit has ito sitay for four years. I wouldn'it itrusit ithem wiith my voite. They could beitray ithem jusit like ithait. And we could be situck wiith ithe wrong prsidenit ithait nobody wanited.

I wouldn'it itrusit ithe elecitoral college. I would itrusit in my own voite. I'm noit going ito leit someone else voite for me. They mighit pick ithe wrong presidenit. Iits jusit noit fair ito ithe people, ito give ithere voite ito someone else. This govermenit is by ithe people for ithe people. By ithe people. Thait means we should voite oursleves. Noit give our voite ito some people ithait can iturn itheir back on you in a hearitbeait.",0
3f870a8d,1,"The Electoral College is a process in which electors pick the president instead of the people, but is it worth keeping. No, the Electoral College is not worth keeping because it reflects the view of the electors instead of the people.

Some people would argue that the Electoral college should be kept because it ensures the certainty of the outcome source 3 paragon 18. However this relies on a winner takes all system which makes the say of the minority voters pointless since even if they do vote then their vote is pointless. Second of all the presidents only campaign in states they are not sure of and completly ignore the states they know they will win source 3 paragraph 19. This may be a good strategy but if we instead abolished the Electoral College then everyones vote would matter and the candidate would have to campaign in every state to ensure his victory. In all the Electoral College should be abolished because it takes away say of the people.

Not only does the Electoral college take away the say of the people, it also has no protection against a tie of states that have an even number of electors source 2 paragraph 11. For instance a state like hawaii that has a total of two electors if they both vote for different people then how are the votes decided well it already happened in 1960,but Richard Nixon who was the vice president at the time and known to be against the Electoral College decided to only aknowledge his opponents electors. That is why we should abolish the Electoral College.

Allow me ask a hypothetical question what if the electors were corrupt and voted for whomever they pleased without even considering the peoples vote source 1 paragraph 2. We have no system to ensure that the people vote matters but the electors does therefore electors that are picked by former candidates may be more likely to return the favor and ignore the peoples vote and vote for their candidate. There are many important figures whom are against the Electoral College such as Richard Nixon, Jimmy carter, and Bob Dale there are many more but thes are all politicians who see the Electoral College the same way the people do source 2 paragraph.

In all the Electoral college should be abolished because it ignores the peoples votes. The votes that werre granted to the people by the constitution therefore the Electoral College not only doesn't care about the people, but it is also violating their constitutional rights.",0
3f8f87d7,0,"Many problems that our world is facing right now are pointed back to car usage. Problems such as congestion, high levels of smog, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions in many places are all discussed in these articles.

These days people can't get see themselves going on with their life without a car but in places such as Bogota, Columbia they have a set date called ""The Day Without Cars"". The day without cars is a carfree day, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams.paragraph 20 Many people in Bogota choose to hike, bike, skate or take buses in order to get to work or wherever else they need to be. Some Colombians even enjoy it, such as businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza who said ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" paragraph 24 In the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" places such as Vauban, Germany are even giving up the usage of cars. vaughn's streets are completely ""carfree"". paragraph 2 A media trainer and mother of two in Vauban named Heidrun Walter described how the change to not using cars has affected her in a positive way when she said ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" paragraph 3 Experts say that automobiles have a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe. paragraph 5 When places like Vauban begin to reduce or completely end car usage, the greenhouse gas is also reduced and helps to reach the goal of a more healthy and clean society.

The article ""Paris Bans Driving Due To Smog,"" Talks about cities such as Paris that have tried to forcedly ban driving. The reason for doing this was in hope to ""clear the air of the global city."" paragraph 10 Even though there were many who did not participate in the ban of cars in Paris, congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France. paragraph 14 Not only did this effort of less car usgae reduce congestion but it also reduced the level of smog in the France.

For many people cars are just an excuse not to exercise. For example, someone might say ""Why should I walk when i can drive?"" or ""Why should I bike when I could take a taxi?"" People are so busy and caught up in work and being the best over everyone that exercise and physical condition are the least of their worries when really, it should be at the top of their list of importance. If someone decides to walk or skate to work everyday they would be in a healthy state of being and not have to worry or stress about finding extra time after work or school to exercise. If car usage is limited, our community would be drastically more healthy, physically and mentally.

The amount of car usage has a great affect on many things in our community and our world. Car usage affects not only the pollution in our living conditions but also our mood and for some people, their happiness and stress level. The limited amount of cars also forces us to seek different forms of transportation that are not all motorized. Without cars people sometimes choose to walk, bike, skate, or even run to where they need to be. Not only does this improve our pollution problem but it also improves our physical and mental health. Limited car usage has many advantages and could make a very positive impact on our world.",0
3f9152ce,1,"To whomever it may concern, The process of the Electoral College has been a problem for many years and deserves to be abolished at its roots. The Electoral College should not be kept due to the fact that not many Americans comprehend this legal process, swing vote catastrophes and other problems, and its lack of democratic pedigree. You may wonder why someone like me is even writing about this or why I even care, but I care about what happens in my country's economy and government, and others should too.

First thing's first: knowledge. From personal experiences and research, you may realize that the majority of Americans in 2014 couldn't describe to you what the process of the Electoral College even is. Each state is different in this process, just like each opinion is different about this topic. This is an immensely confusing subject to read about, especially when you're just an average person watching the news or reading an article online. Although, let's be real for a minute: its really difficult. The process consists of selecting the electors, and the meeting of the electors where they vote for our President and Vice President. Also, in school curriculum across the country, you never really go into depth about the Electoral College unless you're taking a hardcore government class. In this case, the students are yet to be informed about the causes and effects of the Electoral College and the disasters it can cause in our economy.

Let's continue, shall we? The swing vote catastrophes, the worrying about who will be elected and whether or not they'll do a good job controlling our government, it's just not worth it. Over sixty percent of voters would prefer a direct election rather than the system that we use now. When citizens vote, they're basically voting for slates of electors, who then eventually vote to elect the President as well as the Vice President. The question is: Who are the electors? Who picks them? Are they responsible with the task at hand? The fact of the matter is that you really have no control over who the electors vote for. A ""faithless"" elector can vote for whomever they please, even if it isn't their party's candidate. This process is extremely unfair to voters across the country, and I doubt the phrase ""Life isn't fair"", a quote by my grandmother, would even apply to this discussion.

As previously stated, the process of the Electoral College isn't the greatest of them all, nor is it fair to voters. I asked who the electors were, and who picks them... but where is the abundant democratic pedigree? To remind you, a democratic pedigree is the origin and history of something, especially when it is good or impressive to others. The Electoral College is outdated and irrational for our modern day concepts. This extensive process lacks alot of opinions, evidence, and background knowledge that is necessary when voting for candidates. On the other hand, there is usually a certainty of outcome in the election, and it avoids runoff elections which is pleasant to citizens who are for the Electoral College. What about the swing votes? What about the values?

To wrap things up, the Electoral College is not needed in the United States government because of lack of understanding, disasters that may be caused, and the democratic pedigree and honesty that is nowhere to be found. I hope you consider my decisions and grow very fond of my reasonings.",0
3fa4498e,1,"Dear state senator, There has been an ongoing conflict on the matter of the proper method to use when deciding on a president: use of the electorsal college, or popular vote. I believe that this should be looked upon in greater concern than it currently is. Not only do many people question this argument, but they feel uncomfortable by it too. I believe the electorsal college should be taken away from the process. This is a more secure way of voting because the people of this nation feel as if whom ever they vote for may not actually be voted for by the electorss. And this is, in no way, a good thing for the nation.

In the first place, the electorsal college has its flaws, as anything would. But it's these flaws that the popular vote dosen't have that makes it a less valid way to decide something as important as presidency. The electorsal college has a seemingly fair way of deciding such a thing. Each state is given a certain number of electorss to represent its population Ex. A small state such as Maryland would have less electorss than California. It seems alright, until you realize how unfair it really is... In one way, though rare, the electorss may switch outlook, and end up voting for the opposite candidate than whom they were voted, in turn, to vote for. Some even choose at random who they will vote for, regardless of who they were supposed to choose. Which then leads to the unfair decision for however many people he or she represented.

Not only does it have the unfair use of electorss, but it also is much more imprecise than popular voting methods. While the electorsal college, in total, has only a couple hundred votes, it is less rational than the millions upon millions of people across the nation wanting to vote for whoever they wish with the use of the popular vote method. In ' The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong', the author explains, in paragraphs 4 and 5, how in the case of a tie in the electorsal vote, that ""the Houses selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people."" Meaning that no matter what the people think, the president shall be chosen for them. And this is not the right way to elect the person designated to run the country.

In my final point, as not to bore you with countless others, the use of popular vote has already surpassed the electorsal college votes, as such in the case of Nixon is Kennedy, but has not proven enough to win the election. How is that fair, on any level? It shows how most people voted for one candidate, but then have that candidate lose because of the electorsal college. Is that not reason enough, to show that people wanted a certain person as president, but because of the electorsal college, didnt get as they wanted nor deserved? Not only is it shown in basic reasoning, but it is also shown in the numbers. The electorsal college is an unjust way to elect presidents.

I hope this is enough to change your view on the electorsal college. It is not the fair way to let the people of this nation have the leader they want and and rightfully deserve. The use of popular vote is. It not only is a direct line of voting from the people, but all in all has a much fairer way to total the votes. A vote itself cannot possibly change from the point it is written to the point when it is accounted for, but an electors can. Don't allow this to happen the next term. And i speak for most of the people in the U.S.",0
3fcefdb7,1,"In deciding on who will be in charge of our nation for four years, the people should be able to choose who they want and not be giving the decision to 538 people from the Electoral College when there are millions of people in the United States of America. The Electoral College should be removed because it is not fair to the people and the Electoral College is not organized. By changing the election to a win by popular vote, people can ensure its them deciding the future. Who knows how many times a candidate as president has won a state but it wont even count because the electoral College decides another.

An Electoral College is unfair to the people voting. Although changing it may be something shocking because of how long we have had it, like in passage 2 paragraph 14 it is ""outdated and irrational."" For example, as said in paragraph 11 of source 2, when the author states that some Electors haver voted for who THEY want instead of their party's candidate. This shows that the Electoral College can be fraud or fake. Who knows if we dont stop it now, what if the number of Electors that do that go up, our nation could depend on this. That's another thing. Our president affects how our nation is treated for 4 years and maybe even 8 if they are voted into office again. Why leave a big decision on a couple hundred people when there are millions waiting to get their right to choose.

A second reason to remove the Electoral College, is that it is not organized. If we remove them, we can avoid the messiness of elections where no candidates gets the majority votes as said in passage 3 paragraph 22. Another example is in source 2 paragraph 10, when stated that when people are voting for the presidents electors, many get confused and end up voting the wrong person. That can be big issue and is caused because of the organization of the Electoral College. This can be prevented by letting the popular vote of the people count instead of Electors.

In conclusion, the Electoral College is something that was successful in the past. If we start now we can slowly remove them, and head into a fair presidential election by letting the popular vote of the people decide who is president. Our president should be someone the majority of the people agree with, and not people who are willing to go with whoever they want instead of the majority of the state they represent.",0
3fdf1455,0,"Fellow citizens cars are dying out. Every year more and more people are realizing the cultural and natural impact that cars are having on us in a negative way. There are many advantages that come with eliminating cars from society. For one reason is that we can start to eliminate roads and highways and use that land for houses or something else. Another reason is that it will help the world out in a natural way to stop temperatures from sky rocketing to completely melting the polar cap, and prevent smog from building up in dense cities. citizens also wont have to spend money on fuel or a car anymore and can save money.

As soon as citizens completely wipe out the use of cars then lot of positives will result out of it. As soon as cars are out of the picture then societies can use up the space from highways and roads to make houses and shopping centers that are walking distance from those houses or living communities. When people need to drive long distances to get to another destination thats far away from where they live then they can take theyre car thats on the outskirts of the city in a protected garage, just like they do in Vauban, Germany, they do this in order to keep the city within completely safe and pollutants free from cars.

Up to now and ever since the invention of automobiles like buses and cars the world has changed dramatically in temperature. Earth has become like a microwave just trapping heat from the Greenhouse effect which causes the carbon dioxide from the cars to stay in earth and not expell to space which has caused some of the highest temperatures in the last 100 years. With the elimination of cars less carbon dioxide will be let out causing the eart to cool and thus will help save the polar ice caps. Not only will it save the cold areas of the world but it will also help reduce smog in densely packed cities like Paris and binging. Up to now cities like Paris and Bogota have had certain days where they prohibit the use of cars in the city to help and calm the smog down. This Method has helped dramatically and it was only for one day! Imagine what doing this forever can do for the environment.

Another topic for eliminating the use of cars is the economic change it will postively have on the environment. For one families wont have to spend money on gas. Second they wont have to spend money for a car. Last but not least third they wont have to spend money on tolls or tickets. So simply if you dont have a car you wont have to worry about any of those problems. Families can use all of that saved money for going on vacations or on themselves.",0
40241e52,1,"Hello, I am writing to you about the Electoral College and why that I think it should be removed. Why I think we should remove the Electoral College is when voter selects the president they want they are really just picking for a electors who elects the president for them. Also this makes a single rep from Wyoming of 500,00 people has as much say as 55 reps for California who represents 35 million people. The last reason behind this is also being unfair to voters, the winner take all system where in the state the winner of the votes gets them all. So in effect a candidate would spend no time in that per say a swing state. which the may have a chance of winning.

When you vote for the president you really are not voting for him, you're voting for a electors who really elect the president. Also the question is brought up, who picks the electorss? This also depends on the state could be the state party's central committee or the presidential candidate's people do. Also another question is what controls the electors from electing the wrong candidate, nothing.

Also why does a single reps in Wyoming with 500,00 people have as much say as 55 reps in California with 35 million people? That is just unfair to the voters, how could that in anyway represent what the majority of the people want. The other way the electorsal collage is unfair is the winner take all system I mentioned earlier with majority votes in a state is the state vote, such as if 46 percent of people in a state voted one candidate and 54 for the other insted of just giving the candidates their votes the majority decided one would have them.

The Electoral College is also not a democratic system of voting because the people are really not deciding, and when it is said you are allowing each party to pick a trusted slate of nominees it is not true because the state's central committee not the presidential candidate's reps who are the people really needed to vote for such. In 2000 Gore had more popular votes than bush but less electorsal votes, though rare to happen this the president who runs the country for four years at a time so that one rare moment could mean the future of the U.S.A. Also a president does not need to be transregional, they only need to appeal to swing states and not ruin relations with their states.

So that was and is my reasoning of why I think that the Electoral College should be removed from our political system. Between the being unfair to voters through voting for electorss not even the president, reps not even being scaled right also the winner take all system making the system unbalanced, and the presidential candidates not even needing to appeal to most states just the swing states. I hope this passage convinces you that the Electoral College should be removed in place of a better system that is not out dated.",0
40524218,0,"As the global concern for the environment increases with time, the desire to use cars decreases. People are aware that cars release fumes which, when combined, can be detrimental for the environment, and they want to do something about it. Elisabeth Rosenthal writes in her New York Times article, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"", that up to fifty percent of environmental greenhouse gas pollution comes from the cars driven in American suburbs. In her article, she quotes David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America, that ""All of our the U.S.A.'s development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change"". It seems like America, and the rest of the world, is becoming more aware about what cars can do to the environment and that car usage needs to decrease, and they are taking steps to do so. So why should you limit your car usage? By limiting car usage, the average citizen can decrease pollution and harmful greenhouse gases that are causing damage to the environment, improve living conditions in large cities and reduce smog, and feel better in general, with more exercise and less stress.

In the past decade, America has struggled with an obesity epidemic. In the early 2000s, obesity was at its peak, with mcdonald's ""Super Size"" menu options, huge SUVs, and endless television programs to keep couch potatos on the couch. If you visit New York City's Manhattan, you won't see a whole lot of obese people hurrying down 5th avenue to hop on the subway or pick up groceries at the local market. Why is this? Not many people drive in NYC, mainly because it would be far too expensive to buy and park a car in this already monumentally expensive city. The cars one does generally see are either from out of state, taxis, or businessmen who live in the other boroughs of the city. Very few who live in Manhattan drive. Most people take the subway, walk, or use bikes to get around. Because of the way it's made, everything one needs is just a few blocks away, from the grocery store, to the drugstore, to the postoffice, to the bank, there really is no need to have a car. If you have to go to the airport, just take a cab. Naturally, people who walk and bike everywhere are slimmer and healthier. In the suburbs, this is not the story. Many people in the suburbs drive cars out necessity, because it would take the whole day to walk to the grocery store and back. The way suburbs are set up, walking or biking is almost impossible to do if it's not for leisure. Driving around all day to pick up kids, go to work, and finally pull into the home garage can be draining and stressful. If people were to get around and get exercise at the same time, they would be less stressed and healthier. Andrew Selsky quoted businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza in his article, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"". Plaza said that, ""It's limiting car usage a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"". Many people are already doing this. Vauban, Germany, is a new ""carfree"" suburb. In this town, things are close together, just like a city, eliminating the need to use cars. It is not illegal to own a car in Vauban, but people who do must pay a heavy fine and pay for parking on the edge of the city that is also highly expensive. People in the German suburb get along fine without cars, because of the way the city was built. The idea of a ""carreduced"" community appeals to the U.S. as well, and legislators and other government officials are trying to make it happen for the environment as well as the sake of the people.

Bejjing is supposedly the most polluted city in the world, and Paris the most beautiful, but Paris is more polluted than one would think. Robert Duffer reports in his article, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", that Paris, after suffering from ""five days of intensive smog"" called for some drivers to abstain from using their cars for the day or face a fine of twentytwo euros. The system was based on license plate numbers. One day, the drivers with even numbered license plates would not be able to drive, the next the ones with odd numbered license plates. This helped reduce smog in the city, which is more polluted than others in Europe like Brussels and London. Once the smog cleared, the ban was rescinded. This ban on cars, although only for a short period of time, is actually a great idea. Emissions from cars cause a large amount of smog to pollute the air, which is bad for both the inhabitants of the city and the environment. The reduction of the use of cars will reduce the amount of smog in the air in large cities, and improve the living conditions in those cities. Almost two centuries ago, smog, soot, and dirt covered Victorian London and its people. This smog was not from cars, but rather from the rising popularity of factories powered by fossil fuels such as coal. Today, all cities of the world are polluted, and almost two hundred years have passed. Shouldn't some improvements regarding the environment and smog in cities have been made by now? There is just as much environmental damage being done as there was in 19th century London, but now, instead of factories being the main cause, it's cars. Although cities are cleaner now, they are just as polluted. In Bejjing, some say the air is so dirty that if you blow your nose, your tissue turns black! It is the 21st century, and we have to be taking strides to improve the environment for the good of the people who live in cities like Paris and Bejjing.

Limiting car usage is important to create a better living environment for people as well as improve their wellbeing, but the most important reason is to limit pollution and damage to the environment due to emmisions from cars. President Obama, according to Elisabeth Rosenthal in her article, ""The End of Car Culture"", has ""ambitious goals to curb the Unites States' greenhouse gas emissions"". If the President of the United States is concerned, this means it is a real problem. The immense amount of greenhouse gases caused by cars has already aided Global Warming and the damage to the ozone layer that exists today. If car usage increases or holds steady, even more damage will be done, so much so that it may become unfixable in the future. If the world does not cut back now on its vehicle usage and reduce environmental damage, things will only get harder to fix. But things are looking good for Mother Nature, because according to all four articles given, including, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"", by Elisabeth Rosenthal, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", by Robert Duffer, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", by Andrew Selsky, and ""The End of Car Culture"", by Elisabeth Rosenthal, people are already taking steps to reduce the use of cars and better the environment.

Ever since the Model T came out in the early 20th century, cars have become more and more popular in America as well as around the world. They have become so popular, in fact, that they have become a problem. Cars emit harmful greenhouse gases that pollute the environment and cause excess smog in large cities. They can also be stressful and unhealthy for people who depend on them for everyday modes of transport. Limiting car usage is important and will help not only the environment, but also the people of the world.",0
40d1cb6b,0,"Car usage can effect the air causing smog and increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the air. This isnt good for the environment and its not good for us. Having fewer or no cars can help us in many ways including lowering smog, lowering greenhouse gasses, and releasing stress from us.

To start off, I want to say that I agree with getting rid of car usage. I believe it can really help everyone and every thing by lowering the amounts of smog in the air. Bogota has a carfree day that seven million people go along with. Within that day, they can see the difference in the amount of smog in the air. For travel they would hike, bike, skate, or take busses. Even if it is raining, they would sill do it because they know it helps. These carfee days promoted alternative was of travel for everyone. Paris also enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the city. A little later two other Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar joined the event.

Secondly, he smaller amount of cars decreases the amount of greenhouse gasses getting pumped into the air. The president of the United States of America stated that he was tring to curb greenhouse gasses. The president of the United States of America then said that studies have proven that Americans are buying fewer cars and getting fewer licenses ever year. America, one of the highest rated, car driving countries has decreased and keeps decreasing its car travel. This will steadily help the atmosphere of the Earth by lowering its greenhouse gas consumption. Emissions fom cars is Americas second largest source of emissions behind power plants.

Finally, the lack of cars releases stress from eveyone. In a German suburb, life goes on without cars. Every day people are happy and have less stress without cars. It is a car free area, excep for the main thoroughfare which you cant even hear over the laughing children and bicycle wheels. Seveny percent of the families dont own cars and fifty seven of them have sold their cars to live there. This city is one example of a growing trend in Europe. The United States of America, and elsewhere. This movement is called smart planning and it separates suburban life from auto use.

Inconclusion, car usage can effect he world in a bad way. Whether its the environment or the people on the world. Having fewer, or no cars can help us in many ways including lowering smog, lowering greenhouse gasses, and releasing stress from us. Many areas and people have done something to help with these problems, and you can too.",0
41186382,0,"Do you ever wonder why the world is becoming so much warmer by the minute? Not many people stop and realize what's the real problem. Us humans are the major problem in this situation, we don't see that we are taking what we have to an advantage. To our factories, cars, or even trash. The main one that is causing our greenhouse gases to rise is our Power plants, but following behind the power plants are vehicles. Cars have become a major impact in our lives, from hurting one another, to hurting the place we live on. Carfree cities are going to help make a big, helpful change in peoples lives.

In the city of Vauban, Germany 70 percent of the families do not own a car. Vauban is called a ""carfree"" place, cars aren't allowed on the streets of vauban. Many people sold their cars to live in vauban, all around vauban wants a healthy way of living. Vauban allows car ownership, but the cars are only to be parked in two places which are the garages. ""When I had a car i was always tense, I'm much happier this way,"" Heidrun Walter said. It is a much healthier and less stressful way of living, new ideas will always come in handy. The United States Enviromental Protection Agency is promoting ""Car Reduced"" communities. Hopefully they get someone to tag along with this promotion, and get supporters to enforce it.

Bogota, Colombia is going on their third straight year of a ""Car Free"" city. They are wanting to reduce smog, so buses and taxis are permitted. ""It's a good oppurtunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" Carlos Arturo claimed. There was a consequence to the ones who didn't follow the rules, which was a 25 fine that they had to pay each time. Eventually, Two other Cities in Colombia, Cali and Valledupar, latched on to the idea of a ""Car reduction."" You see many people walking, running, riding bikes or skateboarding. A lot of people like this new idea that people are going by, it's an great way to step foward to save the earth and its problems.

Over time, Americans haven't been buying cars, driving less, and over years less people get their license. America is hitting its driving peak, The number of miles driven peaked in 2005 and then decreased signifigantly since then. Not many can afford a brand new car, or the insurance, most people are unemployed and dont work at all. Cars have been around for a long time, but over that time period it has caused major life impacting issues. ""Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a longterm cultural shift,"" said mimi sheller. Many people aren't aware of this ""Car Free"" idea, which is an disadvantage. If this idea was spread through televison, newspapers, or even social media many people will pick it up and take it into consideration.

In an overall sum up, it is better to live ""Car Free."" You wouldn't have to stress yourself out about gas prices, fixing your cars, or your world becoming a big ball of heat. If Transportation and power plants are the two major impacts in our lives, we need to knock one out. Until, we can get some second options on power plants our best choice is to forbid cars. We have many other options to get around our city, running, walking, riding bikes or etc. The ""Car Free"" idea is very creative, not many people would take inisuative to help make the world a better and safer place. With an exception of a few, buses and taxis will be there for long distance trips. Cars caused a huge impact on our lives, but hurting us and our home which we call earth. The business plan is ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve saftey."" Think of all the advantages cars have given, but think about all of the disadvantages the cars have showed. Which one out weighs the other? Cars aren't always there to help us, life is all about choices, it's time to make yours.",0
413f37dc,0,"In our world today many people use motor vehicles to get to their destination. We dont walk anymore we just get in our cars and go. What most people dont see is how it can cause damage to the people and the environment. Cars can be used for good and bad situations in our economy. Their are many advantages and disadvantages to limiting vehicle usage.

Limiting car usage could benefit people in many ways. The Vauban suburban community lives without their cars and only use them when necessary or if they have the permit to use them. A mother, Heidrun Walter says, ""When i had a car i was allways tense. I'm muchhappier this way."" she was happy with the way her life was going without a vehicle it wasnt as stressful to her. In ""German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", it says ""Having less vehicles made the suburbs more accessible to public transportation"" this makes everything they build walking distance and everything is closer together, they dont have to use major highways so they can get to a store. It also says, ""many suburbs are starting to resemble Vauban, closer together and have less car owners in the developing world"" this kind of example is leading the world to use less vehicles which would mean less pollution. Another advantage of limiting car usage would be more people are getting together and having more social interactions. In the exerpt from ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" it says, ""The congestion was down 60 percent in the capitol of France."" this means the roads weren't as backed up and busy. Their is beginning to be a change in the world as less people use their automotive. When Bogota, Columbia did the Day Without Cars the people would walk where they need to get or rode their bicycle. Carlos Arturo Plaza rode his bicycle and said ""Its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" people like being able to help their economy. In ""The End of Car Culture"" it says, ""it will have beneficial implications for carbon emmisions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions"" which means the economy will be in a better place.

Their is also disadvantages of why limiting car usage could be bad for the world. If they're not able to use their car to get to their job or get grocerys how can people be okay? They are getting fined to do what is need for them to survive. ""Delivery companies complained of lost revenue"" it says in ""Paris bans driving in the smog"". Delivery trucks cant do their job if they know they will be fined for being out on the roads without it being their designated day. ""American's are buying less cars and young adults arent getting their liscense as quick"" says, ""the End of Car Culture"". Which means more vehicle industrys are getting less buyers and are having to come up with a ""broader product"".

Clearly the world is better off with limited car uasge. It's better for the economy, better for the people, and the environment. They're are more resources for agood reason to cut down on our worlds car usage but their is also the few disadvantages as to why it could be bad.",0
4154f75f,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, It has come to my, as well as many other's attention, that the presidential election is something that could potentially have disastrous outcomes. You, and many politicians like yourself, have been using a system called the Electoral College that people such as Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, and Jimmy Carter have been suggesting to demolish for years now. Personally, I find it quite alarming that although this process has been with us for all of this time, we have found the flaws yet still continue to take the risks. This is not simply about picking a president anymore, this is about the freedom of America.

All in all, the Electoral College at face value seems like a good idea for choosing a winner. It seems to make sense that we would choose electorss who the president trusts that would elect him president, but when you think about it, something feels rather off. First of all, the general public places their ballots in the appropriate box believing that they are voting for their ideal candidates. In reality, however, they are voting for their electorss instead. Most people who vote are unaware of this factor, and the lack of information pertaining to it is unsettling. Not only that, but the electorss are not chosen by the people. Does this not contradict ""By the people, for the people?"" Where exactly do these people fit in?

Furthermore, the electorss cannot always be trusted with voting for their respective candidates. This is something referred to as the disaster factor. While most who are picked by the candidate themself are trustworthy, electorss are people who are not in office, therefore may not be as trusting. Electors are an uncertain factor and in some complex cases, even two slates for electorss can be sent which could create a hectic mess. If you are going to vote for a president who you wish to win, and your vote goes to an electors that won't come through, it takes all of the power away from the people and places it right back into the state's hands.

Another thing to consider when pondering the validity of this process is the potential of a tie with electorsal voting. In this case, the election would be in the power of the House of Representatives, and the representatives from each state would decide the winner. We have had many opportunities for a tie during the elections, one even being the difference of 5,559 in Ohio and 3,687 in Hawaii. The problem with this is the loss of power within the nation. Once again, the people will no longer have a say in the voting and the energy it took them to decide on a candidate and go out to vote will be for virtually nothing. The people will no longer be represented. If something like this were to happen to our country, surely people from every state would be outraged.

Now, you may be thinking to yourself, why should I be worried? Sure, it is unlikely to get a tie in the electorsal votes. However, something as huge as deciding the leader of this country should not have even a single flaw in it. Horrible and unexpected things happen everyday, why couldn't we get a tie as well? Now, the main problem with getting rid of the Electoral College is the possibility of runoff elections. In defense of this, the Electoral College is the main reason that we have runoff elections in the first place. It prevents people in certain areas from voting because they feel as if they will have no say in the final result. Even if people still voted for the fun of it, it was only because of chance or political preference. With an election by popular vote, the chances of a runoff election would be significantly lower as people would realize the power they had in deciding it.

As you finish reading this, I ask you to consider all of the points I have made. I am certain that choosing to elect by popular vote would have more benefits than sticking to the old and flawed plan, the Electoral College. Endless proof points to the conclusion that this theory is correct, as the process of picking electorss to elect the president is redundant and confusing. Finally, with all of the things that could go wrong, using a new system would be one step forward in making our nation even greater.",0
418ec8d3,1,"Dear State Senator, The Electoral College is a system that the United States has been using to elect its leaders for many years. A large number of people have come to believe that this method of voting is fraud because not everyone's vote is truly heard. The way the Electoral College works is every four years when people go to vote, people are not actually voting directly for their desired leader, but for a state elector. Although this sounds like it would work flawlessly in theory, in some cases the number of electoral votes have overridden the number of popular votes.

In the 2000 election between Bush and Gore, Bush ended up winning even though Gore received more popular votes. The nation did not know who the President was going to be until the next year because the election came down to only a couple of hundred votes. Although this is a rare occurance it shows how easily the Electoral College can wrongly choose a President. If the United States elected a President by taking a popular vote, this issue would not exist. All of the extra systems that are put in place are simply not needed.

If the Electoral College was removed and the United States voted in leaders based on the national popular vote, this means that there would also be more people voting. Many people, especially in one sided states such as Texas and California, believe that their vote does not count because they're state is guarenteed to favor one party every election. If the Electoral College did not exist then knowing that every individual vote counts and that it does not matter where you live, more people are actually going to listen to what candidates have to say and are going to go out and vote.

In Conclusion, although the Electoral College may sound good in theory, I believe that the United States voting system would be more legitimate if a national popular vote was taken so that everyone's voice is heard no matter where they live. Voters should be able to know that they're vote will count so that the right leader is chosen for the right reason.",0
419f8cd2,0,"Car emissions are very deadly and dangerous. They can be lethal to humans, and also dangerous to the environment. It can lead to big environmental issues like global warming, holes in the ozone, and air pollution. Many ignore the fact or are oblivious to it, but driving hurts our environment just for a little bit of convenience. Are cars doing more harm than good?

Cars have a convenient way of getting us to our destination faster but at the cost of our precious environment. We use our cars sometimes without thinking twice of what the actual after effect is. Paris is a city that has had almost, if not the worst, smog levels in all of europe. It has 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter due to the majority of cars which have diesel powered engines. Air pollution doen't just effect our atmosphere, it slowly kills, if not severly injures, animals and people. It hurts us by causing major damage to our lungs and respiratory system.

Greenhouse gases are another major thing in car emissions. Greenhouse gases are gases that keep or trap heat on earth to keep us from going into another ice age. A decent amount is good and is used to do its job, but when you have too much then the globe starts to increase in temperature. Antarctica, as you know, is made of ice. when ice gets to a certain temperature it starts to turn into a liquid. So when antarctica starts to melt into the sea, the general ocean level will rise, causing sea level cities, states, and countries start to flood with salty ocean water. If we cut down on gas or diesel car travels, the and greenhouse production rate would slow down and so will the rising temperature of the earth decreasing the speed of the melting arctic.

Cars are a very important and convenient way of travel but can be very deadly to us humans and tne earth we live on. Because we use them everyday doesn't mean that we can not cut down or change our ways of transpertation. Cars give off many harmful toxins and gases that we can, but refuse to control. we can cut down on the majority of the waste by limiting our car trips distance wise and based on how many times you leave the driveway. a simple change as in riding a bike or walking or even only going out when needed can slow down the speed of global warming and even drop the levels of air pollution. A little change can maybe just save the earth from another flood that can wipe out humainity.",0
41b8d661,0,"Around the world, cars are the main use of transportation. The exhaust from cars causes pollution in the air worldwide. By limiting car use, you can easily cut the pollution levels released by cars in half. There are many great aspects of limiting car use. Some international cities have already set a day where citizens do not use their cars. Limiting car use is a great option for the environment. As it can help many individuals from all around the world.

In the city of Vauban, Germany, most citizens do not even own vehicles. ""70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here.""Rosenthal, 3 Vauban claims to be a car free community. The banning of cars is a ""growing trend in Europe"" Rosenthal, 4 The movement is called ""smart planning."" Rosenthal, 4 Cars play a huge roll in polluting the Earth. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Rosenthal, 5 The ""environmental Protection Agency is promoting ""car reduced"" communities."" Rosenthal, 9 Limiting car use is a huge benefit for the Earth and people living in it.

In Paris, France, the pollution levels are increasing drastically. For that reason, Paris has decide to ban driving for two days. Citizens who failed to not drive were punished with a 31 fine. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France"". Duffer, 14 This statistic shows that by the limiting of car use, traffic levels may change drastically. From the lower use of cars on the roads, the smog above Paris was clearing and moving towards Beijing. Which is ""one of the most polluted cities in the world."" Duffer, 14 The main cause of the pollution is diesel fuel. France in particular favors diesel fuel. ""Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France"". Duffer, 16 This is the primary cause of the pollution in the city. By banning the cars, the city recieved clarity from the smog surrounding it prior to the ban.

In Bogota, Colombia, one day a year they ban all cars despite public transit. They have been doing this for three years. If a citizen failed to obey the car ban, a 25 dollar fine was given to them. Buisnessman Carlos Arturo Plaza stated, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution.""Selsky, 24 The car ban is part of an improvement campaign from the mid1900s. Rain or shine the residents of Bogota still participated. This past year two additional cities participated in the movement. The movement has shown great success and has been helping with pollution and stress many individuals face daily.

In the United States of America, President Obama wants to lower the rate of greenhouse gas emmissions. Studies show that ""Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by.""Rosenthal, 29 In 2005, there was a peak of the miles driven. In 1995, this was 9 percent lower this was also the case in April of 2013. Michael Silvak, an individual that studies the trend and who is a research professor at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute said, ""rates of car ownership per house hold and per person sdtarted to come down two to three years before the turn down."" Rosenthal, 33 As the years have past, the numbers of car owners have decreased. Although the idea of limiting car use sounds like a great idea, it will eventually hurt the automotive industry. People will stop purchasing cars due to these bans.

There are many widespread advantages to limiting the car use of individuals around the globe. Greenhouse gas emmission levels are essentially rising. By taking action and limiting car use, the world can decrease these levels. Less use of vehicles can help relieve stress, a condition a lot of people face around the globe. It is truly amazing that by banning cars for a day, the surrounding smog was clearer in Paris. The widespread happines in Vauban, Germany due to carfree living is another great outcome. Bogota's influence on two other cities is also very empowering. Limiting car use is not as bad as it may seem. In the long run, it will benefit our surrounding environment.",0
4251dcfa,1,"To State Senator, As many believe, the nation of the united States of America is one of the most free countries. The citizens have more power and rights then those of another country. Although, are we truely getting the power we claim to get. One of the biggest powers a citizen of the US receives is electing the president who will serve a term for the next four years. But, do we truely receive that power. No if there is an electoral College. The government claims that we are the one truely electing the president, and many of the citizen even believe that, but the fact is that the electoral College take away all of those rights. This government group doesnt always follow the word of the people, it is unfair, and the ""winnertakesall"" method does not show what the true outcome should be.

When the Founding fathers developed this country, they had stricted standards in mind, ""The people would have a say."" If we where following the wishes of our Founding Fathers, we would not allow our nation to make false acuizations about what the people are actually capable of doing. Say the state has a majority of Republican vote, so we then send 27 republican electors to the electoral College. Although, it is completely possible that our electors don't follow the word of the people, and vote for something other than what they had said before. This shows that although the state's citizens can chose the electors, we actually have no role in the final election of our President. As said in The Indefensible electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong, ""Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes the state conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates themselves."" This proves that there is no set system in place for choose this extremely important electors that are the electors of how our country survives the next four years. They said that it is even possible for the presidential candidates themselves to the be the ones to choose the electors. Will the follow the word of the peoplem, or just choose based on what is best for them? No one know. By doing this, we are putting our whole future in someone elses hands.

Not to mention, the whole election proccess is unfair for both the citizens and the presidential candidates. If there is a majority vote from the people throughout the nation for one party, once the electoral College votes, the peoples decition can be overridded. This means that not only is the next president going to be someone that most of the citizens didn't want, but the presidential candidate who should have won, now is stuck is a possition where the country wants him in office, but it is over. If the people get to vote, let them vote. Why claim to give them something, waste their time, aswell as yours, and then have that concencous not make a difference? If the government where truely looking to help and do what the people want and need, then they would trust us to put the right person in office.

Lastly, the system put in place for the electoral College is not a strong system. The ""winnertakesall"" method does not allow for a truelly acurate election. When the state votes, for example, two thirds democratic, then only two thirds of our electors should be democratic. With this you are getting a complete representaion of the wants of the people. As state in What Is the electoral College, ""Most states have a winnertakesall"" system that awatds all electors to the winning prsidential canidate."" This means that even if the votes where close, like 50 percent plus one, they majority voted party would get 100 percent of the electors. That math make no sence. If voting for out future is not in out own hands, then let the people who are taking the responsability truely reflect our own thoughts.

With elections for many different things, there are always winner and loosers, that is just how the game works. Although, the game shouldnt work as if there was a set winner. In that case, there is no use in even playing. When the electors are chosen to elect the next President, we, as citizens have no idea if that is the proper peson to choose. We don't know that that person will completly fulfill the resposability they have are being the hands of the people. The electoral College takes away our rights, is completly unfair all all sides of the story, and has a bad system set in palce. With all of this said, there is no need for it. It does nothing but hurt us and have the possibility of making false elections. We have the ""right to vot,"" let us truely and completely fulfill that right.",0
42537329,0,"Work. School. Party. No matter what you have on your to do list you still have to get there, so why are car sales going down and how is it beneficial to our society? Teens and young adults can often be heard discussing what brand of car they one day hope to buy and all the modifications they will make to trick it out. Many people though end up being 20 or older before they actually get that car they always talked about, and despite parents claim of laziness there could be more to it then that. So what advantages could there be to a world with fewer cars on the road?

The first topic that is at the forefront of the minds of most people just starting out their new life is cost. The world revolves around money, thats just the way it is, so many people are finding themselves cutting out things that they don't really need. Now I know what your thinking but before you begin your argument that you really need that blue mercedes you saw in the magazine think about just how much that cost compared to your last paycheck, not so exiting anymore right? With public transportation becoming more and more available many people are choosing to take the public bus rather then buy their own car. Another thought is all those taxes you pay. What you thought they went to police and teacher's wages and building nice little parks for the kiddies? Well according the environmental Protection Agency 80% goes into making Highways and other transport, and why do they need that much money? Because we drive 100 tons over them every day. Many of the more polluted citys are even beginning to put laws into place banning or restricting traffic in some areas and placing fines on those who violate them. Between the purchase price and patience as well as gas and the money used to fund roads and highways theres a lot of dough pouring into your car drives.

Now heres the topic I know your all tired of hearing about but its still very important, the environment. Car emmisions are the second biggest source of pollution in the atmosphere, first place going to powerplants and third place being cows, yes cows. Is a world blanketed in smog and smoke where the very air that sustains you is poison the kind of place you want to live in or, for that matter, raise kids in? Its not the the planets health we're talking about here its the health of everything living on it including us. While we're on the topic of health one of the greatest health issues in America is obesity, now imagine if everyone left their cars at home and walked or biked instead, the whole country would be healthier then ever before. And you know how when you go into the country the air smells so nice and clean, well that could be the city too if we just cut back on emmisions, we could have nice fresh air as well. Now think of your children, or friends or even yourself, just outside playing football when a car comes by and almost hits you, dozens of people die every day in car crashes that wouldnt if there were less cars on the road. So think of the health of your familly, your friends, your pets, and yourself.

Finally we have the cultural shift, many Americans are already choosing to carpool take public transport or even just walk and less and less are buying cars. This trend is so noticibly prominent that car companys are trying to come up with new ideas and products to keep their customers coming. Citys are coming up with new systems of bike and car borrowing as well as a partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which ""Pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and imporve safty"". So for those of you that can't stand to be left behind by the times jump on the band wagon and you can do your part to bring about a new cleaner era in the world.

Cars, the parasprites of a modern age, keep multiplying and destroying more and more. The emmisions given of by these monstrosities will linger more many a milenia poisoning the air we breath and devastating the world out children will inherit. Unless we do something to stop it now this travesty will continue to ravange all life on the planet untill we are on the brink of extinction, so do us all a favor and help to push this new trend of a car free world.",0
4264a40f,1,"Dear State Senator, What do you think of the Electoral College and how it plays a unfair role into elections? Shouldn't the man or woman with the most popular vote be the president? It isn't fair for the people because if more people want that particular person elected then why shouldn't he be elected? He has more people on his side after all doesn't he? These are all questions you should be asking yourself because you as State Senator have the power to abolish our states Electoral College system. There is in fact several great facts about why we should do away with the Electoral College system. Three of them might be that the electoral College system isn't fair between all 50 states, the winnertakeall system isn't fair towards voters, and also the ""disaster factor"" is completely wrong. The Electoral College system is a despised part of our should be fair elections.

Our senator have you seen how the electoral vote works? According to the third paragraph in bradford Plumers writings called ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" it clearly states as a very valid point that the Electoral College voting system isn't doing it's job. To be precise the voting isn't up to the people at all. What happens is that we the people all go and vote for a president and one obviously has the popular vote. What happens is that the electors put our votes in and say we have mabye three hundred thousand people voting from our state and well you see we don't get that many Electoral College votes towards the president we want. Then say another state gets mabye two hundred thousand and that side has the more people in it's state then us and then they get more electoral college votes then us but we had the more people. Does that seem very fair to you? To continue from there we have the WinnerTakeAll system which basically does what the name applies which is that if say one side gets mabye ten more votes towards one canidate then that side gets all the Electoral votes towards that canidate and does that seem right to all the other people just because they got 10 more votes? No it doesn't and its a crime towards all the other people who voted for the other side. Next theres something called the ""Distaster Effect"". The ""Disaster Effect"" is basically that the electors don't have to put in the popular vote. The electors who are chosen by the state legislature actually look at all the votes and vote for a canidate. The more electors that put in a particular vote win and they take all the electoral votes dude to the WinnerTakeAll system. The catch to that is the elecotors actually don't have to use the pouplar vote and they can vote for whomever they want to be elected. This is not for the people at all and not even close to it.

Now that I have given completely valid reasons can't you see that the Electoral College voting system is biased to serve only the goverment and a few select people. If you used the popular vote system everyone could vote for whom they choose and then we would have fair elections so the true canditate of the people is chosen.",0
4267fbae,1,"In every presidential election, thousands of americans vote for their most favorite candidate, however, most voters feel that their votes don't count because a process called the Electoral College are the ones who are voting. I have heard that since people have been rioting in protest for a change, you the state senator will ask the government to abolish the Electoral College. Unfortunately, we can't let that happen, the Electoral College is very important to presidential elections because provide the certainty of outcome, allows the presidential candidate to have transregional appeal, focus their campaign efforts on the tossup states,and avoid runoff elections. Without the Electoral College, the elections would be a mess.

First, the Electoral College is important because they give the certainty of outcome. For example, the Electoral votes of a winning candidate exceeds the popular votes he gets. While both votes have disputes on the outcome, the Electoral votes very rarely get disputed. For example in 2000 Al Gore had the most popular votes but lost because Bush had more Electoral votes. If there was no Electoral College, the winners of many campaigns would be their opponents.

Next, the Electoral College is important because it requires the presidential candidates to have transregional appeal. For example if a president decided to only do his campaign in one region, there wouldn't be enough electoral votes to give him the win. This means that the candidates have to spread their campaigns throughout the country not only for enough Electoral votes but to have the people in the other regions feel that the president will have regard of their interests.

Next, the Electoral College is important because Allows the candidates to focus their efforts on the tossup states. For example, in tossup states, the voters are more likely to pay attention to the campaign. Because of this, the voters will pick the most respectable of the candidates. Since the Electoral College allows this, people in tossup states will listen to the candidates, review the information about each one and decide on which one to vote for. If it weren't for the Electoral College, the candidates would be clueless on which states would rank up the popular vote.

Finally, the Electoral College is important because it avoids runoff elections. For example the Electoral College avoids the problem of all candidates not getting a majority of the votes. If there is a runoff election, it would complicate the entire process, but since there is an Electoral College, they provide a clear winner.

If there was only popular votes, the change of runoff elections would go up causing problems in the election.

Many people in this country also believe that the Electoral College is important, however many others do not. I am a person that believes that the Electoral College is needed because of certainty of outcome, requiring the candidates to have transregional appeal, focus their campaign efforts on the tossup states, and avoiding runoff elections. I write this letter to you, the state senator to not give up hope on the Electoral College. Without it, elections in our country just wouldn't be right for everyone.",0
42dc51d6,0,"More people today are driving less and using public transportation, walking, or riding a bike more. The main reason for this is because it benefits our environment. When people drive a car it releases gases into the air and breaks down our ozone layer that protects us from harmful rays from the sun. Limiting car use helps by decreasing the gases into the air. People all over the world are helping prevent the usage of cars in many ways.

In Germany, people are moving to places that are ""carfree"" which is stated in the article In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars. It also says that ""cars ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to parkLarge garages...Where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home"" article 1 paragraph 2 This is trying to limit the usage of cars buy making it cost so much to park your car. Some people are saying that cars make them tense and by walking it makes them happier and more relaxed. They dont have to stress about putting gas in the car or driving safely. They are also trying to ""make cities denser, and better for walking""article 1 paragraph 6 putting stores closer to areas with a higher population so people can walk to them helps. This is an advantage to people who live in carfree areas.

Paris is also taking part to help better our environment. They have ""enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"" according to the article Paris Bans Driving Due to Smog. The city is being more forceful with this action by giving a fine of 22euros 31 to people who didnt leave their cars home on their day. Due to having these days banned from driving ""congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France"" article 2 paragraph 14 By doing these two day France was no longer considered the most poluted city in the world, Beiging, China was the new holder of this name. People are now hopeing to get ""plugin cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers"" This will help benefit the environment by decreasing the air pollution in the air.

BOGOTA, Colombia is making their move by having a carfree day where Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work. "" The goal is to promate alternative transportation and reduce smog"" according to the article Car free Day is Spinning into a Big Hit in Bogota. They want to show people there are several other ways to get somewhere without useing a car. A couple using a twoseat bicycle said it was a great way to take away stress and lower air pollution. Other cities in Colombia are also taking part in this event. Now the city of Bogota is making 118 miles of bike pathways for people to use daily. This day helps more people get outside and get active to. The article also states that "" Parks and sport centers also have bloomed throughout the city"" Having this day reduces the air pollution that was occuring and helps people relax.

To conclude, many citys are taking part in this act. They limited the car use and helped limit air pollution. People are starting to use cars less and take more alternative routes like walking or biking. Maybe you should try walking or riding a bike to work or school.",0
43371786,0,"In this day and age, car ownership is extremely common among people of all demographics, despite its negative effects on the environment. Cars burn fuels incompletely, releasing harmful byproducts into the atmosphere that can cause thick smog to occur, among other things.Many people have realized the damage caused and have abstained from using personal motor vehicles, or have at least decreased in their use. However, many people still do not know all the advantages that come from living a carfree lifestyle. Living without a car may seem daunting at first due to its reputation as the most popular mode of transportation since its inception. When these preconceived notions are brushed aside, the benefits can shine through. Limiting car usage is not only costeffective, but it also dramatically decreases greenhouse gas emissions, lowers obesity, and allows people to conserve the nonrenewable resources that cars depend on. Cleaner cities lead to less illness and a better quality of life for its citizens.

Limiting car usage can be very costeffective, especially in a place like Vauban, Germany. In this particular town, it costs 40,000 just to park, not including the costs of the actual car, gas, tolls, and repairs that come with being a car owner. It is much more inexpensive to simply walk, bike, or utilize public transportation. People may have to give up a small amount of convenience, but they will surely enjoy the spike in their finances once they become accustomed to life without a car.

Without cars, an opening becomes apparent for cheap transportation. Walking, biking, and skating can replace the need for cars. These methods require people to put in effort to get to their destination. This effort burns calories for energy and allows the user to commute and exercise at the same time, allowing people to lead healthier, more active lifestyles. With the current obesity epidemic occurring in the United States, humanpowered transportation is a viable option that is worth considering for the sake of America's heath. If cars are banned, cities will build more and more bike paths to accommodate the needs of the people just as it has happened in Bogota, Columbia. Reducing obesity would mean reclaiming the millions of dollars lost each year to healthcare costs on obesity related illnesses, such as heart disease. Cutting out cars could be the healthiest choice people ever make.

Greenhouse gases trap heat near Earth's atmosphere and contribute to climate change and biodiversity loss. Car emissions are a large part of the total emissions released, but that has the potential to change. Building cities closer together promotes walking in leiu of driving and reduces the amount of cars on te road, spewing their toxic byproducts. Slowing down climate change should be the most important reason why cities everywhere should take the initiative and eliminate cars.

Any small inconvience caused by not owning a personal vehicle is quickly outweighed by all the benefits the world can reap through getting rid of cars, once and for all. The problems they have inflicted on the world can finally be neutralized.",0
4348748e,1,"Dear senatoor of Florida. I am here tooday too toell you whato I tohink abouto tohe Electooral College. I tohink tohe tohe Electooral College is a very irratoional way too electo our presidentos of tohe untoied stoatoes of America. Ito mighto have been effectoive when ito was firsto creatoed, buto now ito docento seem like ito can work outo anymore. Leto me toell you why.

Well for stoartoers, under tohe Electooral College systoem, votoers votoe noto for tohe presidento, buto votoe for a slatoe of electoors, who in tourn electo tohe presidento. This was stoatoed by Bradford plumer in his artoicle : The indefensible Electooral collegee: why even tohe bestolaid defenses of tohe systoem are wrong. This is noto fair too tohe citoizens. They should be alowed too votoe for whatoever presidento tohey wanto, instoead of letotoing a bunch of electoors ""pledged"" too tohe candidatoes votoe for tohem.

Plumer also writoes : ""Can votoers contorol whom toheir electoors votoe for? Noto always."" Whato does tohis mean? Ito means tohato tohe toimes when tohey can""to contorol tohem, tohey could be using tohe citoizens votoe too votoe for otoher Candidatoes otoher tohan tohe ones tohey are supposed too be pledged too. Ito's noto fair tohato sometoimes citoizens can'to contorol who toheir electoors votoe for. This shows tohato tohis greato ""systoem"" is stoartoing too fall Aparto. If ito was such a greato systoem, why canto citoizens always have contorol over who toheir electoors votoe for?

Plumer decides too writoe: ""Do votoers sometoimes geto confused abouto tohe electoors and votoe for tohe wrong candidatoe? Sometoimes."" This is why tohe Electooral College needs too be abolished. The electoors puto on a facade and allow tohe votoers too become confused. This allows tohem too easily fall intoo tohe torap. Itos like torying too show a blind man a pictoure. You musto give detoails abouto ito in order too creatoe a pictoure for him too follow. This is whato is going on witoh tohe votoers. The electoors sometoimes gove tohem false informatoion too follow, allowing tohem too votoe for tohe wrong candidatoe.

In an artoicle writotoen by Richard A. Posner called: In Defense of tohe Electooral College: Five reasons too keep our despised metohod of choosing our Presidento, He stoatoes Thato tohe advocatoes are correcto in arguing tohato tohe Electooral College is noto democratoic in a modern sense. Even an artoicle tohato is supposed too supporto keeping tohe Electooral College says tohato ito is noto democratoic. The irony of tohis is ratoher amusing. This clearly proves tohato tohe Electooral Collge is noto democratoic ato all. How can we live in a democracy if we do noto have a democratoic votoing systoem too live by? This is noto a feasible systoem for a coutory tohatos supposed too be a democracy.

In poster's artoicle, he incorparatoes a Pictoure of tohe Unitoed Stoatoes of America, which each stoatoe contoaining a number on ito. The number representos tohe number of electooral votoes given too each stoatoe. Why is ito tohato larger stoatoes like Texas recieve 38 electooral votoes while smaller stoatoes like vermonto recieve 3? Letos be realistoic for a minutoe. Whato can a stoatoe do witoh 3 electooral votoes compared too one witoh almosto 40? Ito dosen'to toake a rocketo scientoisto too figure outo tohato ito's noto much.

In Plumers artoicle, he toalks abouto tohe toime a stoatoe sento towo slatoes of electoors too congress. Ito happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice Presidento Richard Nixon, who was presiding over tohe Senatoe, validatoed only his opponento's electoors, buto he made sure too do so ""witohouto estoabllishing a precedento."". He finishes tohato sectoion by asking: whato if ito happened again? This was noto justo a small litotole mistoake tohato happened. Thato was a big problem tohato could have changed everytohing. The Electooral College Has too many flaws too keep running and tohis was one of tohem.

Before jumping too conclusions, you musto ask yourself, is ito really beneficial? wouldnto you like too be one hundred percento confidento tohato your votoe is give too tohe candidatoe tohato you chose? Noto only sometoimes? We tohe people are supposed too be able too votoe ourselves, noto some otoher imbicles tohato donto even geto our votoes righto half of tohe toime. America was meanto too become a democracy, and if we keep tohe college, ito will always keep us from becoming ito. I agree tohato tohe Electooral College was one of tohe besto Sytoems creatoed. Unfourtounatoley, noto everytohing was meanto too work outo in tohe long run. Jobs, careers, school, buisnesses, relatoionships, and tohe Electooral College. Ito has made vitoal mistoakes tohato has caused us noto too be able too have much faitoh in ito anymore. Ito was good in tohe begining, buto now itos toime for ito too come too an end.",0
43632957,1,"Dear senator, The electoral process is extremely unfair to all the people and citizens in the united states and its totally messed up. The president is not what the citizens vote for but instead they're voting for electors who elects the president. Also there is a ""winner takes it all"" system that is even more messed up. This should definitely be changed to a popular voting process because it's 100x more fair. In this process it's the people that get to vote for the president, not the electors and there is no such thing as a ""winner takes it all system,"" which gives citizens more rights.

The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong , candidates dont spend time in states they know that have no chance of winning. During the 2000 campaign, 17 states didnt see the candidates at all. This is extremely unfair because almost have the states didnt even get to see the campaign!! The most important thing when it comes to electing a president is everyone knowing about it and everyone voting but the whole idea is controversial. Now if there was no such thing as an electoral college system then there wouldnt be a ""winner takes it all"" system and there wouldnt be a big mess. The citizens should be the ones electing the president because I believe that it is the citizens right to choose who they want as their president. The president is the one that is serving the Citizens and decides whats good and bad for them, not the electors. Citizens are the ones that make up a country, without them would there even be a thing as ""the united states?"" I know that you may think that a electoral process is better than popular voting because the electoral college requires a presidential candidate to have a trans regional appeal. According to the article In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President , that means that no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. This is a good idea, but not the best idea. If we decided the president by popluar vote then this whole thing would be different, we wouldnt have to worry about electoral votes in the regions. Instead we would combine all the popular votes in all of the states to see who has the most votes.

As you can probably tell popular voting is so much better than electoral college. Electoral college is too stressful and competely unfair. While popular voting is Easy, simple, and extremely fair to everyone living in the United States. Imagine just the citizens voting for the president and counting the votes and then being done. Now imagine the citizens voting for electors and then counting the votes for that, then having the electors vote for the president and then counting for that. Which is easier and better? If I were you I say that the popular vote is better and I'd change the future elections to popular vote.",0
437bfa2c,0,"Most likely im in a car every day of my life and the odds are so are you. But What if cars were never invented how many lives would be saved? how much money could we save? And over all how much better and cleaner our world will be. These things are just some of the advantages that pertains to limiting our car usage. Have you ever heard of the good out weighs the bad? well in this situation the good defiantly out weighs the bad.

Our life source is breathing we need to breath air and at that fresh air, but we never are, not with fumes from millions of cars roaming around. Stated in source3 part ""Its a good way to take away stress and lower air pollution"". That to me sounds like two gains already, whats better than fresh air and less stress. Things just as simple as car pooling makes the world better but what really would is not useing your car daily. No, i dont mean walk every where you could use bikes, electric operated golf carts which are all fun but much better for the air. By useing these we have fewer fumes in the air which makes for better air. If we all began useing these instead of cars in just towns it would become normal to ride bikes and, golf carts rather than big bulky air killing machines. For an example in source4 par29 ""Americans are buying fewer cars and driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by"". It just starts with one to make something drastically change. Now i know were not gonna take family bike trips all the way from florida to georgia or drive a golf cart that only goes to 40mph,but thats when it would be decent to make a ""car trip"". Im not saying stop useing cars completely just only when its not necessary. Just think about the world you live in the world that God has created is being polluted every day, but we can all change that.

Money, money ,money Seems to be the big talk in America weather its the money were making, the money were losing ,or the money we just dont have. But Wouldent you rather put your money towards the mouths of your family or the roof over your head, rather than in your gas tank ? Useing less cars would give us more money on more important things in life and, would cause more people to become happier. Just by useing things like bikes can make things more smoother in your every day life for an examplesource3 par28 ""Rush hour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic"". No one i know loves sitting or, nearly wrecking during traffic with this mehtod of less cars we could cut deaths and, stress in half. And i know you would say, but millions of people would lose jobs big money by car usage being reduced,but think of all the new things they could make their money from. People are always looking for the next big thing , well this is it. Dealerships that promote this could now turn into safer mobility shops and, make nearly as much. Stated insource4 par32 ""Americans could not afford new cars and the unemployed wernt going to work anyway"". This goes to show that were already leaning towards the idea of less cars we just need to be pushed. All the new inventions that will arise weather its cute bicycle covers to built in tops to block the rain people will be gaining and saving just as much. But what were really gainig is the saftey of people. Kids fall off their bikes everyday and probably get hurt but, a scrape is better than taking your last breath. We all gain from this , and our human nature is to want whats best for yourself, well this is surely better for every one.

Almost every day im in a vehicle, but maybe that could soon change. We could gain so much from losing just a little bit of driving time. We would absolutley gain lives,money,and happiness from useing less car usage. Im a firm beliver in useing this method i couldent imagine a better world of things going just so smoothly all of the time. But It takes getting on that bike or walking to the corner store to strike a revolution like this. So get out of your cars and, go make a better place for you and for the world.",0
43d45f34,1,"The Electoral College is a system which was established to elect the president of the United States of America. In this system, each state receives a group of electors. The number of electors each state is awarded is based on the representation a state has in Congress. The total number of electors per state equals the number of people a state has in the House of Representative plus the two senators a state has. In a state, the electors pledge to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote. This system is simply unneeded in modern times and is unnecessarily complicated. The Electoral College must be abolished.

To commence, the Electoral College should be eradicated because it is simply unreliable. The result of a direct election would be more transparent and would make the citizens of this country certain the election was democratic and just. The issue lies in the fact that voters are technically only voting for electors to cast a vote for a candidate, and not for a candidate themselves. These electors pledge to vote in favor of the candidate who rightly wins the popular vote in a state, but some attempt to be defiant. For instance, according to Bradford plumber's article, ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy"" 11. If the louisiana legislature was successful in their attempt to be defiant, electoral votes would not go to Kennedy despite him winning the popular vote in that state. Another way in which the Electoral College is unreliable is that it allows for a tied vote. There are 538 electoral votes in the system currently in use, meaning it is possible for two candidates to receive 269 votes each. This may seem unlikely, but it is more likely to occur than some might think. For instance, as according to plumber's aforementioned article, an electoral tie would have occured in 1968 if only 41,971 more votes were for the losing candidate. Additionally, in the 1976 election, if 5,559 voters in the swing state of Ohio, and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had simply voted in favor of the candidate with the minority of the votes, a tie would have occured. In order to resolve a tie, the House of Representatives casts votes to decide the winner of the election. At this point, the impact of each representative is skewed so representatives of states with lower population can more easily decide the state's vote. This happens because each state only votes once, so the few representatives of a small state such as Nebraska can decide who to vote for rather easily, while in California, 55 representatives with different views must colloborate to cast a single vote. With so much unreliability, why is the outdated system of the Electoral College still in use?

Furthermore, the Electoral College must be abolished because it does not properly refelct the views of the nation. Citizens' wishes will not always be equivalent to what the electors vote for. This occurs partly because of the winnertakeall system. In this system, the winner of the popular vote in an individual state wins all of the electoral votes a state has. According to the Office of the Federal Register, all but two states use this system. These two states are Nebraska and Maine. As a result of the winnertakeall system, it is possible that a presidential candidate loses the overall popular vote, but wins more electoral votes and thus wins the election. This occurance happened in the infamous 2000 election, when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost to George W. Bush by a mere five electoral votes. If the public indicated they wanted Al Gore as president, why should Bush have won due to this unfair system? It simply doesn't make sense. The winnertakeall system also results in political campaigns to focus their efforts in only certain regions. Some states very predictably vote either for the Republican candidate or for the Democratic candidate. Take Texas, for instance, which has traditionally always voted red. A Democratic candidate knows he should not focus his campaign in Texas, because he realizes his best efforts won't allow him to win the popular vote there and thus win the electoral votes. Because of the tendencies of certain states, many electoral votes are practically predetermined. The states which do not typically only vote in favor of one side are labelled ""swing states"". With the way the Electoral College works, the few states which are a tossup carry the most weight. Presidential candidates will usually spend most of their time in these swing states, and very little time in others. For example, in the 2000 election, seventeen states were not visited by either candidate. Supporters of the Electoral College view the disproportional focus of campaigns as a positive. According to Richard A. Posner's article in favor of this corrupt system, ""The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constituion..."" 21. While it might seem reasonable for larger states to have a larger impact than smaller states, it simply isn't a fair way to go about having an election. Voters should each have the same impact, and they would have exactly that in a direct election. Presently, voters in Florida, for instance, have more impact on the election than a voter in Wyoming. Supporters also claim the focus on swing states is beneficial because residents of swing states should be more politically informed due to their state's importance in the election. This notion is simply a fabrication in order to make the Electoral College seem as if it causes America to be more informed, because there would be no need for residents of specific states to pay closer attention to candidates than residents of others if a direct election were to take place. The Electoral College does not properly reflect the desire of the nation's population, and thus should be replaced.

In retrospect, the Electoral College must be abolished. It is an inherently unfair system and it does not reflect the views of American voters.",0
43edf702,1,"I think that the electoral votes should not decide who the president is. This is a nation where people have the right to vote, and the fact that the votes of the people don't even matter is not right. What is the point in even voting if our vote doesn't count, what is the point in the candidate giving speeches to the people if it's all just for nothing. The popular votes are the ones that should be counted towards who becomes the president. People all over the country are told to vote, or are guilted into voting becomes it's a right that we should be happy and proud to have but then the vote that we put on the ballot doesn't make a difference, it's the electoral votes that really matter. What makes them more important than us. The electoral votes are not democratic.

Yes the electoral college does somewhat balance out the big states from the little states based on population but that still doesn't matter. If over 50% of the United States votes for one person but then they lose to someone with a little more electoral college votes then are they really our president, we the people didn't vote for him so then why is he allowed to be our president. The founding fathers gave us the right to vote but the truth is that the vote isn't really real. I think we should just change it so that the people are the ones that get their votes counted because you can't tell us to go voted and then not even let it mean something. Being able to vote is one of the things that we have that most other countries don't have, but the reality is that our vote is disregarded and somebody else makes the vote for us.

Do you think that people are going to want to vote for someone if it is basically just a waste of time. If the votes actually counted I bet a lot more people would go to the polls. People would be more interested in the speeches and wanting to listen to their views if they knew that their vote was important to the candidate. In 2012 only about a half of the people who were eligible to vote didn't and that number could keep getting lower if we don't change it. The younger generation doesn't care right now because they already know that their vote doesn't matter.

The electoral votes only have five reasons as to why they should stay.

Incase of dispute over the outcome Everyone's president Requires candidate to have transregional appeal Winnertakeall method awarding electoral votes Balances the small states and the big states population Avoid runoff elections Avoids both candidates havingno majority The electoral votes don't seem to be very American. The whole electoral college system is confusing and as said in the passage ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes. If we were to have a vote and the peoples votes actually counted that asked people if they want to keep the electoral college or get rid of it I bet over 50% of the people in this country would want to get rid of it.",0
43f2fd5a,1,"There is a lot of discussion whether or not to keep the Electoral College. The electoral college is the process in which we vote for our next president. It was established in the Constitution by our founding fathers, which was a really long time ago. So why do we still use the Electoral College? The Electoral College is completely outdated. We need to get rid of the Electoral College now!

Why are we still using the Electoral College to vote? It's extremely confusing. What if you vote for the wrong elector? That sometimes happens which is unfair to voters. We should be able to just directly vote for the president we want. If we could just vote for the president we want, not the electors, it would be so much simpler. Why confuse the citizens of the U.S. when you could just make things easier for us? The Electoral College is a way to confusing process to vote for our president. It's time to update the way we vote.

People think they're voting for the president, but really, they're just voting for electors. That is completely unfair. Why not just vote for the president of your choice? The citizens cannot always control who the electors vote for. How unfair would that be if the elector you chose, decided to vote for the president you didn't want? Also, the electors can be just anyone. They can be anyone not holding public office. Depending on what state you're in, either the state conventions, the states party central committee or even the presidential candidates can pick the electors. Why even bother going through all that trouble when you could just vote for the president you want? It's way more easier.

There are so many things that could go wrong when using the Electoral College process to vote. What if there is a tie in the electoral votes? Then who does the state choose? That would throw everyone off guard. Why have to even worry about that when you could just vote the president of your choice? It's ridiculous that we still use the Electoral College to vote. Also, we could choose the wrong elector when voting and that would really make people mad.

The Electoral College is outdated, confusing, and just way to complicated. Why go through the trouble of having to make sure you vote for the right elector, when you could just vote for the president of your choice. It's completely irrational how we still use the Electoral College to vote. You're not voting for the president you want, but for electors to choose the president. You can't always control who the electors vote for. There are a handful of things that could go wrong. We just need to get rid of the Electoral College once and for all.",0
44558f42,0,"There are many advantages of limiting car usage. Decreasing the amount of time citizens use personal motorvehicles positively impacts the environment and the state of mind of people. The lack of driving personal cars is becoming more widely accepted in several countries for different reasons. Vauban, a suburb in Germany, is an experimental district testing the lifestyle that does not use cars. Paris banned driving for environmental reasons, and Bogota decided to try it out too. Also, it is a trend in America for the purpose of saving money and because there are other convenient options.

The decrease in fumes from cars is very beneficial to the environment. People and organizations are making drastic efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe. According to paragraph five of ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" twelve percent of greenhouse gas in Europe is caused by passenger cars and fifty percent in some areas of the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency is promoting ""car reduced"" communities because emissions from cars contributes to half of the pollution in America. In the Article by Robert Duffer, ""Paris Bans Driving Due to Smog"" he describes the event that Paris had to declare a ban on half of the drivers because the large amount of smog that lingered over Paris. Colombia even has a day dedicated to being free of cars to reduce smog and promote alternative transportation. All of these events show the severity of environmental problems caused by cars and people making efforts to promote a better environment.

Also, a decrease in personal motor vehicles causes people to have a better state of mind. Heidrun Walter states, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" With a car comes a lot of responsibility which leads to a lot of stress on a person. Not having a car is one less bill to pay and thing to take care of which for many people is a better way of living.""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" stated Carlos Arturo Plaza on carfree day in Bogota, Colombia. The car free day has also promoted other things to bloom in the city such as parks, sidewalks, and restaurants that people really enjoy. According to Elisabeth Rosenthal in her article ""The End of Car Culture,"" her children have other priorities than recieving their license because they have other things they would rather focus on that they enjoy more. All of these things promote people living a healthier and happier life.

Overall, limiting car usage is a ""winwin"" situation for everyone. Decreasing fumes and the stress of a car causes the environment and people to be happier. Promoting public trasportation or other ways of getting places is better for everyone. It is a growing trend all over the world, and for a good reason. A lack of fumes from cars will clear the air, and clear the minds of fellow citizens.",0
44a87b40,1,"The process of chosing a president should be changed to popular vote instead of the electoral college. I say this because it is a better opportunity for the guy who has the most votes to win. Having the votes by popular votes can make it easier for the election of the president. also the electoral votes can really mess up how the election is taking place. it can make them mess up there counting of the votes or how the votes go through.

The electoral college can make a hard impact on how the voting process begins with. The electoral college can confuse the voter by making them chose the wrong person. In the text ""The Indefensible Electoral College"" the author is stating margin 10 lines 1113 that "" do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes."" this is showing how just using the electoral college can easily confuse those who are voting. Also in many occouins occurred when the electoral college didnt suceesed right. in the passage "" The indefensible Electoral College"" the author states in margin 11 lines 24 that "" The american people should consider themselves lucky that 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse."" This is showing how the electoral college almost cost a big mistake in the election.

The electoral college is not consider a democratic system. thats why many people go against it because its not equaly fair to those who are democratic. IN the passage "" In Defense of the Electoral College"" the writer states in margin 15 and in lines 45 that "" the advocates of this position is correct in arguing that the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense..."" This is showing that not all of it is fairly equal. So instead of using the electoral college it is a better method to go with popular vote because it a simpler way to do it. Establishing this will rapidly take on more votes then it would be a close race against both of the presidents. Chosing a president with the Electoral College can make the delectation go bad, so thats why having people vote who they want would be a more fair chance for those who are voting.

It comes out that the Electoral College is a siginficient way to do a vote on. the more imporant way to do a voting should be a popular vote because it gives the presidents a better chance to have the elecations on a good pace. instead of many votes go through then have to be checked on by state. So the electoral college should be elimatited and the popular vote should go in its place of how we vote.",0
44b96e35,1,"State Senator, If the slogan of our nation is ""We the people,"" why do we the people not actually get to vote for the president? How can a president win the popular vote but lose the presidency? None of that makes any sense. Our nation needs to abolish the Electoral College and change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. The system of the Electoral College is irrational, unfair, and not for the citizens.

To begin, the Electoral College is unfair to voters. ""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states."" Plumer, paragraph 13. ""Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" Plumer, paragraph 11. If the United States is really all about the citizens, then they do not have a good way at showing it. We as citizens live here, and call this nation our home, but yet we can not even elect our own president. The Electoral College is unfair to us as voters.

In addition, ""The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense... it is the electors who elect the president, not the people. When you vote for a presidential candidate you're actually voting for a state of electors."" Posner, paragraph 15. That textual evidence came from a passage in defense of the Electoral College! We the people should have a say! This system is not for us as citizens of the United States, and it is wrong! This is our home so let US pick our president.

Furthermore, ""... and the most thoughful voters should be the ones to decide the election."" Posner, paragraph 20. This statement is very true because voters should be thorough when voting, but why should we be? It is not like we need to take our time and compare and contrast the presidential candidates. We are not voting for the president of our choice, so what is the point of being thorough? It is wrong to have this system, and it needs to be changed.

To conclude, as I have said above, If the slogan of our nation is ""We the people,"" why do we the people not actually get to vote for the president? The system of the Electoral College needs to be abolished. It is not letting us as citizens elect our choice of the president that we want. It is unfair and irrational. I am in favor of changing the system to election by popular vote for the president of the United States.",0
44e00070,0,"The advantages of limiting car use can help the environment and people. Some advantages include reduced smog in the air from the exhaust pipe of a car. More people will be healthy because instead of driving everywhere people would begin to start walking. Also when no one is driving cars there are no traffic jams so everyone usually will get to where they need to go on time without delay. Also when people arent driving their cars everywhere they have time to just enjoy the scenery in which they live in and are not constantly worried about where they need to go and how fast they need to do it.

To introduce my statement i believe that that one of the many great advantages to limiting car usage is that there will be less pollution. Based on source two Paris typically has more smog than any other European capital. Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter. Since everyone in paris stopped driving for a week the smog cleared enough to rescind the ban for odd numbered plates because they were fining people that had odd numbered plates. Many blamed diesel fuel but it couldve been a matter of different things but it was mostly from exhaust pipes and diesel fuel.

The next advantage of limiting car usage is that people become healthier because there not just sitting in there car seat. They actually have too walk around to get to where they need to go and walking is very healthy for your body and maintaining a good healthy body. Based on source 3 in Colombia there was a program where there was one car free day. One man said that it was a good opportunity to take away stress. That is very important. Stress does very harmful things to our body the more we can take away the better so if your walking around instead of in a car you have less stress so theres less problems with your body. Also because of this car free day bicycle paths have also been made so people can bike along paths and enjoy the beautiful nature this Earth gives to us.

The last advantage of limiting car usage is that there is no traffic jams so there is no major delay in where you need to go. Based on source one street parking is generally forbidden so if theres no cars then you also dont have to get fined. Hypothetically say that your on your way to work and theres a traffic jam. You have one extremely important meeting to go to and if you miss it that could cost you your job. All because of a stupid traffic jam that you obviously didnt mean to get in or you didnt cause. So if you limit car usage and everyone just wakes up a little earlier you can get to where you need to go on time and not get caught in a delay.

That is why fellow citizens that is a great idea to limit car usage. There are too many traffic jams. People need to get to where they need to go on time. Its a lot healthier for our bodies to walk places and when your healthier your happier and who doesnt love being happy. Last limiting car usage is a great idea because we dont want to pollute our great mother Earth that we were given for free to live on. We might as well take care of it.",0
453b19ac,0,"""In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting ""car reduced"" communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously"". Car reduction helps the environment more than what people think it would. ""President Obama's ambitious goals to curb the United states greenhouse gas emissions, unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in America behavior:recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by"". Not having a car is better for you and the environment because not only would you be exercising by walking but there will be less pollution in the economy. Cars waste to much gas and have a lot of unnecessary waste in them that could end up to be one day global warming and kill of all the good air we breath in now. People should look in to not having a car and start walking, biking, skating and do more than what they use to do when they had a car.

Paris, Germany, United States, New York, Colombia and many other places are starting be more car free because they heard what cars can do to the environment. According the text "" in Colombia has a program that they started that spreads to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day the other day, leaving the streets of the capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams"". The more and more people hear about this program the more people will get into the habit of not having a car or not using a car to go everywhere they have to go to. ""If the patterns persists and many sociologists believe it will it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants"".

Most people who are involved in the program see a huge difference in their community like the streets are cleaner, there are no traffic jams, the streets are safer, and there's less pollution in the air. As we all know that cars are sometimes important to us to get to where we need to get but is it really that important to us to have a car not really because if we would stop being lazy and just get up from our couches and walk, bike, or skate to where we needed to go we'll see that having a car is not as important as we used to think. In Colombia two other citizens joined the event and found that ""these people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing broders"". So really one program can change the whole world if people just joined and saw for them selves what a huge impact it can be on others.

More parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city and there are more smooth sidewalks and restrictions have dramatically cut traffic. ""Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a longterm cultural shift"". New York also started there own program which is this bikingsharing program and it's skyrocketed bridge and the tunnel tools reflect those new priorities, and of course a proiferation of carsharing program across the nation. In some cities you have to take a car like in San Francisco because everything is so far away and you can not walk to where you need to go it will take forever to get there walking which is understandable. But in other cities or places were everything is close to you then there's no point of taking a car instead of walking to the place you need to go to. Cars waste a lot of gas which means that gas prices go up way to much because of the usahe of cars instead of biking, skating, or walking. You get more done when your walking, biking, or skating because you are less worried about running out of gas or having to push the car to the nearest gas station.",0
456f57a7,1,"Dear Florida Senator, The ongoing debate of whether or not the Electoral College process is fair or unjust is always around you, I presume. I would like to give some personal feedback in the matters of this situation.

I understand that the Electoral College was created in the constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. Source 1 However it is not a fair or even equal compromise. The people hardly have any political voice in this aspect. The electors that in return vote for the people generally aren't chosen by the people, the electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party. Some state laws vary Source 1 If you faithfully are going to vote for the Presidential candidate of your choice, you should be able to have faith in your vote. Those in favor of the Electoral College could make the remark that ""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election...""Source 3 In the world of reality people don't just want make a comment and expect no reaction, people want to be heard. This is similar to voting, people want their vote to count toward the candidate of their choice not the electors for the candidate.

This then runs into the problem of unfaithful electors. Their votes are never for sure. Although they claim to have ""trust that is rarely betrayed"" Source 3 you can never be a hundred percent sure in the electors. ""Faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please..."" Source 2 If this happens the popular vote actually wouldn't go to the thought candidate.

""Perhaps the most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote."" Source 2 In a case of a tie the vote would go to the House of Representatives. This means that each state would only be able to cast one vote. This is not a smart backup plan. It is not fair for states of different population sizes to have one vote basically being categorized as one. Proportionally it is not right for a state who represents 500,000 such as Wyoming to recieve the same number of equally weighted votes as a state who represents 35 million such as California. Source 2 The Electoral College also follows the ""Winnertakeall"" method. This means that most in most elections the focus is on the swing states or toss up states, all the efforts go to these states. Even though ""the voters are most likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average, and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election"", as said by those who believe in the Electoral College Source 3 what about the voters who have been faithful all along? How can you expect them to feel when they barely get noticed? Those are the ones the candidates should be thanking and having gratitute toward because they are the ones who will be supporting them and their campaign.

I know that politics are filled with misconceptions and many confusing roles and aspects but please consider my thoughts and words. I speak for the voiceless and my fellow neighbors, but most importantly I speak for what our government was founded upon, WE THE PEOPLE.",0
457dd6e7,1,"Should we keep the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote for the President of the United States? We should change to election by popular vote for the President. ""Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL CIO all agreed on Abolishing the Electoral College. According to a gallop poll in 2000 shortly after Al Gore won popular vote from the Electoral College but lost the Presidency. 60% of voters would prefer a direct election like the one we have now."" What is wrong with the Electoral College? The Electoral College system voters vote not for the President but also for a slate of electors, whom which in turn to elect the President. The Electoral College is an anachronism. ""The Electoral College is not a democratic in modern sense, its the electors who elect the president not the people."" For example President Obama received 61.7% of the electoral vote comparison to 51.3% popular votes casted for him and rodney.

""Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."" 1968 Nixon 1992 Clinton only had 43% plurality of the popular vote, while winning majority in Electoral College. ""Pressure for run off elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast the pressure which would complicate the presidential election process, which is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner."" ""Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state."" In 2000 Fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century. State Legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people. The Electoral College is unfair to voters because of the winner take all system in each state. The candidates don't spend the time in states they know that they have no chance of winning, they only focus on the tight races.

Should we keep the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote for the President of the United States? We should change it to election by popular vote. The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and is irrational. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole are in agreement for abolishing the Electoral College.",0
4591c859,0,"""When I had a car, I was always tense,"" Heidrun Walter said in the article, in German Suburb, Life Goes On Without cars, in the New York Times, ""I'm much happier this way."" In Vauban, Germany, people do not use cars. They find other means of transportation, such as biking and walking. In Bogota, the construction of bicycle paths has made 118 miles of passages for residents. According to David Goldberg, ""All our development since World War II has been centered around the car."" While that is not entirely true, it does have a good point. We should move on from the allpowerful box with wheels.

One major reason for not using cars is pollution. As most of us know, pollution is bad for the environment, and for most life on Earth. Unfortunately, our use of cars and power plants is generating pollution faster then plants can take it out of the atmosphere. ""Transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions"", Elisabeth Rosenthal said. In the article, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", 60% of drivers in Paris stopped after five days of intensifying smog. That means that the smog was dense enough to where it was dangerous for drivers to go anywhere.

The article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" mentions that: ""The turnout for carfree day was large, despite gray clouds that dumped occasional rain showers on Bogota."" Why would people continue to participate in carfree day if they hated it so much? Despite the fine of 25, it really isn't a big deal. One of the participants, Carlos Arturo Plaza, said, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Now, how can you simply stop driving? You need to get to your job! Nobody is telling you to move to Vauban. However, biking or walking to the park could help. You don't need a car to go to your neighbor's house. They're right next door. Of course, not using cars is not going to stop the pollution from power plants, but it will certainly slow down how fast it is going into the atmosphere.

We simply can't allow pollution to go where it is going. If we all stop relying on cars to get us to places, we will have enough time to think of an easier solution. Bill Ford laid out a business plan for a world in which personal vehicle ownership is impractical or undesirable. There is a chance that being carfree won't be as bad as everyone thinks. It might even be enjoyable. There is also a chance that it will despised.",0
462e4e66,0,"In the modern world, it's uncommon to see someone without a car. Most people own at least one, and use it frequently. In America, suburban areas have few public transport options available making it difficult to get to work or to a store without using a car. However, cars are a massive source of greenhouse gas emissions. Not only that, car accidents have led to millions of injuries and deaths. While companies are working to procure cleaner, safer car models all the time, other countries are taking actions to lower the number of people using personal automobiles every day.

In Vauban, Germany, cars are actually banned. This town is much cleaner, and its residents are all happy with the rule. Stores and buildings are placed closer together, making them accessible to more people. Many people bike and walk to the places they need to be. Not only is it good exercise, it cuts down on the pollution going into the air and destroying the ozone. By not driving, no one has to be plagued by the worries of speeding, not going fast enough, getting hit, hitting someone else, or paying for gas. The town, finished in 2006, has done well so far. Germany isn't the only country interested in lowering car usage, though.

Recently, Paris was forced to enact a partial driving ban due to smog levels getting out of control. For a while, they were on the same level with Beijing, which is infamous for its horrible pollution. Car emissions have been, as Elisabeth Rosenthal put it in her article, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", ""choking cities"". Paris' solution to the issue was forbidding cars with evennumbered licence plates to be driven one day, and then oddnumbered ones the next. Many people were unhappy with this, but the smog quickly cleared up to acceptable levels.

Meanwhile in Colombia, Bogota has a ban on cars as well, though it only lasts for one day a year. Contrasting with the reactions of the French, the citizens of the capitol willingly participate and use other means of transportation. Because of this, the usual traffic jams and wrecks are drastically minimized. This day without cars promotes public transport and lowering smog levels in big cities. Carlos Arturo Plaza, a businessman, vocalized his opinion of the event, saying that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" The carfree day has led to plenty of changes in the city, such as safer, better sidewalks, less traffic, and more condensed stores and restaurants that are closer together.

While it's definitely more common to see someone driving a car than biking to work, steps have been made towards a cleaner future that doesn't involve nearly so many cars. More Americans are limiting their car usage when they can every year. With cell phones and the Internet, it's now much easier to make car pooling arrangements, as well as interacting through the internet without having to leave and drive somewhere. The younger generation is becoming less concerned with getting a license, and is taking up organizing their lives around not having a car. With the recession, cars are becoming harder to afford and maintain. If people can get around those costs, they will. By limiting car usage, pollution levels are dropping, as well as the casualties that come with reckless driving.",0
4633fa68,0,"To all my fellow citizens, I must tell you about all the spectacular things cities are doing. They have started giving up their cars to decrease the congestion and pollution rate. The cities that have already tried it have seen a huge benefit.

A little community in Vauban, Germany was the fist city to let go of their cars. Residents say they feel much less stress than when they had cars. What a surprise that not having to worry about traffic would reduce stress. It has also drastically reduced tailpipe emissions. They're have been rearangments by stores, they have been relocated along public sidewalks so that people no longer hae to drive across town to the mall or stores. They can simply walk or bike down the road to pick up whatever might interest them.

The next place that picked up this amazing wonderful idea was none other than the busiest city in France Paris. Paris ordered its citizens to leave their car at home, and if they didn't comply would pay a 22euro fine. 4000 drivers were fined and 27 people had their cars impounded for their reaction to this fine, but if I was able to buy a car and not drive then I would be among those who would have their car impounded. On the bright side congestion went down 60% which is amazing for one of the busiest cities in the world.

The next place thats wanting to pick up this no car trend is none other than right here in the United States, and were supporting it. Each year that goes by recent studies have suggest that Americans aren't buying as many cars, driving less, and getting fewer licenses. If this pattern progresses it could solve our atmosphere problem. If huge cities and like Paris,Vauban,and The United States will give up cars. Than that alone could drastically change the path that our planet is headed for.

So citizens I hope this encourages you to cut back on your car usage. Take the bike out every once and a while or just walk. Whats the worst that could happen if you limited your automobile usage.",0
463ad422,1,"Many people feel that the president plays a very imperative role in the United States. He has much responsibility and an enormous influence on what this country stands for. So, surely, this president must be carefully sought out from the abundance of other candidates. It is quite controversial as to what method is best for selecting them. Although an electoral college may appear as the right path, the countries interest invariably lies with the popular vote because it is fair and unstressful unlike the electoral college.

Firstly, the electoral college is quite unfair. It is mentioned by Bradford Plumer in ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" that some of the states do not even get to see candidates under the electoral college system. Candidates don't even bother with the states that they don't have a chance of winning over. They focus all of their attention on swings states. This means that some states have to vote based on just what they have heard. These people could have heard rumors and now are voting under false impressions. They deserve their own fair share of information from the candidates themselves. Also, under the electoral college the people of this nation aren't even voting for their president. They are voting for the electors. All that they can do is hope that the person that they voted for votes in their favor Plumer. There is no guarantee that they will, so people have little say in who is president. This is their country, they should be able to decide who does and doesn't govern it. It is mentioned that with the popular vote larger states get more attention than little ones Posner. The popular vote may not be entirely fair to all states, but it most definitely is better than the electoral college. Even Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO agree that the electoral college should be abolished.

As if this wasn't enough to get rid of the electoral system, the popular vote is also much less stressful. First off, the there could be a tie. If there is a tie, the decision goes to the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is likely that the result of their voting will not be at the will of the people Plumer. Isn't it just easier to have their load lightened and take the stress of thep possibility off thier back? Although the outcome of a tie is unlikely Posner it is still possible and causing unnecessary stress. Additionally, the electoral college results in the presence of the disaster factor Plumer. If a repeat of the 2000 fiasco the biggest election crisis in the past hundred years Plumer is what America is looking for then by all means choose to stick with the electoral college.

In summation, it is prominent that the most potent option for this naiton is to elect the president of the United States by popular vote. Even though the electoral college does have some pros, the ultimate candidate is the popular vote as it ensures fairness and a virtually stressless voting process.",0
46794ef1,0,"I believe that there are many advantages when it comes to limiting car usage. Using cars for transportation has been around for nearly a decade, starting with the very first car to run on gas ever made. Many believe that having a car makes life more convenient. But there are many more cons that justify the right to limit car usage.

The first advantage to limiting car usage would be the most obvious one, which is economical purposes. Buying a car usually means spending thousands of dollars all at once or having to pay a bill every month until the full price of the car is payed. This doesnot includethe price for gas or other needs the car could have. Things like oil changes, transmission failure, or even something as simple as a flat tire could cost well over a hundred dollars just to fix all depending on the situation. This is not even considering the chance that your car could just stop functioning and you would need to buy a new car, which would lead to the ugly circle of life you just went through with your old car.

Not only is limiting car use good economically, but also environmentally friendly as well. study shown that cars and other vehicles like this are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. This could be very dangerous in a place where many people live.

Another advantage would be that if there are less cars, there would be less accidents as well. Many deaths that have been occurring over the pass year are all car related. Things like natural storms that destroy cars or drinking and driving could be prevented if car usage is limited. If car usage was limited, the death toll would definitely get smaller.

One last advantage limiting car usage would bring is the gift of excersise. Many believe a car is very convenient due to the fact that it can get you where you want to go in a small amount of time which, in fact, could be very useful for special occasions. However, when it comes to using a car limits to driving to a gas station 4 blocks away from where you live just for snacks, that's when things get out of hand. If you want to get somewhere, there are other ways besides cars that are safe and healthy for you. You could ride a bike, or even walk to where you want to go and still get the excersise you wouldn't get from using a car.

In conclusion, there are many reasons why car usage should be limited. However, that does not mean i don't beileve in the usage of cars. Cars are a advancement in technology for people to get to where they need to go without a hassle. A gift like that should not be taken advantage of. People can still use cars, but in moderation. And if we take the time to walk or ride a bike, you will be healthy, happy, and have a pocket full of money left over.",0
46874b87,1,"Having an electoral college is a controversial topic. There are many different views on whether electoral college should be allowed or removed. Keeping the Electoral College does of couse have its benefits, but so does changing to election by popular vote. On a personal opinion, taking out Electoral College has more positives then negatives. When taking out Electoral College, citizens of this country actually have a say in the president they choose and it will become less complicated and less confusing for voters.

Removing Electoral College and replacing it with election by popular vote is greatly convenient. Citizens in the US right now do not have a say in the president they want to win. Instead of voting for the president they are actually voting for a ""slate of electors"" according to Source 2 by Bradford Plumer. Electoral College does not represent a democracy which is what this country is all about. This country gives the individuals a right to say and express themselves. When a 4 year term is over and it is time to vote again, the citizens are voting for a group of people, not the actual president. Then, those group of people called electors later vote for the president they would like. Even though in Source 3 is states "" But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the partys nominee and that trust is barely betrayed is is entirely possible for the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote."" Meaning the electoral college can still vote for another president even if it not the party's nominee. It is the electors who choose the president not the people.

Furthermore, selecting president by popular votes contains more benefits. Many people become confused when it comes to voting. They do not fully understand the concept of the Electoral College and therefore make mistakes when it comes to voting. In source 2, it clearly states "" Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes."" Thus meaning that people are not clear on the situation and end up making a mistake that may or may not have have changed the outcome of that election. Even though the college restores the political balance between large and small states and has it's good sides to it, removing the Electoral college will be more beneficial at the end of the day.

All in all, Electoral College should be removed and replaced. It will be better. Having people clear on who they vote for and actually having a say in who they want to win president will actually show this countries democratic views and will relieve probably a big chunk of Americas citizens.",0
469b495e,0,"A new trend is starting to spread rapidly across America and all over Europe. This new trend is the banning of automobiles. There are many problems that come with the luxury of owning a car. Although it get you from point A to point B in your every day life, it can also be harmful. Some advantages of limiting car use is less pollution, reduced traffic jams, and lastly to come out of a recession.

To begin, pollution is a major factor that harms the earth. One of the main cause of pollution is car use. For example, China is known for the most polluted cities in the world. However, another example would be in France, diesel fuel was blamed because France has a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of western Europe. because of this, they banned the use of automobiles for the day to air out the smog. Limting pollution will allows us citizens to breathe easier and go on with our daily hectic lives. Also limiting the use will, ""have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of Americas emissions.""source 4. This quote shows how beneficial limiting car use would be.

furthermore, another main aggravating problem is traffic jams. For example in Bogota, Colombia its program was set to spread to other countries and instead of using automobiles they hiked, biked, skated , or took buses to work. because of this it limits traffic jams and also cleans the air up a bit. It also allows people to walk moe freely on the sidewalks. Their goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. The violators were faced with 25 dollar fines if they did not participate in the program. "" public transit was free of charge from friday to monday, according to the BBC."" source 2. This was a major factor that pushed citizens to choose an alternative option.

Although, it might be reducing car production, many people are slimply not purschaing cars as they did in the past. One main reason is because many citizens are going through a recession. ""As of april 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995."" source 4. This explanation certainly lies in the rescession because many Americans nowadays can not afford new cars and the unemployed werent going to wrok anyways. By limiting car use, many citizens can then not have to always worry about gas money and the ""what if"", if they get into an accident.

To conclude, There are many advantages in limiting car use. Deomgraphic shifts in the driving population show that the trend countines to drop and the percentage or 16 to 39 year old drivers are more likey to not get or want their license. Most young people dont really care about what their ride looks like. a car is about getting from point A to point B. At this rate, soon the ""car culture"" will slow down and might clean up our earth a little more.",0
469cc85a,0,"Numerous amount of people would love to experience the opportunities of limiting their time with their car. There are a great amount of advantages of limiting car usage. Advantages include having a more healthy environment, decreasing stress, and reducing traffic.

The advantages of limiting car usage is helping the environment. ""passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" While most of the adult population is driving cars everyday, more gas and smoke go into the air and into our environment. This causes pollution and hurts our environment. Paris has a major smog problem in their environment, up to the point where it was nearrecorded. Paris had to then enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air of the city. The effect of this ban was that congestion was down 60 percent and the smog cleared after a short week. If we were able to limit our car usage, then our greenhouse gas emissions would decrease. ""In the United States, the environmental protection agency is promoting car reduced communities, and legislators are starting to act."" There are numerous environmental agencies that are already starting to act to decrease the car usage in the country. We should limit our car usage because it can greatly help our environment.

If were able to limit our car usage, then it will greatly decrease our stress of driving. Many countries are trying to reduce car usage. An example is Columbia. Columbia has created a carfree day. ""Millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses during carfree day, leaving the streets eerily devoid of traffic jams."" Bogota, Colombia have practiced this day for three years and many colombians have been pleased with it. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"", said businessman Carlos Plaza. Without driving, you have the time to go out, be active and get exercise. A huge effect of the car free day is that park and sport centers have been built all throughout Bogota, smoother sidewalks, and rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic. With car usage reduced, it limit people's stress on driving.

If we were able to lower the number of car usage, then our streets would be much safer and there would be less traffic. Many people use cars today and because of that most of streets are usually blocked up. If there were less cars on the streets then it would be easier and quicker to go to places. Vanban, Germany is an example of an carfree town. ""...basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make suburbs more compact and accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking. In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls alond some distant highway."" With less cars on the streets, it can also reduce car accidents and deaths. If there were less cars on the roads, there would be less traffic and car accidents.

There are many advantages of limiting our car usage. These advantages include helping our environment, decreasing stress, and making our roads safer with less traffic.",0
470cdcff,1,"Dear state senator, I strongly believe that we should get rid of the Electoral College, not only is it unfair to voters, but it lacks democratic pedigree.

Firstly, my honest opinion is that I strongly believe that we should get rid of the Electoral college. It's very unfair to voters, and most of the time their votes hardly count. When voters vote, they don't really vote for the president, but for a slate of electors who elect the president. Awhile back in 1960, states sent two slates of electors to Congress, instead of one. Now is that really fair? Maybe it was a mistake, but I hardly doubt it. What if it happens again, it's very hard to trust these people. The electoral college is unfair to voters also because of the ""winnertakeall"" system in each state. What's wrong with this you may ask, well see candidates are very smart, and know what they are doing. They don't spend time in states they know have no chance at winning. 2000 was the worst, during the campaign, seventeen states didn't even see the candidates at all. Rhode Island, South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't see a single campaign ad.

Secondly, the Electoral college lacks democratic pedigree. Democrats in Texas, or Republicans in California, really don't pay attention to the campaign because they know their vote will have no effect. If the president were picked by popular vote, not only would it be more fair and official, but people would take more interest in voting. But, no voter's vote swings a national election. In 2012 about onehalf of the American population did vote, but the difference is, is that they want to express a political preference, rather than others who think that a single vote may decide an election. In 2000, there was a dispute over the outcome of an electrical College, it could happen again. The Electoral College method is not at all democratic in a modern sense. When you vote for a presidential candidate, you're actually voting for a slate of electors. See, it's not the people who elect the president, it's the electors who do. So how is that fair, basically your votes don't count toward anything and you're waisitng your time. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO all agreed on abolishing the electoral college, so why hasn't it happened yet?

I strongly believe that that the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. It's very unfair to the voters, and it lacks democratic pedigree. The electoral college can cause many disputes, and arguments. Why not just get rid of them? I hope you read this, and understand where I'm coming from.",0
47228504,1,"The Electoral College is a cruel, pointless process that simply makes a percentage of votes, or all of them if you look at it that way, to mean nothing, and allows for circumstances like the 2000 election. There are plenty of reasons, and plenty of contradictions in ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President."" To begin, the winnertakeall system is very unfair to the voters. Voters in certain, dominated areas are supposed to know what they are voting for, yet get nothing to teach them? Not that it matters regardless, since every person within a state supports a political party, right, and, depending on your state's veiw, all RepublicansDemocrats have no idea what they are voting for, correct? Like Bradford Plumer says, you shouldn't have to move to Ohio to be able to get a vote. There is also the point countered me. poster's article, which is that those in partydominated states will have a feeling their vote doesn't count, and he sais that one vote will not swing an election. Then why do you believe an upside of the electoral college is that those in more neutral states will feel their vote counts? Or do those in partydominated states not matter, since those in neutrals think way more about their votes, and are the only ones you should trust, according to him? In practice, they are the only deciding factor.

There are also the many unwanted results from electoral colleges, such as the 2000 election's outcome defying the people. ""What Is the Electoral College?"" states you are voting for electors when you vote, but what is the point if they can simply defy you? It would be like if after the president was chosen, the Senate could overule him with a 15 vote. There is also the point in plumber's article about the time Hawaii sent two slates, which forced the desicion to Nixon, who had to validate only the opponent's votes in fear of otherwise receiving bad publicity. There is also the strange way of resolving a tie, which boils down to the same thing as the winnertakeall system, except if more people support it doesn't matter. It would be like if everybody in the room wasn't alowed to vote, other than one voted, but everybody in the room agreed anyway for some strange, miraculous reason. Of course, the one guy in the next room doesn't agree, and completely takes out your vote, regardless of the fact that there were 30 people in this one.

Now, there is the gregarious amount of contradictory statements that can be found within me. poster's article. One has already been mentioned in the winnertakeall system paragraph. He also conveintly provides a dispute that had nothing to do with a close vote in the Electoral College, and everything to do with what is wrong with this winnertakeall system, being the 2000 election. In the same paragraph, me mentions how an Electoral tie is highly unlikely as if a tie between the millions of US citizens is. His reason 5 can be easily solved by simply giving the presidency to the candidate who receives a plurality of votes, rather than a majority. Reasons number 3 and 4 both contradict reason 2 as well, stating that everybody gets a vote, only swing states should get a vote, and only bigger states should get a vote even when there is a 5149 split, where 51%100%, mind you.

Thus, the Electoral College is completely unfair to voters, and should be abolished. Voters should not have to vote for other votes which could very well defy their's, why not just have the Electoral Cllege do all the voting then? It is both redundant and unfair.",0
4726bb04,0,"We can all be a superhero. Saving the world from smog. All you have to do is get rid of your car. Sounds impossible, but there are many advantages of limiting car usage. Once you have found another way to go about your day without a car, you might see that your life will improve, along with the Earth.

In Vauban, Germany there are many participatory, ""70 percent of... families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move there""source 1. With the statistics of the greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and United States caused by passenger cars are so shocking, you can see why it is so important to current efforts to drastically reduce emissions from tailpipe. With ""12 percent... in Europe and 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States""source 1, it should not come to a surprise to people that we need to look further to invest time to promotioning a no car lifestyle.

Although, the United States percentage is so high, a lot of people are also participating in a carfree life, with the internet allowing people to feel more connected they will not need to drive to meet friends. Also ""cellphones and carpooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements""source 4, along with ""shared van services for getting to work""source 4 being seen as a way people ""organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends""source 4. With this evolution accuring ""there has been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39yearolds getting license""source 4. America is on the right track with fewer cars being bought, less drivers, and fewer licenses as the years go by it can still improve.

Some ways that it could improve would be to take some ideas from other countries, such as Paris and Colombia. Where in Paris they have enforced partial driving bans on Mondays that ""motorists with evennumbered license plates are are ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine""source 2. This establishment helped a great deal leaving ""congestion...down 60 percent...after fivedays of intensifying smog""source 2. Although critics argue that ""delivery companies complained of lost revenue...public transit was free of charge from Friday to Monay""source 2. Also in Bogota, Colombia there is a program that ""promotes alternative transportationg and reduce smog"", a day without cars where ""cars they are ban with only buses and taxis permitted"" source 3. The violators of this programed were charged a 25 fine.

These programs would defiantly improve the surburbs, leaving them denser, better for walking and ""more accessible to public transportation""source 1. With these changes ""stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls alongs some distant highway""source 1. The world would become more for the living and less for the machine if we create a trend for a no car zone in all of our daily lifes.",0
47d62873,1,"A huge percentage of Americans want the Electoral College abolished. Their views are justified when the Electoral College fails to reflect the population's opinion. Does it make sense to base our Democracy on this downtrodden way of electing the president? The Electoral College should be abolished for not reflecting the public view,having the chance of making an electors with no interests for those who elected him,and giving equal power to a state with a lower population to the same as a high one. Although the college guarantees a victor the other reasons outweight it in comparison.

First of all,the Electoral College should be abolished for failing to represent the population majority. When an American goes to vote it's ""not for the president,but for a slate of electorss,who in turn elect the president.""10 Upon seeing the results with the popular vote cast aside by the electors and voting something else entirely how could an average American feel anything else then betrayed? It's due to this that many Americans don't even consider going to vote feeling as if it is a waste of time due to the electors deciding for them. Going to vote for our president should be what represents America seeing as Americans always talk and brag about the amount of freedom we have. Instead it's more of ""who's the electors going to vote for this election""?

In addition, the electorss chosen are not even required to vote for who their state has approved of. Giving this power to the electors could possibly make them corrupt and go against the population. An example would be Republicans sending a Republican electors but the electors instead votes for the oppsosite party. It doesn't happen very often but making it even a possibility is a huge risk to the population of that state and could easily incite unrest among the population. It's very possible and the electorss""could always defy the will of the people.""11 Letting someone have that kind of power goes against the very principals of our democracy and should be erraticated.

Finally,the college is not equal when it somes to states and population. When a tie would happen the representatives from smaller states become equal to the bigger states such as Texas. Basically with this equal voting power ""the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people.""12 This could go as far as the minority getting the president they want and most of the country's people being dissatisfied,this could lead to a catastrophe not seen by America throughout its existence. It also seems irrational that a state with fifteen times less of a population would still have the same power as the bigger state.

To conclude,the Electoral College fails in many places where an attempt at Democracy is made. It doesn't even represent Democracy when the voting that matters is made from a select group of individuals instead of the population itself. These individuals are not even required to oblige to the majority of the state making voting at the poll seem useless. Where the college does give equal power it is misplaced by giving minorities a chance of overruling the majority. No doubt this ""Electoral College"" should be abolished.",0
47e743a7,0,"The extensive use of car transportation is setting a cloud over our society, literally. Car transportation is so heavily depended on in the current generation that people don't realize the negatives it has on our environment, local businesses, and people's lives in general. transportation is not a priority and there are numerous advantages to gain out of limiting the use of cars the smog percentages in the atmosphere will decline and create an everlasting clear environment and magnificent clarity built skies, local businesses that are run by families in suburbs will see their popularity rising back up to their previous points before malls in distant areas took over, the stress of supporting a cars expenses will be relieved, and people will realize that we connect just as well through the internet rather than driving to meet friends.

Although cars are used by a vast amount of the population, the impact it has on the environment is withoutadoubt an ongoing situation that needs to be taken care of. The author states in the passage that passenger cars are responsible for 12% of Greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up to 50% in some car intensive areas in the United States. That should automatically tell you that these vehicles are putting an impact on our environment. Limiting the permission that citizens have of using their cars temporarily has shown a massive decrease in the smog build up that takes up a rather large percentage in most cities, in source 2, paragraph 12 the author states the outcome of Paris permitting drivers with evennumbered licenses from driving this saw smog levels clear up enough to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday. If only temporarily holding people back from driving can affect our environment so positively, imagine what the output would be if the world repeated this action on a much larger scale.

Furthermore, cars promote the popularity of malls, which takes away the attention from numerous local businesses. These local stores are ran by families that need customers to keep their system alive, and if cars are traveling a further distance to reach malls, it just takes away the money needed by these local businesses. Living in small communities and suburbs is a great solution to this problem and has proven to work already, for instance The suburb of Vauban, Germany stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant high way.

Another advantage of limititing car usage would be the lessening of stress, so many people have the burden of paying expensive car bills and having to work more than one job just to keep up with the numerous payments cars require, accidents are also caused by the massive amount of cars that are already in use on the roads. If people would carpool more often or take public transporations such as buses and trains, we would see an immense improvement of families income and we'd expect a safer society as a whole, safer from the hazards caused by the humongous majority of vehicle transportation. Having a car isn't a priority, working a job close to home and using bus transportation will be benfitial to your community, just plan out your approach and you'll soon understand why having a car isn't always necessary.

All in all, putting a stop to the extensive of cars will mainly bring out the pros, people always say they want to see the world become less polluted and free from toxic gases, limiting car usage is the first step to achieving this goal as we'd see smog in our skies clear out, your local businesses can step back into popularity and connect your community even more rather than traveling a far distance to reach malls. And finally, one of the main advantages would be the effect is has on you. All your money stresses will be relieved and you'll be able to focus on something more important than a car bill. The world is noticing these possibilities and we are heading for a chage on step at a time.",0
481a88c1,1,"Dear Senator, Have you ever thought about changing a certain system of voting that is currently in place? This system that I am talking about is the electoral college system, used for voting for president, vice president and sometimes other congressmen. This system unites both views from small states and big states, having two senators per state, no matter the size, and also acquires electors based on population. Some people think that this is an effective system and should not be replaced because everyone is president and because of the presence of swing and big states, as stated in source 3, but I beg to differ. I strongly feel that this system should be removed because it is inaccurate, the electors vote, and lastly because of the disaster factor.

Additionally, The reason why I don't agree with this current system is an issue that can have multiple consequences and none are positive, which is that the electors vote, not you. We do not have the ability to vote for president, we only acquire the ability to vote for the electors that will hopefully vote for the president of your choice. Sometimes, the elector completely disregards what the people want and who the people are voting for, and they do have this ability to ignore the majority preference and vote for the opposite candidate of the people's choice. If their is a tie situation,as stated in source 2, in which both presidents have the same amount of votes, the case is tossed to the House of Representatives, where state electors who would normally vote for the vice president is now obligated to vote for the president.

Additionally, another reason that this system be removed immediately for the reason that it is not very accurate. This system doesn't show who the people actually want to vote for, it just gives the electors some ideas as to who to cast their vote for. So in reality, the people are actually voting for the electoral college and the electors, as opposed to voting directly for the president. According to source 1, most states have a ""winnertakeall"" system in place in which all votes are awarded to one candidate and is not based on personal opinion. This shows who the state in general or in majority wants to be awarded president but in source 2 it states, if you want to vote for a democrat and your state is a republican state you have no choice as an individual to change your state's opinion. Referring back to source 1, when you vote for your candidates you are actually voting for your candidate's electors, so if your candidate wants to change opinion, you have no choice. And it shouldn't be like that , we shouldn't have to indirectly choose our president hoping that our messenger doesn't change hisher mind.

Finally, the last and, in my opinion, the most significant issue to this system is the fact that a disaster factor could take place in any election. Looking back to source 2 and also in source 3, we caught a glimpse of this unfortunate situation in the 2000 election between Bush and Gore. But this was just a minor part as to what this system is capable of and can do. Another example stated in source 2, in 1960 segregationists almost succeeded in replacing the democratic electors with other electors that would be contrary to John F. Kennedy and would throw him off. According to source 1, each candidate has his or her own group of electors, but there is a possibility that these electors could revolt against his candidates and vote for the candidate's opponent.

To conclude, I feel that this system used for voting the presidents and vice presidents should be replaced by another system that does have a direct correlation to the voters opinion and who they choose in their voting screen. Not accurate, electors vote not people and the disaster factor these are all flaws that I have found in this system that is currently in place and I feel that this should be fixed. So I agree with Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bob Dole where they believe that the electoral college should be abolished and replaced by a better system.",0
4837dc54,0,"For decades, society has put a major emphasis on transportation in order to center themselves around cars and ways to upgrade them. However, it is this frame of that mind that has created issues for modern society. If there were limitations put on the usage of cars, then those rules would help maintain the environment, save car owners money, and create a feeling of bliss and serenity that has disappeared since the mass production of cars. So unless change is brought upon society, then people will be passing up on benefits that would better the whole world.

Scientist have long realized that cars are a major cause to the pollution brought into society. From the waste produced while turning precious oil into gasoline, to the engines in millions of cars simultaneously burning gas. It is for this reason that limiting the use of cars would assist in saving and maintaining the environment. According to Robert Duffer, the author of the article ""Paris Bans Driving Due to Somg"", ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog."" What is also noteworthy is that this experiment by France officials was only in place for a matter of days. So after having smog that repotedly rivaled Beijing, China, the smog capital of the world, the smog that inhabited France was more than cut in half. If this can work in such a large scale like France, then it isn't unreasonable to believe that this same process can be done in other major regions. Saving the environment has become a priority around the world in recent years, and the idea of limiting the usage of cars could help to achieve that goal.

Aside from the fact that the limitation of cars can save the environment, it can also save car owners money. When a person stops at a gas station to fill up their car, they can expect to spend between twenty and fifty dollars. However, if cars were to become less relevant, then this money can be used to fund other important aspects of a persons life. While this might seem farfetched, according to Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, ""the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily thereafter."" This analysis helps to justify the fact that cars can eventually become less relevant and thus save people money. Also, money would be saved on not having to repair and maintain a car, or having to buy a car in general. This alone can save a carowning household thousands of dollars each year.

Saving the environment and money are always an obvious choice when explaining the benefits of limiting car usage, but another benefit would be obtaining bliss and serenity around the globe. Since the mass producion of cars, cities are always filled with the irritating sounds of a lively road. This has left many people to enjoy their walks, not to the sounds of children laughing and people conversing, but to the beeping and screeching of cars. However, in a city in Germany called Vauban, officials have successfully created a peaceful city that relies on walking and public transportation instead of cars. According to Heiden Walter, a media trainer and citizen in Vauban, ""When I had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" This quote goes to show that the citizens don't feeled resticted, but released from their reliance on cars. So although it may seem difficult, putting limitations on cars can create a happier populants.

Putting a limitation on the use of cars would not be a punishment like some would see it, but a way to better society. This limitation would help save and maintain the environment, save car owners money, and create bliss and serenity amongst people. As modern society continues to push forward and develop the next wave of advancements, putting limitations on the use of cars should be seen as a serious inquiry to leaders around the world.",0
48916aa4,0,"Limiting car usage can affect our environment in so many ways. Although you may have not ever thought about it before, limiting car usage can help not only our environment, but ourselves as well. Let's talk about what can happen if we ditch our vehicles.

People in Germany have completely given up their cars for the most part already. Since most of their residents are suburban pioneers, they find almost no point of even owning a car. Here in America we use cars for transportation for almost everything! In Germany, many have admitted that owning a car makes them stressd. Heidrun Walter who is a media trainer said, ""I'm much happier this way."" The trend of not owning a car isn't just growing in Europe. Lot's of families from Chicago are abandoning their cars as well.

The city of Paris has banned driving for a good environmental reason. There has been so much pollution in the city from smog that there was a driving ban to clear the city's air. If anyone is caught driving, they are sent a fine of 22euro, which is 31 here in the US. Although this may seem like a harsh punishment, it has helped Paris overcome a lot of its smog. The only exceptions when it comes to driving are delivery companies and public transit.

Bogota, Columbia has jumped on the bandwagon along with many other places. This country put a ban on cars to prevent smog as well. There was a huge turnout on their part for doing this. businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza stated, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Ever since the day where they banned cars for a short period of time, there has been many other new advancements in their society. Parks and sports centers have spread throughout the city, uneven sidewalks have been replaced, rushhour restrictions have drastically cut traffic, and new restaurantsupscale shopping districts have opened up.

Last, limiting car usage also has a great effect when it comes to getting rid of greenhouse gas emissions. Research has suggested that Americans are now buying fewer cars, fewer licenses, and overall driving less. It seems as many people are starting to open up their eyes and realize all of the long term effects that come with car overusage. Article 4 clearly states that many sociologist believe that if this pattern persist, it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment. It is said that creating cities in which pedestrian, bicyle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to not only save time and conserve resources, but also lower emissions and improve our safety.

All in all, there are many advantages when it comes to limiting car usage. We can help dramatically improve our environment and safety. More people should take into consideration about being more conservative when it comes to transportation. We can work around a lot of it by simply walking or riding our bikes short distances rather than wasting a lot of energy with cars.",0
489d3798,1,"We should keep with changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Because it is logical and is very fair, these are my reasons why.

For one, it seems a lot more leveled out. The Electoral College is not as fair, because the electors help the president, the the president helps the electors. They could have past experience or an old relationship of some sort. bradford Plumer quotes, ""The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational."" He clearly says Electoral College needs to be abolished, over & done with.Because they don't have logical information on everything they do. And they only have practical reasoning, not liberal or conservative reasoning.

Next reason, their method is not bulletproof as they claim it to be. No method is perfect, but the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope in succeeding. Richard A. Posner quotes, ""Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by popular vote..."" He is saying the way the method is set up, makes it seem worthless to even vote for the person you choose or chose.

Finally, my last reason to why we should keep with changing to election by popular vote is confusion.The Electoral College is unfair to voters. Some candidates don't spend time in states the know they have no chance of winning because of the winnertakeall system. Richard A. Posner quotes, ""During 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" That is pretty selffish and ridiculously unfair.

However, having the election by popular vote has it's flaws as well. Such as the certainty of outcome. Electoral College having a dispute over the outcome of an election is possible, but it's less likely than the popular vote. Richard A. Posner quotes, ""Because almost all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state."" He is simply stating that if there is a difficulty in the popular vote election, they have an electoral vote to choose the winner.

Those are my very important, detailed reasons why we should change to election by popular vote. Recap, fairness is important & is needed in any method, the Electoral College method is not as solid as they believe it to be, & all of the confusion the Electoral College puts off to some states.",0
48c5ad4b,0,"Who needs a car anyway? that is what causes pollution in the world. driving all the time is not such a good idea. People are getting lazy now a days. What is wrong with walking? I love walking, i can get exercise and have fun because im with my friends. car riding can be extremely dangerous too.

First of all, driving a car could be very dangerous. For example, some people like to drive while texting which could result in a serious accident. Another reason is not paying attention to the other drivers near you. Kids should not be behind the wheel of a car yet. I say that because they do not take as serious as adults. Teens also like to drive fast to show off or have loud music blasting, these are also advantages of limiting car usage. Car accidents would decrease dramatically.

Second of all, cars take up too much gas which takes up a lot of our money, Walking would be super cheap because you do not have to pay to walk. Driving around 247 makes us really lazy. Walking to where we need to go gives us exercise, and quite frankly everyone needs some exercise or a little work out. The goverment will even make more pathways or trails for us to travel on. I understand if you are leaving town for a family vacation or going somewhere that is not walking distance, the city has various types of motor transportation, like city buses, cabs, bikes, and do not forget about our planes.

Third of all, im not saying completely get rid of cars just limit how much you drive. Instead of buying car after car after car carpool with friends. That way you can still get to where you gotta go quickly and lower emissions. People do not drive as much as they used to, i found out by a study that driving decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. Lets try to make that 50 percent. People do not really care about a car, they just want a quick way to get from A to B. All we gotta do is Find a safer more cheaper way for them to do that and the percentage will drop rapidly.

In Conclusion, limiting car usage can be improved by getting people to walk more. Carpool with friends, ride bikes, takes buses, cabs, even planes to where they have to go. This will help our enviorment to be much safer and healthier. We not saying give up your car just try not to use it so much.",0
48cd2f1e,1,"Americans throughout the country believe that the Electoral College isn't fair and believe that they deserve a more direct voting system to the president, other than voting for electors. These reasons are made by the people because they want more and more power in the government. What the people want is almost always the risky option, especially when the topic is government. I believe that the Electoral College should be kept as the way it is now, and not a direct voting systemm for American citizens.

As said in the previous statement, Americans that want the Electoral College gone are lurking for more power when it comes to rules. Unfortunately, if the government's decisions were left in the hands of the people, the country's state would be in anarchy. On the other hand, the electoral college offers Congress and the Senate a share of the power, and the American citizens a share of the power as well. For example, if the Electoral College began to diminish, then became wiped out immediately, the government could do nothing less but to watch as the people choose the president that they want. Sometimes, what is wanted by the people may not always be the right thing.

Moving on, almost 60 percent of all American voters stated that they would rather have a direct voting systemm, putting aside the Electoral College. What most people are not seeing is that the direct voting and Electoral College systemm are very similar. The difference between the two is, that when Americans vote in the Electoral College, they are voting for electors that go towards the president, and when Americans vote directly to the president, those same amount of votes go to the president as well. If the voting systemm was based off of a direct route to the presidents side, then there would be too many votes to count, which is why have representatives towards each state is one of the glories of the Electoral College.

Finally, the popular voting systemm is very flawed, considering that there are states that have millions more people people than others. Some states even double the size of other states according to population. For example, New York's population most likely doubles the population of Florida's, but thanks to the Electoral College, the representative and population ratio weighs out, giving each state an equal amount of votes toward their president. Now, if the popular voting systemm was in place, then states like New York would outnumber states like Florida's votes by millions. It would not be as fair as it is now if the popular voting systemm replaced the Electoral College.

In conclusion, the Electoral college has many positive outlook like keeping the voting systemm fair and not giving too much power to either side when voting is the subject. Although many Americans believe that the electoral College is causing the wrong presidents to win, it does not make a difference either way because of the way that the Electoral College evens out the votes.",0
4923baba,1,"Dear state senator, There has been some controversy between whether we should keep the Electoral College or changing the election to popular vote for the president. There are pros and cons to each method of voting. The Electoral College has been around since the beginning of our country. Most of the time it is successful there have been a few times problems have occurred but rarely it happens. As time has passed and we enter a more modern age, people have started to feel that the Electoral College does not work and we should all switch to just a regular popular vote. However, even though there have been a few problems in the past about this system, the Electoral College is still the best method of voting.

It is hard to argue that there are some problems with the Electoral College. ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" Bradford Plumer. The public is starting to not like that their vote is not directly going toward the presidential vote but towards a group of electors that decide the fate of the presidency. ""the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense."" Richard A Posner. The public is also starting to feel that this is not a true Democracy with this system. ""Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" Bradford Plumer. The public is starting to not like that feeling that the electors can just turn on the public and not vote for what some people want and it has happened a few times in the past. ""faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please."" Bradford Plumer. That is another worry of the public, no matter what party the elector belongs to, they can vote for anyone they want. ""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president.""Bradford Plumer. The people are also not liking the fact that an elector representing a small amount of people has as much to say as an elector representing millions of people. All and all, it is hard to deny that there are a few problems with the electoral college and that this causes the public to worry come election time.

However, despite the worries and concerns that some people may have, the Electoral College is still the best method for voting. ""The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote."" the Office of the Federal Register. People must remember that this system is a compromise for the election and that any change could lead to problems among the government again. The public must also remember that ""each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee"".Richard A. Posner. This system also can often prevent disputes. ""A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible...but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share or the popular vote."" Richard A. Posner. Along with the fewer disputes, it also creates standards for the candidate. "" The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal...This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."" Richard A. Posner. Another benefit to this system is that it causes voters to pay closer attention to the election. ""Voter in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign."" Richard A. Posner. Along with the more aware voters, the Electoral College is also very beneficial to the big states. ""The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states by population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution."" Richard A. Posner. And lastly, the Electoral Collee helps avoid runoff elections. ""There is pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner."" Richard A. Posner. To sum it all up, there are many benefits to the Electoral College.

All and all, the Electoral College is the best way for voting. With this system, there are many benefits to the election process that people may not realize. With benefits like it avoids runoff elections and it makes the voters more aware, some people still beleive that a popular vote is still the best way. It is important to remember that there is a reason that we have certain methods, to benefit our country. And that is what the Electoral College is, a benefit to our country. So senator, and based on the evidence given, it is important to keep the Electoral College for all the benefits it brings and for the sake of our great nation that we live in.",0
497b9797,1,"Dear, Senator There are many ways in keeping the change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States instead of keeping the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a difficult process to go through. The Electoral College consists of the electors, where they vote for the President and the Vice President and also the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. Electoral College is unfair, outdated to the voters, by using the election by popular votes for the president of the United States is fair to voters because they get to choose the person to run the office for four years.

To begin with, in favor keeping the change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States is very helpful for the voters to vote easily to choose and listen to the candidates to see who will be great to the world. In source 3: ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner in paragraph 20 states, ""Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaignto really listen to the competing candidatesknowing that they are going to decided the election"". What this quote is trying to say that letting the voters choose and listen to the candidates very carefully to decide on the election, who will be helpful. Letting voters vote are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average and that they will received the most information and attention from the candidates. By arguing keeping the popular votes for the president of the united States is very fair to the voters.

Furthermore, the people such as the voters help choose the state's electors when you are voting for the President. For example, in source 1: ""What Is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the federal Register in paragraph 6 say, ""You help choose your state's electors when you vote for president because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors."" This quote explains that the voters get to choose the President but it's actually voting for the candidate's electors. It's more easier keeping the popular vote for the president of Unites States instead of keeping the Electoral College because its a difficult process to go through.

Its true that election by popular vote for the president of United States is a good argument for the voters to choose wisley. As this can be seen as in source 2: ""The Indfensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer in paragraph 9 states, ""This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency."" For example, in the 2000 U.S presidential race, Al Gore received more individual votes than George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election by receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 226. By keeping the popular vote for the President of the United States is more easier for the society instead of using the Electoral College.

In Conclusion, why keep the Electoral College, when you can you use the popular vote.

So by keeping the popular votes is useful to let these people vote on who they want to choose. So by other people perspective, you should keep the popular votes.

Sincerly, anonymous, hopefully your satisfied.",0
4a0e22f0,1,"THere has been quite a lot of recent talk of whichh the national government should keep the Electoral COllege, or change to an election by popular vote for the president of the UNited states. ""The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice president, and the counting of the electoral votes by congress""Source 1: What is the Electoral College? by the office of the federal register. IT has been established by the founding fathers to make a compromise between popular vote and election vote in congress. Popular representation is a vote for qualified citizens to take an individual vote cast to the state whichh then is transferred to a representative whole. the are many good effects this popular representation has on the country, but the senator should keep the Electoral College without a shout of a doubt.

one of the most important reasons we should keep the electoral college process is that in this process, states pay much more attention to the electors due to having swing states. the people who decide on our president should be most intrigued and the most concerning ones. ""voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign to really listen to the competing candidates knowing that theu are going to decide the electionin defense of the electoral college: five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president, by richard a. posner, subtitle Swing States"". MAny voters that are in swing states, whichh are stated that cast the majority of votes in the system with higher amounts of population, therefore congress representatives.

another reason why the gov should keep the electoral college is because it resorts unwanted balance. ""there is no pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes casy that pressure whichh would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, whichh invariably produces a clear winner"" so what this quote from the passage is saying is that no candidate recieves a majority if the votes cast, due to each states fair rep of the population without being overwhelmed by the most populated states such as florida, california, and texas. While you may believe that the popular representation vote may be overwhelmingly more accurate to the people wants , you are wrong. the electoral college is a process in which hgives the people wants in a state to an elector who then gives you an equal chance one voting for what you pleased. he may be the ""biggest"" or ""smallest"" amount of electoral votes, but as a state in a whole yu may recieve a big surprise that there is no clear winner as each president may not be just familiat with one region such as the north east, or the southwest, etc.

so as you can see, the government should keep an electoral colllge process instead of the popular representation vote. it would be greatly appreciated to the United States People who may be under informed of how grest an opportunity for an idea such as this to vote up, or they might be over informed of fallacy information of our election process now.",0
4a250487,1,"America's government was inspired by the Athenian republic, therefore giving the United States their way of governing today. In a republic government, it is said that the people of the country hold the power of electing their leaders to make decisions for their nation. In the United States of America, the presidential election is held every four years. The eligible citizens in every fifty states are granted the right to vote for their desired president. The process of which these votes are counted is called the Electoral College. The way in which a president is selected should be altered to the most popular vote because it produces a more accurate vote of the people and it provides the opportunity to directly select an individual's desired candidate.

Initially, the process of which the president of the United States is elected should be changed from the Electoral College to the most popular vote because it will produce a more accurate percentage of votes. In the article, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" Bradford Plumer states, ""And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In 1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election In 1976, a tie would have occurred is a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way."" Being that there is a lesser number of votes counted in an election due to the Electoral College, there is a highly greater chance of the outcome resulting in a tie rather than showing a clear winner. If the election was based off of the most popular vote, there would be a higher number of votes for each candidate, therefore reducing the chances of ending in a tie. Secondly, in the article, ""What is the Electoral College?"" the Office of the Federal Register wrote, ""The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral vote is required to elect the President."" This statement shows that the Electoral College requires more than just the majority of citizen's opinions. If at least half of the population votes one way, there should be no question about who is the winner. The most popular vote system would award the candidate that was favored by at least half of the population, therefore providing a clear and fair election. Clearly, the most popular vote system would significantly benefit the American Society.

additionally, the process in which the President is elected should be changed to the most popular vote because it will provide the opportunity to directly select and individual's desired candidate. In the article, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why event the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" Bradford Plumer quotes, ""Under the electoral college sytem, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" This is not how a republic is supposed to run. People are supposed to be granted the opportunity to elect the president of their choice, not of somebody elses. The most popular vote would take into consideration of every citizen's opinion with a direct percentage of votes to elect a certain candidate. In the article, ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President,"" Richard A. Posner states, ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region South, Northeast, etc. has enough electoral votes to elect a president."" This may be true but if the most popular vote system was put into place, there would be an even more exact number of how many people voted for each candidate. The Electoral College does not voice the opinions of all citizens because in reality, a person is not directly voting for their desired candidate. They are voting for other representatives that will hopefully, in turn, elect the candidate they want. Obviously, the Electoral College is definitely a system that should be abolished in the United States of America.

In summation, the way in which a president is selected should be altered to the most popular vote because it produces a more accurate vote of the people and it provides the opportunity to directly select an individual's desired candidate. The Electoral College does not provide a fair result nor a clear winner. The most popular vote system would significantly change that for the better of the country.",0
4a8ce886,1,"There are many things that could go wrong with the way we the United states are voting now which is why we should use election by popular vote. There are many reasons why we should switch to popular vote but there are three that are most important. The candidate wouldn't have to worry about losing even though he won the popular vote, it would be less likely to get a tie, and the candidate would have to campaign in every state because there wouldn't be a winnertakesall situation.

Most importantly the candidate wouldn't have to worry about losing even though they received the popular vote. The representative electors have the final say in who is elected because they are the ones that put in the votes. An example of this is Al Gore back in 2000. According to some polls Al Gore lost the election thanks to the electoral college because he won the popular vote but still lost the election. Al Gore had recieved more individual votes than George W. Bush but still lost. george W. Bush had 271 electoral votes to Al Gore's 266. However, this is not the last time this will happen and voters can expect to see it happen again in the future were the popular vote winner loses the presidency.

Not only can they win the popular vote but still lose the presidency, they also risk the event of a tie were the vote would then go to the House of Representatives. In the event of a tie meaning that each candidate got an equal number of votes from the electors the House of Representatives would have the opportunity to vote for the president. This is not a fair system in any way because that would mean the representative for Wyoming who is only representing 500,000 thousand people would have as much say as a representative from California who is there representing 35 million voters! There has been many close incidents of a tie so it is possible for this to happen. In 1968 a shift of 41,971 votes would have put the election in a tie. In 1976, id 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 in Hawaii would have voted the other way then the race for presidency would have gone into the hands of the House.

Furthermore the candidates would have to campaign in every state because there wouldn't be winnertakesall which means the winner of the electoral votes gets all the votes within that state even if some of the residents did not vote for that party. The candidates would have to campaign in every state rather than just the ""swing"" states which are people that have not yet decided which way they wanted to vote. the cenidates dont campaign in a state if they know that they have no chance of winning the electoral votes in that state. During the 2000 election a remarkable seventeen states did not see the campaign one time nor did the people in the 25 largest media markets see a campaign ad whether it be on t. v., in the newspaper, or over the radio. If the president was elected by popular vote than every state would be considered a swing state.

In conclusion the President of the United States should be elected by popular vote because a candidate would not have to worry about winning the popular vote but losing the election, the possibility of a tie would decrease, and the candidate would havw to campaign in every state. These are just a few of the many reasons that we should switch over to a popular vote system, plus who wouldnt wan't to have a little more say in who runs our magnificent country.",0
4afa3393,1,"Dear senator, I agree with keeping the Electoral College until it pulls off a mistake. The Electoral College has no real reason to be changed or modified. It's served its purpose with almost no flaws for years now. Let's take a look at why we should keep our Electoral College.

Our Electoral College is a system made to ensure fair voting for our president based off of how many Senators you have, and how many state representatives you have. This is a fair way of voting because of regardless of you population, everyone has the same amount of senators. This is to ensure a small state like delaware has the same voice to match a big state like Texas. According to Source 3, one of the main concerns for people who want to abolish the Electoral College is that the people are not actually voting for the president, they are voting for a slate of electors. But in source 3 it states, "" But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee"". This state the although the vote doesn't go directly to the presidents vote, it is most common for the trusted slate of electors vote for the president.

Another concern for people who want to abolish the Electoral College as stated in Source 2 is,""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote."" If the vote were to be tied then the election will be handed over to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. Each state gets only one vote so another concern is that the state representatives will not be able to vote what everyone in the state wants because the number of people would be too much to keep up with. First, why would a state turn its back on the majority vote of who their state wants to be president? If a state should do this, their representative would not be representing their state, therefore they maybe punished of may hear about it from the public. Not only are the representatives not expected to miss vote what their state wants, but also what are the chances of theirbeing a tie. It has never happened before, and the closest its gotten is over 8,000 people having to agree on a single same person. This is an absurd number for people to abide to the same person from different states. Its hard to find people in the same room to agree, let alone 8 thousand people! It just seems to extraordinary for their to be a tie in the electoral college.

Although there are many pro's, there are also just a few con's. A large con that should be avoided is what source 2 calls,""the disaster factor."" The legislature is responsible for picking the electors and they have all therights to defy what the people want. A clear example of this would be as stated in source 2,""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislaturenearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy"". Should the legislature had been able to pull that off, it could have changed the vote and stopped Kennedy from being president. But seeing as segregation isn't as big of an issue in the U.S, this isn't as prone to happen.

As you can see Mr. Senator, there are many reasons why we should keep the Electoral College until it makes a mistake. The protocon ratio is largely in correspondence to keeping the Electoral College. As long as it continues to do its job, and no one abuses it, I'm in favor of it.

Sincerly, Jose Cruz.",0
4affb95d,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, Over the course of American history the US has always had an Electoral College, which was designed for untrustworthy ballot counting during the 18th century. Today the world is in the past century and therefore the Electoral College is outdated on a several century basis. The Electoral College should be abolished because it is outdated and creates politicians that only care about the larger states. Even though America is a Republic the vast majority of people believe it is a Democracy, and that they elect the elected politicians as a people, but in truth elect people to elect politicians for them.

To commence, the Electoral College has no need for presense because it is simply outdated. The Electoral College was made for people to elect people to elect a president, which in its entirety is completly unfair, also it was made when a smaller population was present and the ballot counters where unreliable without the use of electronic counters. Now, one can argue that age has nothing to do with the election process because the close ties rarely happen the most recent one in 2000 and before that 1888 but a close tie is not the reason. Today the world lives in a modern era where we know how many people voted for a specific candidate but still we use the electoral college to see who wins what state. For example, Al Gore, the presidential candidate in 2000, ""won the popular vote but lost the presidency""9, now how is that fair? It is fair because of the Electoral College, where the popular vote isn't always the winner. Clearly, the Electoral College is outdated and should be abolished.

Furthermore, the Electoral College creates politicians that care not about the country but the large states, which have the most votes. A presidential candidate may forget about small states such as Rhode Island and South Carolina and focus on larger ones, like California or Texas, that foster larger amounts of votes. For example, ""during the 2000 election seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina""13, but all the big states did. This is because politicians want to win and not focus on what needs to be done and only say what people want to hear. But once again there is always an argument people can argue that the Electoral College wins by region, which explains why some states don't see the candidates, or that big sates allows for political balance. ""So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does""21.

In conclusion, the Electoral College should be abolished because it is outdated and creates politicians that only care about the larger states. The US has outdated politics that have no need in todays society, why should the people depend on this outdated system? Also, the politicians only want to win the large states because of this system that does not always coincide with the popular vote. Overall, the Electoral College needs to be abolished.",0
4b155739,0,"Vroom! Vroom! Is the familiar and common sound heard all across the world. Can you believe that cars can be so helpful and convenient, yet cause so many problems? The United States, Environmental Protection Agency, jumped on board with it's new promotion of, ""car reduced"" communities. This is a new act that will limit car usage, and help protect our Earth's environment. Motorits all over the world are contributing to the Greenhouse effect, stress, congestion, and pollution in the air we breathe. Countries such as, Columbia, France, and Germany are trying to reduce pollution, and the long term affects of cars have on the world.

Middleclass families, ranging from Chicago to Shanghai, make a huge impact on our greenhouse. Up to about fifty percent in the US alone emits carbon dioxide gas, instead of trying to reduce it. According to the international agency headquarters in London, the congestion and traffic within the capital of France, went down sixty percent, after fining citizens for being on the road after five days of a nearrecord pollution. The smog that covered this global city had one hundred forty seven microorganisms per cubic meter. They had blamed diesel fuel as the reason for the smog. The cold nights and warm days trapped car emissions. If we started this new idea, we would see a large improvement within our environment.

Beep! Beep! Traffic is such a stressful situation to be in. whether it is on your way to work, going home, getting lunch, or going to see a friend, the streets are flooded. This new act will promote the simplicity of transportation. This will release a lot of stress on people, and make their lives happier and healthier. People will be more connected and involved with their community and surroundings. Sidewalks are being layed out all through cities, for people to find a new efficient way of transportation such as, walking or riding a bike.

Some countries are so used to not having a car or even having a space to put a vehicle. In Vauban, Germany, people are giving their cars up more and more. They just see the positive affects this ""carfree"" act has on them. Today seventy percent of families that live there do not own cars. The rate of people getting their license has gone down dramatically as well. Car companies are scared for their business if everyone tries to conserve energy.

This limitation of motorized vehicles may be just what the world needs to improve it's environment. This saves more energy, reduces pollution, keeps people healthy and stressfee. Living a life of simplicity will make you more happier.",0
4b48fe30,0,"Taking a deep breath in a city filled with cars and buses, people would be inhaling all the emissions giving off by the heavy duty use of cars. Taking in smog is like breathing in dirt. Changes around the world are taking place to accommodate to the impacts caused by cars. In the twentyfirst century, cars are a must to get from place to place. So, why is it that there is a decline in the buying of cars? Well, the less usage of cars creates no smog to inhale, would promote alternative transportation, and the culture in this society helps create less dependence on cars which leds to a better environment.

First things first, around the world something known as ""smart planning"" is taking place. This is a movement to separate suburban life from auto use. One main reason this movement is taking place is to reduce emissions giving off by automobiles, that would soon lead to smog. According to ""Paris ban driving due to smog,"" by Robert Duffer, which states,"" After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" This ban was necessary due to the over pollution cars create and because of it, air was able to become breathable again. Moreover, in "" Carefree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota,"" by Andrew Selsky, Bogota tells the goal behind the carfree day, which states, ""The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog."" Clearly, having a bus filled with residents is a better choice than having cars filled only by one or two passengers because one bus would not produce as much emissions than twenty cars.

furthermore, the less dependence of cars would promote alternative transportation. Having a city filled with people walking, riding bikes, and taking buses would allow a traffic free city. In Europe, cities are taking the step forward by creating a city where it is difficult to obtain a car. According to ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, explains the main motive why cities are making it difficult to use cars, which is, ""Its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking."" This means, that by making it a struggle to obtain a car, it would help promote others to use public transportation or another method, which at the end of the day, would benefit the environment.

Last but not least, the culture of the world is constanly changing day by day. In the twentyfirst century, technology has taken over the lives of many. From apps to the internet, the changes are inevitable thanks to the breakthrough in technology. In ""The End of Car Culture,"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University, explains,""Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a longterm cultural shift."" Mimi is talking about the recent decline of automobile sales occuring which mean less and less people are buying cars. She believes the reason behind the decline is due to the culture in which involves technology. Moreover, she goes on to say,"" Likewise the rise in cellphones and carpooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements, including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work."" Again and again technology proves to be a saving factor in this world to humans, and in this case it is saving humans from injurying the only home it has. With the easy access of calling someone up for a ride or searching up public transportation near by, allows the environment to be fresher and cleaner, as well as, it allows humans to interact with one another without having to drive to that person's house.

Movements take place to improve what seems to be a problem. It is obvious that the over usage of cars is a problematic case. Around the world, people are going around side by side, without depending on cars like they use to back a couple years ago. Improvements shown in places like Paris, shows how the limiting of automobile usage can greatly impact the environment to create a clean atmosphere. Not only would it help clear smog, but it would allow a stress free city from being populated by traffic jams and yelling individuals, who are experiencing road rage thanks to the taffic. A happier environment would be created when people are out rding bikes to places and walking with friends. In cocnclusion, the benifits of limiting car usage are as clear as water, it would reduce smog, promote other forms of transportation, and would help our culture by creating a happier, cleaner atmosphere to live in.",0
4b6b75b2,0,"""All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change"" Rosenthal source 1 said Transportation of America official David Goldberg in Elisabeth Rosenthal's article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars."" With air pollution, smog, and greenhouse gas emissions rising all around the world, officials have announced that cars are to blame. With this, many are resorting to making changes in their communities by offering alternate means of transportation and bringing homes and stores closer together. The advantages of limiting car usage include fuel will no longer pollute the air, alternate transportation is available and cheaper, and it would enforce goodwill and companionship.

To begin, a benefit of limiting our car usage is fuel pollutes the air by circulating green house gasses that can cause a dangerous environment to form and by limiting cars we limit this pollution. With President Obama's issue to decrease the amount of air pollution caused by cars, many have realized that car usage is not as common as it used to be. If the number of cars on the road continues to deplete ""and many sociologists believe it willit will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants"" Rosenthal source 4 says Rosenthal in her article ""The End of Car Culture."" By keeping track and trying to deplete the time you spend driving your car the trend of putting air pollution to an end will increase.

Additionally, a benefit of limiting our car usage is being able to use the cheaper and more efficient alternate means of transportation. By using alternate means of transportation such as buses, trains, and car pooling services you are saving gas money and supporting community business. There is a rise in car pooling that has ""facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements, including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work"" Rosenthal source 4 says Rosenthal. As these changes manifest many people are chosing not to switch back to driving themselves.

Finally, a benefit of limiting our car usage can be found in the better companionship that will result as cities will make their stores closer together and communities more closley knit. In Bogota, Colombia people are practicing ""carfree days"" and relying solely on public transportation. As this happens author of article ""Carefree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota,"" Andrew Selsy, says ""parks and sports centers are blooming throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"" Selsky source 3. Other places implementing carfree districts will never hear the roars of engines drowning out the chirping of the birds or childrens laughter. Infact, stores and public transportation is stratigically placed a walking distance away thus promoting social and physical benefits Rosenthal source 1.

The advantages of limiting car usage include fuel will no longer pollute the air, alternate transportation is available and cheaper, and it would enforce goodwill and companionship. With greenhouse gasses rapidly circulating and polluting the globe it would be acceptional to decrease this by not driving as often. Furthermore, by using alternate transportation such as car pooling or taking a bus money is saved on gas and car repairs. Finally, goodwill and good social habits would increase as towns would become more closley knit as everything would only be a walk away. With this it we should limit our car usage to ""save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve saftey"" Rosenthal source 4.

Duffer, Robert. ""Paris Bans Driving Due to Smog."" Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune, 2014. Print. 10 February 2015.

Rosenthal, Elisabeth. ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars."" New York Times. New York Times Company, 2009. Print. 10 February 2015.

Rosenthal, Elisabeth. ""The End of Car Culture."" New York Times. New York Times Company, 2013. Print. 10 February 2015.

Selsky, Andrew. ""Carfree Day is Spinning Into a Big Hit in Bogota."" Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company, 2002. Print. 10 February 2015.",0
4b81d15e,1,"I believe that the electoral college should not be kept because it is an unfair system of voting. There are flaws in the electoral college system that make it an unfair system to choose our president. Some of the things that are wrong with the electoral college are that voters can't control whom their electors vote for, in case of a tie there is not a fair way to pick the president, and the winnertakeall system is unfair to voters.

In the electoral college voters aren't essentially voting for a president but they are voting for a group of electors who will then elect a president. The electors can be picked in many different ways. Sometimes they are they are picked at state conventions, they can be picked at state party's central committee, or sometimes the presidential candidate picks them themselves according to Bradford Plumer source 2. Plumer says that voters can't always control who their electors vote for and sometimes voters get confused on who to vote for. The system to pick electors can be bias. For example in 1960, segregationist in the Louisiana legislature almost achieved in replacing the Democratic electors with electors who would not elect John F. Kennedy. Meaning if Kennedy would have gotten the popular vote in Louisiana, he still would not have gotten the electoral votes in the state.

In the case of a tie, the electoral college would yet again be an unfair system. If there was a tie in the election, the election would be given to the House of Representatives. In that election, each state has only one vote. So a state with a bigger population has the same say than a state with a smaller population. According to Plumer, because many voters vote one party for president and another party for Congress, the House's selection will not entirely reflect the will of the people. A tie in the electoral college is possible beacause the amount of electoral votes is 538 which is an even number source 3.

The electoral college is also unfair to voters because of the winnertakesall system. The winnertakesall system awards all the electors to the winning presidential candidate source 1. According to Plumer because of the winnertakesall system candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning source 2. Counterclains suggest that because the election depends on the vote of swing states, voters there are more thoughtful and should be the ones to decide how the election goes Richard A. Posner, source 3. The comment that voters in swing states are more thoughtful is vague not all voters in swing states have to be media literic, and it is unfair to other states if only the swing states are important to the candidates. Other states will not get enough and fair information about the presidential candidates.

In total, the electoral college is an unfair way to choose our presidents. The method has a lot of bias and doesn't give a fair voice to all the states and its voters. The method has a lot of flaws and is a nondemocratic way to elect our presidents.",0
4c4ca9b5,1,"The electoral college is a very controversial topic. It has been debated by important figures like Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bob Dole Plumer. While some people agree with Bradford Plumer and say that we should abolish this method, others stand behind Richard A. Posner, wanting to keep the electoral college. Although the electoral college restores some of the weight in larger states, it is a very unfair method for voting on our president. The electoral college allows someone to win the presidency who did not win the popular vote, and, if a tie occurs, the outcome is demeaning to larger states.

The electoral college does have a favorable trait. It restores some of the weight in the political balance that larger states by population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution Posner. The senate only appoints 2 representatives per state, no matter how large their populations are. The electoral college gets rid of this problem, assigning representatives to states based on population.

While that aspect of the electoral college is beneficial, it may be the only thing. The electoral college is an extremely unfair method. Just take the 2000 election, for instance. Al gore won the popular vote but, thanks to this flawed method of selecting our president, lost the presidency Plumer. This was uncalled for. If someone wins the popular vote and is wanted as president by the majority of people, then they should be president. Our president is a position of the utmost importance. We should have a leader that the majority of the people want.

Not only is the actual process unfair, but if there ever happens to be a tie it's even worse. In the event of a tie in the electoral vote, the election is passed on to the House of Representatives, who then have the state delegations vote on the president Plumer. However, the catch is that each state gets only one vote Plumer. This means that the single represenative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters Plumer. This process is extremely unequal and should not be allowed. Everyone should be able to have equal representation and play a part in critical decisions like this one.

All in all, the electoral college is unfair and people despise it. According to a poll in 2000, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now Plumer. The electoral college, while it may restore some of the weight in larger states, is detested all across the United States. The person with the popular vote doesn't always win, and, in the event of a tie, the process is even more unfair than the actual method itself. The electoral college is an awful process that the majority of people don't want.",0
4c8c23e1,0,"There are a lot of advantages of limiting car usage. Yes a lot of people use cars to get around, but there are other ways to get around. Limiting car usage would probably cause a lot of complaints, but I think once people started limiting how much they drove everyday, they wouldn't see the need as much.

In Paris, for example, they have banned driving due to smog. The story ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", Robert Duffer states that ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of the smog."" Only five days of banning drivers brought the smog rate down 60 percent, that's huge. To make it easier for the people of Paris to get around, they had public transit free of charge for those five days. If driving was banned for a while people would find other ways to get around, and other people in the community would help them, like the transit bus giving free rides those five days.

Some people may argue that it's a free country and we shouldn't be limited to how much we're allowed to drive our cars. Yes it's a free country but limiting car usage is actually getting people to be active, instead of being lazy and driving everywhere you go. The United States has the highest percentage of obesity. With limiting how much you can use your car it will make people walk places, if they really have to go somewhere. Also riding a bike, or even riding a bus or train. However, unlike your own car, to get to the bus stop or train station, it will take some walking, which is good.

Also another advantage of limiting car usage would be all the things that would be fixed around our community. With people walking more, the community and city people would want to make our area look better while we walk. In the story ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" Andrew Selsky states, ""..Pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" With less driving and more walking to get to places, the community would fix our sidewalks and make more shopping centers and restaurants closer.

Limiting car usage will be hard to adjust to at first, but I think in the long run it's a winwin. It helps us get active and lower our stress from driving, and it helps our environment.",0
4caf795a,1,"The Electoral College was established in the Constitution by the founding fathers. ""The Electoral College process consists of the selection of electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for president and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress"" is stated in source 1. This is process has been around for decades, but things have changed. This process does not fit with what is happening in the present and is outdated. The election should be by popular vote.

There is a disaster factor. According to ""Source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"", it's says that the state legislatures are responsible for picking electors. The thing is that those electors can betray the trust which has happened before. You do not want to risk having someone defy the will of the people. Some people may argue that the states know what they are doing and are cautious on who to pick, but in the past the electors have refused to vote for their party's candidate. You do not want to put this in hands of someone who will not help you and the other people on such an important event like voting.

When you vote, there is a slight possibility of a tie occurring. If this were to happen, the state delegations would vote on which president. Each state will cast one vote, which is not fair because of the amount of representatives in different states. ""...the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters"" is stated in source 2. Some people may say that the bigger states are helpful with voting because the Electoral College will balance out what the large states loss by the population votes. This still isn't fair because this is saying that the smaller states with less representatives do not have much say in the voting and this will turn off potential voters.

Some presidents may have a stronger appeal to some states then others. It may have to do with where the president is from North, South. This goes back to how the bigger states have more power. ""...such as rodney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states,"" is stated in source 3. This means that the bigger states in the South will be known for all voting rodney since that is where he is the strongest and well liked. There may be voters in the South that were more for Obama. Smaller states may hate what rodney is doing and vote for Obama, but they do not have as much power as the bigger states. This is like the winner takes it all, they may know that they have no chance in winning. Obama did end up winning and was titled as the 44th President of the United States. To others, they may say that each persons vote does count but it doesn't seem like it. The voters in the South didn't see any campaign ad by rodney which was not fair because he was not concerned about them not voting for him.

The Electoral College is not a fair process. It worked in the past, but not anymore. Using the popular vote process is more fair for all of the people. They have more say and there votes feel more important. This will encourage potential voters to vote and to become more involved with the political events. We need to encourage potential voters because one day, when they become older, they will be the voters of our country.",0
4d03bfef,0,"Cars have become an every day part of our lives, not just for Americans but, for the world. We rely on our cars for everything, from getting to work or getting food to eat, our cars are what gets us there. But what would happen if we were banned from using our cars. Many places have banned cars, whether permanently or for just a few days, cars are being banned. Cars create stress, the also create harmful pollution, that damages our health and our planet. Another reason is that cars are naturally dying out and becoming used less, than before.

In a small community of residents, cars have been completely banned. These are people who gave up there cars to live in this carfree environment. This is an area of about 5,500 people who has gave up, or possible sold there car to live here. Many of the people find that it is more relaxing, than when they had to worry about their car. In the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" Heidrun Walter expresses, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" From a statistic taken from this area, it shows that 70 percent of people in Vauban do not own cars, the others who couldn't give up there cars completely had to pay 40,000, along with their house to buy a garage all the way at the end of the development. This has create a carfree. along with a stress free environment for the suburban pioneers.

Cars let out exhaust that is created from gasoline and diesel. This exhaust is also know as pollution, which damages our planet, along with our own health. In Paris, cars were banned partial because, of the dirty air in this world know city. For five days a terrible smog engulfed the city, leaving the people no choice but to not allow any cars to be driven, until this smog cleared out. According to the information from ""Paris bans driving due to smog,"" almost 4,000 drivers were fined for continuing to drive there vehicles. The only exceptions to this car ban was plugin cars, hybrids, and cars carrying more than three passengers, which causes less pollution. After a few days the restriction of cars was lifted, and cars could be driven after all the smog cleared.

The last reason we should limit our use of cars is because everyone else is stopping car use. We see hundreds of cars filling up highways, parking lots, or just driving down the road. But what we don't realize is how much car usage has dropped. In the passage, ""The End of Car Culture,"" Adviser of Perspectives Doug Shorts explaining that "" As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995."" So are cars naturally dying out, or is there something that is causing it to drop so steadily? One theory is that many Americans can't afford a new car, also many unemployed people are not driving to work anymore. This leads to the question, are cars dying out, or are Americans just unable to get their hands on a new car?

We need to protect our planet and ourselves. With all this car usage, we are killing our planet and ourselves. We are releasing pollution into our air every time we crank a vehicle and drive. Then we proceed to inhale this infected air, which hurts us. Then we worry about our car, putting ourselves into stressful environment. This also causes harm to ourselves. So the next time you want to drive somewhere right up the road, put the keys down, and follow the trend.",0
4d2bb193,0,"Over the past years massive car usage has increased bringing multiple detergents. Today fellow citizens should realize the harm to the world brought ,by growing car usage. The advantages of limiting car usage is a benefit promoting communities that,are less dependent on cars,and can be a improvement in air pollution consequences. The advantages to begin limiting car usage can have many beneficial effects in the worldwide.

Innitialy , the advantages of limiting car usage is a benefit due to the fact that communities will be less dependent on cars. In source 3 paragraph 28 the author explains an example of a benefit of limited car usage stating ""uneven, pitted side walks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rush hour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have croped up."" this shows how human beings are using cars less by walking increasing some health issues ,creating less traffic accidents and increasing the economy by shopping with the money they have saved from not using cars so constantly. There are many other benefits such as in source 3 in paragraph 28 proving how ""parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city. "" This means by when the author says "" bloomed "" through out the city explains how individuals of all ages are starting to enjoy the outside activities especially in parks and sports centers making it over populated with people. This gives individuals the advantage to go out exploring new people and challenges decreasing issues in the world such as obesity, self confidence , and a healthy status.Although car usage can be a neccesity while on the other hand as a fact that decreasing car usage can only bring benefits as the ones in the world shown today.This solution could be the start to a numerous amount of opportunities that can benefit not only in one way but manny.

moreover, the advantages of limiting car usage can be a improvement in air pollution consequences. The issues of harmful gases from cars on the run has affected issues and consequences as global warming from excessive amounts of air pollution. In source 4 paragraph 29 the author explains an advantage of less car usage for global warming by stating "" president obama's ambitious goals to curb the united states 'greenhouse gas emissions , uneveiled last week ,will get a furtuitous assist from an incipient shift in america behavior recent studies suggest that americans are buying fewer cars , driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" this explains how the decrease of car usage has protected the ozone layer from harmful gases from car gas, fuel, and chemicals making the issue of global warning to bennifical rates at some points. As a fact using cars may bennifit exucess for weariness and body pain although worldwide limiting car usage up to now with these improvements has only bennefit for a better place to breath air that is growing to being less harmful and a cleaner enviorment to live by decreasing newborn bacterias that can harm us. improving global warming is something we all bennifit from either now or later.

to sum up over the past years massasive car usage has been a determent worlwide. today there are issues procceding to the awarness of individuals of growing car usage. limiting car usage bring advantaes such as peaople that can become less depent on cars and decreasing air pollution.this issue is the matter to all of us.",0
4d7cfbfa,0,"Limiting car usage would have many advantages to the community around it. But the main two advantages to limiting cars is the reduction of polution,and also the reduction of congestion in many suburbs. Many cities including Bogota,Paris,and cities surrounding those have already started to limit the usage of cars.

One big problem many scientist are beginning to find out about our world is that our ozone layer is being destroyed by polution we put in the air. A big contributor to polution is the exhaust being produced by the million of cars used everyday. Another big problem country all over the world have to worry about is smog,or a thick layer of fog that is really hard to see through. having this very dangerous factor in the road many car crash ratings have sky rocketed. One way this can be stop is to do what these few country have been doing, that is to have days through out the year where people cant use their cars at all. To help in force this day police have been giving people fines roughly around thirty dollars. In Bogota,Colombia it was the third straight year cars have been banned. after all these years of banning cars the turnout was large. despite gray clouds that poured rain all over Bogota. When the smog went away from Bogota many other cities from Colombia have joined the event of banning cars. a quote from CarFree Day is Spinning into a Big Hit in Bogota says that "" Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven,pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"". To have these results to such a simple idea is incredible.

Another big problem in pretty much all country is congestion of their inner streets. When streets have major traffic alot of things change including the mood of people,and there is a higher percentage of car crashes. To fix this problem many cities did pretty much the same as before to retrict cars on certain days. A brilliant idea was presented and used in Paris. The idea was that ""on Mondays motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31, The same would apply to oddnumbered plates that following day"". After this brilliant event finished congestion was down sixty percent in the capital of France, and after five days the smog was gone.

In conclusion the advantages of limiting cars had a far greater output than input and has also solved many big problems. All we canhope for is the parcipitation of more and more countys or cities to help lives and our world.",0
4d7f6111,0,"Since the 1900's cars have been an integral part of our lives. It seems everyone has one nowadays. But this overuse of cars is starting to have a negative effect on our environment and is causing mass traffic jams that put cities on halt. We as a society must start limiting our car usage to help save our environment and to stop traffic jams that do not let the city run smoothly.

Cars were and still are one of the best inventions man has ever made, so it is understandable why people would have such a hard time letting go of something that is so useful. But one must understand that although the car is useful it is also hurting other things, whether it be inadvertent or not. Cars have always been bad on the environment, now so more then ever. According to In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars passenger cars are responsible for 12 % of greeenhouse emissions and up to 50% in some car intensive areas in the United States. This shows that we as a society are one the of the main reasons why are environment is crumbling around us. These greenhouse emissions and mass pollution by cars are hurting the environment whether we want it to or not. Everybody must take a look at these numbers and see the negative effect they are having on the environment and realize that by simply not using a car they can help save the environment. Another example of the bad effects cars have on the environment can be found in the article Paris bans driving due to smog.

In the article it talks about how Paris had to enforce a driving ban due to the amount of pollution in the air from cars. The fact that a driving ban had to be implemented to stop pollution is absolutley ridiculous. This alone should show people that refuse to see the negative effects they are having on the environment around them that car usage should and must be cut down. By simply cutting down our usage of cars we as people can help save the environment. Who would not want to be a part of that?

Cars have always been viewed at as the best mode of transportation. Everyone believes that their car can always get them to the place they need the fastest. But what most people do not think about is the mass traffic jams in cities that the usage of cars can cause. If people simply cut down there car usage and try out other forms of transportation it actually could get them to the destination they want the quickest. An example of this can be found in the article Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota.

In the article it says when they banned cars for the day the huge traffic jams in the city suddenly went away. This allowed people on bikes and buses to actually get around quicker than they usually could with their cars. So by not using cars people actually got around to the places they needed to be due to the lack of traffic jams in the city.

The amount of cars driven on the road per day has risen to an astronomical number over the years. Although cars may be efficient they also have many harmful effects. Two of the worst are the effect they have on the environment and the mass traffic jams they cause. We as a society must recognize that by cutting down our usage of cars we can actually have a positive effect on our environment while also allowing ourselves the ability to bring traffic jams to a minimum.",0
4d9aba3b,0,"Many people in the world today are quite desperate to see change in their life. They are seeking a better life, something new and fun, and to do it for cheap. Walking or riding bike is the cleanest way to do all these things at once. The more people that are not using cars, the more accidents will be prevented. And there is no limit to how many people you can walk with. There's no cost to walk, you just do it. It's something the whole family can do together and enjoy the journey somewhere rather than being on their devices. In addition, fuel is not emmiting forom your body into the atmosphere rupturing the Ozone creating all this Global Warming. Creating a world where transportation vehicles are obsolete will nt only benefit the people of this world, but the planet itself, and for the future generations.

Accidents would be almost nonexistent if we were to gert rid of motherized vehicles. In the article, ""in German suburb, life goes on without cars"" the author talks about how there are already cities in the world that have not banned cars, but choose not to use them. The people in those areas are close to no accidents at all. If there are no cars in the road then how can there be a car accident? The way the Germans started to remove cars forom the road is by removing parking lots. There are only two anywhere in that suburb and they are so inconvient.

Any doctor in the world no matter how young, or where they live will tell their patients that exercise is the only way to stay healthy, energized, and feeling young throughout their life. Without cars getting forom one place to another will require another means for transportation. Now either wait for the bus and be late or wake up a little earlier and walk or ride your bike. It's cheap and effective not only for you but the environment.

Fuel creates a gas that later rips open holes in the Ozone layer. Creating Global Warming which then in turn leads to higher taxes to allow for more money to be used in research to save it. Or you can take action now and save up for a bike rather than a car. It takes less management and doesnt take fuel. Just good old man power. It's tragic in ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", ""Delivery companies complained of lost revenue."" this world is what we are leaving our children and their children to live in. Make sure you leave it better than when you came.

In the four articles they all talk about the negative in driving rather than the positive. The reason is because there are more negatives to the industrialization of a car rather than just going back to the way our ancestors used to be. Even our young as our vary own parents are amazed at how much damage this generation is doing to themselves and everything around them. It is the result of inventions like the automobile. Vehicles are efficient in some way, but you might prefer to take a bit more time here and there to allow that you can be there when your children have children.",0
4daed43c,0,"Some might thing cars are essential to life, but other might think they don't need them at all. Limiting car use is a good thing because it limits the amount of fog, it reduces traffic jams and crashes, and people seem to be more family oriented. i believe that limiting car usage is a very helpful thing and a great idea.

We all know how badly cars gases are are and that without those harmful gasses there wouldn't be much fog. now imagine if this happened here in America. In Paris they band driving due to the near record pollution. They did this so they could have a day where the air would clear out and there wouldn't be that much fog. Some might think this is an excellent idea, but some might say its a very lousiness idea. Limiting car usage actually helps because your limiting how much of those harmful gases you put in the air. They tried this for a certain amount of time in Paris and that do you know! The smog cleared up enough for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for driving your cars. Now this is just one of the many great things limiting car usage has on our planet.

Something else similar to what they did in Paris happened in Colombia. They limited the car usage for one day to free up some of the congestion that they had in the capital Bogota. This is also a great idea because people don't have to worry about crash crashing, people getting ran over, or kids getting hit by cars. People don't have to worry about a lot of harsh things, so they live a somewhat stress less life. In Bogota they are also making new parks for people because without cars you don't need to drive to parks you can just walk. People when they walk tend to have conversations with the people around them so they tend to have a more social and all in all better lifestyle. This could also help in places like New York or other very congested cities. Without all those cars filling up the roads with all there horrible gases, New York would have a very clean breathable air. Another thing is that they wouldn't have many traffic jams andor many people getting in car crashes.

One of the most important reasons why limiting car usage is an advantage is because people are more family oriented. Studies have shown that when people don't have cars they fell like they don't have and debts and fell somewhat free. This will make a person more loving and more interested in family time. Also people tend to walk more and carpool, so this causes them to car pool or walk in groups and they do all of that with their own family. In Germany the citizens say life without a car is great. One citizen said how his life was so tense when he had a car and now without a car he is mush happier. Also America the percentage of drives have gone down by a lot. This is because people are unemployed, they don't have money to buy a car, or they simply don't want to be tense and have a car.

Limiting car usage is a great ting and i believe people should at least try to make it happen. It helps reunite family's, clear the amount of fog, and it reduces car jams and accidents. Some people might think its not a very good idea but some might think it is. So people should at least try to see what happens.",0
4e18b362,1,"To keep the Electoral College, or to switch to election by popular vote for the President of the United States, anyone can see the right answer is to keep the Electoral College, despite it not being the most democratic choice around. Many see it as being a waste of time, seeing as how they truly can't vote for the President they want. Yet most still can't see that the Electoral College is not the most easiest thing to get rid of. It has been with them ever since their Founding Fathers established it along with the Constitution.

Keeping the Electoral college is best for the US, even if it isn't that fair to the people. But first, what is the Electoral College anyways? Well, the Electoral College is not an actual college, its actually a process. The Founding Fathers made it as ""a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress, and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens"", as stated in paragraph one of the article, lines 36. A somewhat tedious task to get voted for a whole entire country, but it gets the job done.

The Electoral College system has been reported as ""unfair, outdated, and irrational."" paragraph 14, lines 1 and 2. Most of what that statement does say is true, it is pretty unfair to the people who want to vote for their president, it's extremely outdated and needs an update fast, and its pretty irrational at times. Yet does that mean it can be bad? No, not really. As stated in paragraph 16, lines 13 ""Each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed"". The statement means that basically each slate chooses some electors that go with the popular vote, and they are shipped off to go and submit the votes and the electoral votes, where the task they are given is rarely betrayed, or not done. Yet, the word rarely still sticks, and not many can just simply deny that it is not there. The rest of the statement in paragraph 16 continues onto lines 46, ""however, it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote."" So in simple terms, you can get the electoral vote which can put you ahead, but you won't win with just that under your belt. The people still matter, and their vote can still count against you.

1Certainty of Outcome certainty of outcome basically states that anything can happen, but anything bad won't neccesarily always happen. Let's take paragraph 18 for example, which talks about this reason. It states in lines 1619, ""A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes538 is an even number, but is highly unlikely..."" Anything can happen, even a tie.

2Everyone's President is as it states. The President is everyone's , not just the people in the south, north, or anywhere in the United States. If anyone just simply appealed to a certain region in the US, the other regions would feel as if ""the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn't their president"" paragraph 19, last line.

3Swing States, the main practice of the Electoral College. The higher the state has with electoral votes, the more likely the canidate will be able to win. However, ""Voters in tossup states are more likely to play close attention to the campaignto really listen to the competing canidatesknowing that they going to decide the election"" paragraph 20, lines 48. This means that they will not be easily be persuaded.

4Big States, as some can guess from the phrase, 'Bigger is better', that phrase truly shines here. the bigger states, such as California or Texas, have higher electoral votes than some of the smaller states, such as New Jersey or Rhode Island. As it states in paragraph 21, lines 912, ""So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential canidates in a campaign than a small state does..."" 5Avoid Runoff Elections, where ""The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no canidates receives a majority of the votes cast."" paragraph 22, lines 13 That means that the Electoral College tries to make sure that their is no tie.

Those are the reasons why the Electoral College should not be abolished. Surely someone can put up a counter argument to make this small article to shame, but in the end its truly all of the matter of opinions, where no ones is truly ""the best"" or ""true"". This is simply the opinion of many in the US.",0
4e36677a,0,"Limiting car usage will have many advantages. Not only will it reduce pollution ,but it will also encourage a more healthy lifestyle. Also limiting car usage may help ween us off of our dependence on foreign oil. Car usage has caused a lot of problems economically, environmentally, and physically for the United States.

To start off, car usage is very bad for our environment. The number one cause of air pollution in the U.S. is transportation. So, if we found a cleaner and more environmentallyfriendly way of transportation that help a lot. One way would be to reduce car usage. It would be much better if once or twice a week people would ride their bike or walk to work or where ever they are going. I understand that some people live to far away from where ever they are going to ride a bike or walk ,but if you carpool with people who are also going to the same place you save on gas money and you will also be helping the environment.

In addition to helping the environment, limiting car usage will also promote a healthier life style. With the united state's obesity rates skyrocketing we could use all the healthy lifestyle promoting we can get. By limiting car usage we can encourage people to walk and bike to where ever they are going. Which will influence people to add a little exercise into their daily routine.

Along with promoting a healthier lifestyle, limiting car usage can also help the U.S. without major problem. Over the years the U.S. has had many great presidents,but almost all of them have promised the same thing, that they will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But nothing has happened. I believe that limiting car usage will help us in reducing the United states dependence on foreign oil because if we aren't driving our cars as often we won't need as much oil.

In conclusion, the advantages to limiting car usage are that it will reduce pollution, promote a healthier lifestyle, and it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.",0
4e3b5fd4,1,"The Electoral College is a system of appointing electors. These electors vote upon who will be the next president. Citizensvoters believe that they should be the ones able to decide who will become the president. People claim that this system should be changed to the ""popular vote"" system. This system is based on the people's votes. Even the smallest of states get their say in who will take the presidency. This form of electing should be put into play. The Electoral College should be abolished. It is interfering with citizen's rights. It is irrational, and should be changed.

Untrustworthy is a word used to describe the Electoral College. It can not be trusted. In some cases, the college is said to have chosen a candidate based upon themselves, not their state. An example of this appears in the election of 2000. In this election, 17 states were said to have never even seen the candidates. Voters said that they didn't even see campaign ads. This could have been caused by the college. The Electoral College is unjust.

A new case appears on 1960. In this case, Louisiana tried to recieve new electors who would go against J.F.K. Their electors weren't going with their beliefs. This is just one example of the injustice. Voters everywhere feel the college is unfair. They would like to have a greater role in the outcome of elections. They wish to feel more a part of this country.

Others say that the Electoral College should stay. They believe in five reasons for the acceptance of the system. One reason is the ""certainty of outcome."" The second reason is ""everyone's president."" This is saying that the college needs a presidential candidate to have appeal. This means that candidates need to not only campaign in popular states. Doing this makes the other states feel discouraged and feel as if their votes are not important. The next reason is due to the swing states. This is saying that they need to focus their campaigning on small, ""tossup"" states. Next reasoning is due to big states. They say the college restores and manages political balance. The last reasoning is that the college avoids when no candidate gets a greater amount of votes. This is saying that the college is able to break any ties between candidates.

Despite the reasonings given by the opposing side, the college causes problems. It is limiting voters' freedoms and rights. The voters want to be a part. They want to help their country. They want to be there to partake in the election and to choose their president fairly. The college is unjust and confusing. With the college, you do not know if you are getting the candidate that your state had voted for. The accuracy of your vote could be questioned. For these reasons and more are why we should change the system. We should remove the Electoral College system and replace it with the ""popular vote"" system. With this change we are ensuring the accuarcy to our voters. They will be able to take full part in the electoral election process. They will be able know for sure who and where their votes are going to.",0
4e796854,1,"We need to keep the Electoral College because it keeps the elections fair. It keeps them fair by allowing the states to be proportionaly represented. Also it makes sure there will not be runoff elections and keeps the presidential candidates from favoring one region.

The Electoral College keeps the election fair because all states are represented proportianly to the population of the state. This allows for the smaller states to have a more impactful vote on the president. Since each state is represented equally the election is more fair than if just a popular vote was taken. This system is called unfair by some because they think that their vote is not being heard. This is not true because in source one it says that when you are voting for a president, you are actually voting for who your electors are going to vote for. So if you vote say democratic, thats a vote going toward the elector voting democratic in turn him or her voting democratic for the president.

If the president was elected by a popular vote, there is a risk of runoff elections as shown in case three when nixon had 43 percent of the popular vote but won the Electoral College allowing for a fair winner to be elected. If we continue to use the Electoral College a clear winner will always be produces, but if we go by popular vote a runoff election can occur. Some people may say that the Electoral College is unfair because the winner of the popular vote may not win because of the Electoral College vote and that is not true. If the president was elected by popular vote he or she who is running can just go for the big states, win them over and all smaller states are left with no significant say in the election.

If the Electoral College was not used it would allow presidential candidates to favor different regions making it seem like he or she was just the souths president or the norths ect. So with the Electoral College it makes the candidates branch out to try and win more states that they usually would not try to appeal to. In source two the speaker says ""The electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance winning. This statement is not true because the Electoral College forces the candidates to branch out to get more votes. And if the runner knows he or she won't win that state why spend money and other resources on a regardless cause.

When all is considered about keeping the Electoral College the only answer should be to keep it. It keeps the election fair by giving smaller states a bigger impact. It keeps runoff elections from taking place, and makes the candidates branch out to other states.",0
4e878823,1,"In the United States, democracy is advertised as a method of achieving selections, though this is unfortunately not the case. In the United States, we, as individuals, are not permitted to a ""fair"" or equal opportunity of voting systems. Vote should be popular, the will of the people of the nation, though through the Electoral College, the people is denied.

Voting is, as far as common sense goes, the majority rule. The Electoral College voting system was established during the creation of the Constitution in order to secure a ""qualified vote"" an effort to diminish the will of the lesser, or unknowing. Arguably, it is stated that, ""..the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election"", or in other words the statement can easily be translated to ""we do not wish a nation of idiotic voters to decide our president"", each individual of the nation is mindful of others and care enough to express their opinion, as it is known a is a citizens duty to vote. A duty that must be followed. In any effort to simplify this, a voter is a voter. They are all ""qualified"". If a person cares enough about their nation to cast a ballot, without requirement, they certainly are qualified.

Now that the qualifications are established, the electors within the Electoral College are free to do as they wish. Waving a magic wand, the support of others is unimportant now, and they pull whatever they desire out of the hat, as written by Bradford Plumer, ""Consider that state legislatures are technically responsiblefor picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people"". What happened to majority rule? People should have the direct vote of presidential candidate, however we are faced with shocking facts such as the house selection rarely displaying the correct majority rule, ""The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe"".

The despicable system was established long ago for an extremely specific purpose with specific issues, which is no longer the case today. In the United States, we are not a democracy. We are a Republic. ridiculously, voters do not control the election in our Republic, as shared,""...over sixty percent of voters would prefer a direct election"". Can those expect change? Ironically, no. The system would most like not allow that, and those mindful citizens would need to hope for a glance at serendipity.",0
4e910822,1,"Dear State senator, A lot of chatter about weather the president should be elected by electoral college or by popular vote is going around my school for the past couple of weeks, and i can't help but to give my own opinion about this argument. I believe that the popular vote should decide who is the president.

I believe this because of two reasons. One, the citizens are the ones that are going to have to deal with this good or bad president for four years and possibly eight years. Also the satate senators can be bribed by one or the other candidates running for president. This candidate could have the worst plans for the next four years and all because he cheated to win. This could cause riots and prawns around the United States.

Two, Electoral College is unfair to voters because of the winnertakeall system. What this means is that candidates are not going to focus on the staes that they know they wont get any votes from. for example in source tw, during the campaign of 2000, seventeen states were not visited by either candidates so they didn't get to see any campaign ads. this is unfair because it makes it harder, almost impossible for these states to choose on who to vote for because they had no presentations to choose from. this puts to much power in the candidates hands.

Some may believe otherwise. For example, since the Electoral votes are from very experienced people that have put there life and time into knowing about what is right and wrong. they are much more experience than the normal citizens. Also Electoral College prevents runoff elections to occur. for example in source three, the electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes casted. This causes lots of pressure which would greatly complicate the presidential election process. With Electoral Collage, this produces a clear winner.

In my own opinion the one that decideds the winner is popular votes. There can still be Elector Collage votes, but the Electoral votes have to much power and is unfair to the citizens of the united states.",0
4e911d9d,0,"Limiting your car use could be a great way to enjoy nature and life. Walking is a great way to work out. Even riding a bike around your city, or town is a great way to work out. Some advantages of not using a car is that you don't have to worry about getting in to a car wreck, you don't have to smoke up your area with all the carbon dioxide that comes out of your car, and you actually work out for once. Limiting your car usage will have you not in a hurry. Heidrun Walter said, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"". She feels that not using a car would make her feel better.

Cars are just a waste, I see that in the future there is going to be like a lot of over weight people. No one hardly work out nowadays. Just get in the car and go somewhere instead of walking around the block. It's going to be the real version of ""WalE"" where the earth is full of trash and everyone is going to live on a spaceship and their all over weight.

Being in a car will pollute your city so fast if everyone around had a car. As it says in the article, ""The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world"". It is that way because a whole lot of people live there and almost everyone has a car over there in the two cities. Using a car will only make things better for the people and for the environment.

""BOGOTA, Colombia... millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets o this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" This excerpt from the article explains some of the advantages of not using a car. All of them sound joyful. Hiking, Biking, Skating and no traffic jams? This sounds like a field day in the city. What could go wrong with all of these delightful activites goin on?

The excerpt clearly says that without cars you could have multiple and multiple things to do besides being lazy. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" Carlos Arturo Plaza. Less stress and lower air pollution, I think that's the best combination of all. New york even has a bikesharing program so you could ride your bike all over its city. Wow ! sounds like a deal to me.

Not using a car is a great way to be yourself and do something with your life and to help others. No one likes pollution, and no one wants to be out of shape. As said by Carlos, he's stress free from cars. There's multiple sources out there that you could join and be apart of without having a car. The United States people are not using cars as much now, and all over the world people are starting programs to stop car usage. Without cars I believe that the world would be a better and healthier place.",0
4f8601a3,0,"There are many advantages to limiting car usage. It is better for the environment, it is safer, and it cost people less in the stuggling economy.

To begin, limiting the usage of cars is a advantage because it is better for the environment. For example, ""...Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"" Duffer. It is sad that there is so much pollution in the air that car usage has to be stopped in order for the smog in the air to decrease. After five days of smog, congestion was down by sixty percent in the capital of France. Obviously, limiting car usage is extremely better for the environment.

In addition, the less you use cars, the safer your community is. For example, Heidrun Walter ""...walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chattering of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor"" Rosenthal. Children coul not be wandering aroundif there were cars on the road. There are accidents all the time where children and adults get struck by cars even when they are trying to be safe. Obviously, if cars are not on the road, it will be safer for everyone.

Finally, limiting car usage saves people money. Actually, ""...Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less, and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by"" Rosenthal. The less that cars are used, the less gas people have to pay for and so they will save their hard earned money. If people stop using their vehicles, then they will be more likely to sell the car, and then they will make money in the long run. If the trend continues, fewer and fewer people will use their money to buy cars. Clearly, limiting car usage allows people to spend less money.

To conclude, limiting the usage of vehicles as transportation is an extremely good idea because it is better for the environment, it is saer, and it costs people less money.",0
4fae0f4f,1,"Dear Senaitor, I feel ithait ithe elecitoral college should be be removed from ithe voiting process and replaced by ithe popular voite. The vioce of ithe people is ithe mosit imporitanit ithingin ensuring ithe presidenit elecited is itruly ithe people's presidenit. The Elecitoral college is an unfair sysitem for many voiters and keeps our naition from being ithe democraitic socieity iit was meanit ito be. Even ithose who oppose ithis view agree ithait ithe Elecitoral college is a nondemocraitic sysitem. Doesnbit ithait seem like an issue considering ithis naition was founded on Demorcraitic beliefs?

I undersitand ithait some feel iit's ok if ithe ithe voiting is lefit mainly ito itoss up sitaites because ithey seem ito be ithe ithe people who are more ithoughitful abouit ithe lecition. The only reason ithis is ithe case is because ithe canidaites spend itheir whole itime in ithe swing sitaites and ithey compleitely alienaite ithe oither sitaites. In facit, in 2000, seveniteen sitaites were compleitely skipped over by canidaites. This causes people ito feel discouraged from voiting because ithey feel as if itheir voites are unimporitanit or ithait ithey don'it know enough ito casit an educaited voite.

Also people like ito argue ithait ithere is no problem wiith ithe elecitors because ithey can always be itrusited. Buit ithis also is simply noit ithe case. In 1960 ithe democraitic elecitors were almosit compleitely replaced by elecitors who would voite in oppositiition of JFK. Someitimes elecitors flait ouit refuse ito voite for ithe canidaite ithey were elecited ito voite for. Cases like ithis compleitly undermine ithe very idea of ithe elecitoral college.

Then in ithe case of a itie in elecitoral voites ithe elecition is puit in ithe hands of ithe House of represenaitives. Each sitaite is only given one voite, so a sitaite wiith a single represenaitive voite, such as wyoming, would have ithe same amounit of influence as a sitaite wiith 55 represenaitives such as California. Plus people don'it always voite wiith itheir parity when eleciting people for congress so how can ithey be sure ithait itheir besit initeresits will be represenited in ithe case of a itie. Some may say ithait a itie is rare and has no foundaition in ithis argumenit, buit ithey would be wrong. In 1968 ithe ouitcome was only 41,971 voites away from being a itie. In 1976 iit was 5,559 away in ohio and 3,687 away in Hawaii. Wiith ithe Elecitoral college in use, a few swing voiters could ithrow ithe whole elecition.

So ito summarize, ithe Elecitoral college is basically an ouitdaited sysitem ithait may have worked when ithe counitry firsit sitarited, buit doesn'it really apply itoday. Iit's itime ito puit ithe power of ithe elecition in ithe hands of voiters direcitly and make ithe elecition a itruly democraitic sysitem.",0
4fc165d6,0,"When you think about limiting car usage you might think ""Well how am I supposed to get there. Theres no way i'm able to get to my destination without a car."" Yes, I'm pretty sure we all would'nt want to walk five thousand miles to visit a friend three hours away, but here me out. Doesnt a car make you all tired? Knowing you have to pay a bill every month, or getting gas four times a week. Just imagine a world where thats not a problem.

In Vauban Germany they are most of the time a car free zone. Owners of cars aren't allowed to have cars in there garage or in the streets or wherever a car would normally be. They have to keep there cars in a space they buy at the edge of the community for 40,000 plus the paying for their homes. Now I wouldnt want to pay all this money to park my car. Most people in suburban homes sold their vehicles so that they could live there without a problem. Heidren Walter said,"" When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" She says as she's walking down the street she can actual listen to the community of children playing and not be drown out from the loud motor in the car.

Now, limiting car usage doesnt mean we all have to walk to our destinations. We could start using bicycles more often and actually get a benefit of working out. Sure it might make you all sweaty and gross. But make a plan to get up a little earlier and then wash up at wherever it is you are to be. And limiting cars doesnt mean every single one of us need to give up our cars. Instead we can find a friend who lives near to us or a fellow coworker and car pool. Instead of all two hundred employes lugging their cars on the road and getting stuck in torturous traffic. make a plan to get five people in a car and instead of two hundred cars on their way to work, there would only be about fourty cars going to the same place. That would clear up our roads and reduce traffic. In France Congestion was down sixty percent after reducing cars.

""Diesel makes up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of Westurn Europe.."" ,according to Robert Duffer. People today are now worrying to much on their cars and how much it will cost them. Not worrying about jobs and insurance. The invention of the car was not to see who can get the most miles or whos car gets better horse power. It was about helping people get from A to B, and we can do just that.

There are many people out here who will think that limiting car use is a waste of time and like to keep things the same. But we can be the generation who changes that. If we could go down to one car a family and start car pooling with one another, or even start using bikes to go to places with our friends, we can help make the community a better place. One day just try. Try walking to the super market. Instead of making your mom drive you and your friends to the mall, try making a plan to all ride your bikes there. It doesnt hurt to try, so try to start.",0
50015fcd,1,"Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bob Dole are some of Americas most beloved politicians, and all of three of them have agreed on the abolishing of the electoral college. This system needs to go. It does not represent this country's ground rules because its nondemocratic and does not give enough recognition to some states across the country.

For starters, the electoral college is nondemocratic. How can a nation that prides itself on being a democracy not have a democratic way of electing its president? With this electoral college system voters do not vote for the president instead they vote for their states electors which presents a problem in my opinion. As stated in ""Source 3"" ""each party selects a state of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is RARELY broken."" While some may feel that a system that is rarely broken is acceptable i do not because this is such a big event in our country and we can not afford to have a flawed system. The trust of an entire states vote can not be put in the hands of one elector. America does not get what its people want through this system as you can tell when ""Source 2"" states ""Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral college won the popular vote but lost the presidency."" This is not a Democratic way of doing things as the people should be able to elect there president and not have a state of electors do so for them.

Now that the issue of Democracy has been taken care of i want to talk about how some of the states in this country do not get the recognition they deserve. Everyone agrees that all states should have a say in the election of the president and all should feel that there votes matter but this is not the case with the electoral college. As ""Source 2"" states that during the 2000 campaign ""seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina."" This is not acceptable because all voters no matter where they live should feel that there vote is wanted and matters. This could be part of the reason that about only half of the countrys eligible voters voted in the 2012 election as stated in ""Source 3"". While some may say that the electoral college is a great system because it prevents ties i disagree because the likely hood of a tie in the first place when doing popular vote is extremely low and it does not out weight the fact that the people should elect there president.

In the end it is obvious that the electoral college has to go. There is many reasons why but the two main reasons are that its nondemocratic and it does not give recognition to all the states in this wonderful country.",0
502f9aea,1,"Dear every state senator of the United States of America and the District of Colombia, the Electoral College has an unfair system. The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice president, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. The citizens of the U.S doesn't have a say in the decision of whose going to be their countries leader. Hopefully these senators come to realize that it is a fair opportunity if citizens also have a say when the decisions are being made. For the good of the United States of America and the District of Colombia, Changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States of America would be an amazing change.

To commence with, citizens don't have a say in whose their leader. According to the Office of the Federal Register, ""Each candidate running for president in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are."" No where in the process of deciding which president should be chosen , does a citizen have a say in who they want. These are citizens who work and give tax money to the state and help the important people like the senators, presidents , vice president etc., they deserve respect and have a chance to be a part of a popular vote for the president of the united states of America. Although having popular vote can still fail to satisfy some masses of people , it is a way where everyone could be involved in fair decisions. ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters."" The man said it himself. Bradford Plumer is against having the Electoral system. Hopefully one day state senators of the U.S. and the District of Colombia doesn't fail to realize that their system of voting for the president and vice president are unfair to the Citizens of their country. Changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States of America instead of the electoral college because citizens aren't having a say in any important decisions.

Furthermore, decisions may fall into the wrong hands. ""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the house of representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. The senate would choose the vicepresident."" The election is only a few swing voters away from a disaster. What if the house of representatives only has one political party? then does the president who is in that political party always win? There are so many reasons why citizens should have a chance to have vote by direct popular votes, that way descions wont fall into the wrong hands.

In conclusion, the state senates should consider making a new system of votingchanging to election by popular votes.",0
507d9f93,0,"Imagine the world in the future, completely full and covered with cars. Roads are going to start taking up every area of Earth, if people continue driving everywhere and buying cars. I think people should limit car usage because it's environmental friendly, they'll get more exercise, and people will be happier. Cars can be handy from time to time, but i think they should only be used occasionally. Imagine if there was a car for everyone on the planet. Car usage should decrease.

First of all, the Earth is beautiful and the people on it need to take better care of it. For example, just one day without the use of cars in a city, allowed them to construct bike paths, new sidewalks, and reduced traffic jams. Fuel from cars will polute the air and cause smog. If everyone continues to use cars as much as they do or more, there will be no way to clean all the air. When Paris banned cars for a while, smog was cleared and reduced by a lot. Limiting car use will not save the Earth completely, but it will help very much.

Secondly, if people started using cars less, they could get outside more and get more exercise. Biking will help people get fresh air and decrease pollution because cars won't be used as much. People should start finding jobs or doing activities that are close enough to walk or bike to. Cars are for situations in which you really have no other way there or long distances. That's all I think they should be used for. Everyone would be much more fit and healthy if it weren't for being lazy and having to take a car there.

Lastly, not using cars could increase people's happiness. Some people suggest that having a car makes them tense. Everyone would become much closer together and explore more of the world without cars. We could all be outdoors or around each other more. For example, you could take the bus to work instead of your car and meet a new friend. You never know what could happen when you try something new. It's good to change things up once in a while, like not taking your car every now and then and finding another way there.

In conclusion, the positives definetely outnumber the negatives of limiting car use. The main three reasons in my opinion is that it's environmental friendly, you'll get more exercise, and you'll most likely be much happier. Think about all the good outcomes that could come out of not driving your car and try it sometime.",0
508c11d5,0,"Turning 16 is one of the best times of your life because you get your license, your own new car and you dont have to rely on your parents to take you every where but, instead of getting a new car, why not get a brand new stylish bike? Millions and millions of people drive their car to provide them transportation to get to work, errands, school and little did they know much car usage really effects not only our planet but, ourselves too. Limiting car usage is a very effective way to eliminate stress, lower air pollution, reduce traffic, and save money to make the world a better and healthier place to live.

Two of the many advantages of limiting car usage is it eliminates stress and lowers air pollution. Being stressed is very unhealthy and a simple way to limit your stress is by limiting car usage. A media trainer named Heidrun Walter stated, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this waySource 1."" If having a car is stressful, then ride a bike, or take a bus that still takes you from point A to B, just like a car does. Car usage is bad for our planet when it comes to air pollution. ""...Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United StatesSource 1."" Using other options besides taking a car would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Limiting car usage is a happier life and healthier living.

Saving money and reducing traffic are other advantages of limiting car usage. Traffic is always a problem when trying to get where you need to go. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog...The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the worldSource 2."" There's always so many people rushing to get to work in the morning and your car only moves a couple feet per minute from all the backed up traffic but, if there wasn't so many cars on the road, that would never be an issue. Saving money is always an advantage especially in today's economy, and all you have to do is limit your car usage. ""As of April 2013, the number of miles drive per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995Source 4."" The reasoning behind that is because people ""could not afford new cars, and and the unemployed weren't going to work anywaySource 4."" Riding with a friend is always a way to save money and limit traffic too.

Car usage is a big problem in today's society. Eliminating stress, lowering air pollution, reducing traffic, and saving money are all advantages of limiting car usage that will lead our planet to a healthier and better living. When your parents surprise you with that pimped out bike instead of a car on your birthday, just remember all the beneficial reasons of limiting car usage and plus, you won't have to pay car insurance.",0
5098c1ea,0,"Many people do not rely on their cars to take them places anymore in Vauban, Germany. vaughn's streets are completely ""carfree"" Source 1 Paragraph 2. 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars. They are allowed to own cars, but they have to park it at a car garage that they also have to pay for. Heidrun Walter, a mother of two says, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" These are only a few examples of the advantages of not owning a car or limited car use. Because of this new trend, there are stores, malls, and building closer to people's homes instead of on highways and an hour away. This way, people don't have to walk twenty miles to get to the nearest store.

Another issue that will encourage people to stop driving is smog. In Paris, they enforced a partial driving ban to the clear the air from all the automobiles' gases and pollution toxins. On Monday, car owners with evennumbered license plates were forced not to drive or they'd suffer a 31 dollar fine. They same would happen to the oddnumbered license plate drivers on Tuesday and so on. People rebelled and resulted in 4,000 driver fines. On the bright side, traffic or congestion was down 60 percent. People can get to their destinations a lot faster without all the traffic and congestion. People can save the planet and their jobs.

Not only can people save the planet and traffic jam, but now they have a reason to exercise and get to their destination in time. They can even plan special family activities on a boring Monday. The residents of Bogota, Columbia have taken this into consideration by avoiding traffic by hiking, biking, skating, or even taking the local bus. There is so many advantages to not using a car as transportation. Everyone can ride their bike to school or work or the mall knowing that there is no added pollution, exercise is done for the day, save money, no traffic. What could be better? Not even rain stopped the residents of Bogota.

Businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza said, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" as he rode a twoseat bike with his wife. People saw and took advantage of this opportunity as well and joined the event. People are crossing borders to see this revolutionary change that these people are making. Reconstruction has taken place too on the uneven sidewalks for bikers, and upscale restaurants and stores have moved up.

People also don't have the choice of getting a car, due to unemployment and their balance. Which supports an advantage of saving money. Americans spend for 50 dollars for gas for their cars to last them for just two weeks, or less. Not to mention the car payment each month. What about the people who can't afford car insurance? No one would need to worry about these things if they just forgot about cars and moved everything closer to their homes.

There are many advantages in not owning or using a car. It can save the planet, energize people, people can exercise everyday without coming up with an excuse why they didn't go to the gym or go for a jog. The best advantag is saving money. Another people quite love is the traffic, because there is none! See whats no cars does for you.",0
513c576d,1,"Many people question why we use the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. They think it's outdated irrational but we have been using this system for 100 of years. The Electoral College is a fair way to elect the president.

Certainly, the Electoral College has some flukes. Using the Electoral College system ""your not voting for the president, but for a slate of electors,"" asserted Bradford Plumer, author of The Indefensible electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of system are wrong. Instead of voting directly towards the future president the citizens are voting for the states electors for that party. What if it's a tie? ""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote,"" Plumer claimed. If it's a tie it is no longer up to the people, but it moves on to the House of Representatives and they decide. In the contrary, both parties select a slate of electors in trust to vote for the nominee and the trust is rarely betrayed. Also, there hasn't been many times of when the vote comes down to a tie. Therefore, the Electoral College should not be changed.

Above all, the Electoral College is fair and doesn't spark up as many disputes as popular vote. Richard A. Posner, author of In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President remarks, ""a dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possibleit happened in 2000 but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote."" It is less likely because the winnertakeall technique even the smallest range of votes turns into a landslide. ""A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible, but it is highly unlikely."" Even though the Electoral vote consists of 538 votes there is a possibility of a tie. The overall vote for each party would both have to equal 269 votes. Proof shows the Electoral College is fair.

Furthermore, the Electoral College doesn't have a majority vote. Plumer claims, ""the Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."" This exemplifies why the Electoral College has more fairness then the popular vote. If there isn't a majority vote the people are voting on what they truly believe. ""Voters in the presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who thinkg that a single ovte may decide an election,"" Plumer asserts. People voting don't just vote for the fun of it. They vote because they want a president who can make their lives better.

In final consideration, the election of the president should be casted by the Electoral College. It is clear that the Electoral College is the better choice because we have used it ever since it was created.",0
5148c362,0,"Many people dream of buying a new car by the time the reach the age of sixteen once they finally obtain their license. However, in recent years, a large population of people have stopped feeling the need for private transportation and have sold their cars and trucks or moved to areas where things such as public transportation, biking, and walking are cheaper and more efficient alternatives. Choosing not to own a passenger car can lead to less emissions, save space, and improve the quality of life for citizens in a city.

Transportation is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases, behind only power generation. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Source 1 Limiting the use of private transportation will bring about cleaner skies, greatly reduce the amount and effects of acid rain, and impede upon the progression of the destruction of our ozone layer in the atmosphere that helps to protect us from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation. If more and more people in not only developed but also developing countries choose to become car and truckfree, ""where emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle class are choking cities,"" Source 1 our Earth will become a much cleaner and healthier place for young and old alike.

There have been many previous efforts to make cities denser and more walking and bikingfriendly, but most of these advances have been limited by or even been put to a stop because of the need for an excessive amount of large roads and space for parking for the huge amount of private passenger cars found in cities and suburbs today. Reducing the amount of cars on the road can free up space for more important things such as housing, shops, financial districts, and even parks or other recreational areas that can be more inviting to citizens rather than the loud hustle and bustle of highdensity roadways. ""'All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change,' said David Goldberg, and official of Transportation for America, a fastgrowing coalition of hundreds of groups in the United States... who are promoting new communities that are less dependent on cars."" Source 1 Removing the problem of private transportation from city planning and development can greatly increase the quality and efficiency of our city's layouts.

Many people consider New York City to be the ""city that never sleeps,"" because of the loud and constant noise of outside motors revving and angry drivers honking their car horns. New York City, along with many other large cities, face this problem which has been growing since the late 1940's. With the rise of reduced dependency on private means of transportation, places such as the more populated areas of New York may finally be able to take a nap. ""BOGOTA, Colombia... millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" Source 3 Noise isn't the only quality of life improvement that citizens of large cities can experience with a drop of the amount of cars on streets and boulevards. Levels of smog, a mixture of smoke a fog caused by excessive amounts of greenhouse gases being pumped into the air, would also start to fall down to a point where they would barely be noticable. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city... Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog... The fog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" Source 2 Limiting car use can be extremely beneficial if executed correctly. These benefits include a cleaner city, more efficient uses of space, and an increase in the desirability of larger cities and towns. Overall, a reduction to the amount of private vehicles on the road would be a great improvement for a multitude or reasons.",0
515a2cb6,1,"The Electoral College is a process begun a long time ago due to the lack of educated and literate citizens in the United States, whom the government did not believe were eligible to vote for any president under any circumstances. Now that our literacy rate in the United states is now more than 8090% or so I believe, I don't really think that the Electoral College is useful anymore.

The Electoral College is a process describing 538 electors voted for by the state who will vote for the new president every four years. A majority vote of 270, one more than half, is required to elect the new president. The number of electors for each state equals the number of members in it's Congressional delegation meaning one for each member in the House of Representatives that represents your state, and two for your Senators. However, I think that a popular vote, or having the citizens themselves vote for the president, may be more useful.

There is an off chance that electors may vote for a candidate that their citizens did not want to choose, or the chance that two slates of electors may be sent to Congress, etc. Another prospect is the idea of a tie in the electoral vote, which would mean that there would be 269 votes for both Presidential candidates. In the event of this happening, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, in which the state delegations would choose the president. This may be fatal, however, because states like Wyoming, which only have the population of 500,000, will have as much to say about the fate of the United States as a state like California, home to 35 million people.

A lot of people usually are in favor of the Electoral College due to certainty of outcome and swing states. Swing, or tossup states are the states that are undecided until the very end, and could very well change the entire tide of the Election. ""Voters in tossup states,"" reads one argument, ""are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign to really listen to the competing candidates knowing that they are going to decide the election."" But should we really leave such a large and important decision up to such few people? A mere 538? And even less for tossup states?

Overall, I think that the Electoral College is outdated due to it's lack of need anymore, does not fit the democratic and equal methods of the United States for the most part, and leaves too large of a decision to too small of a group. Popular voting may just be the solution to this problem, and although popular voting may not be perfect either, it might help us figure out who we really need for our president, rather than leaving it to just a small group.",0
5174760d,0,"Cars have become apart of the everyday life of the average person. It's a mode of transportation that everyone uses in every second of their life though it is faster then walking itself, cars are not always helpful to us. Sources indicate that, by limiting car usage it is possible to relieve stress and reduce pollution.

Limiting the use of cars can bring less stress to the everyday driver. When in a car, it is easy to see when the driver is stressed out. Stress accumulates with traffic jams or when someone is becoming infuriated by another driver, who is driving right in front of the other driver and going really slow. There are people who have seen there stress levels drop when they are not in or don't own a car. For instance, a community in Vauban, Germany, at least 70 percent of their residents don't own a car, while 57 percent sold their car to move there. A woman, Heidrun Walter, who is a resident there stated, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way""Source 1. This verifies how people can get away from stress by just not having a car. In Bogota, Colombia, there is a day when automobiles are banned for a day, with the exemption of buses and taxis. This day has become very popular, and is a ""good opportunity to take away stress""Source 3, as said by Carlos Arturo Plaza, a business man who rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife on that day. On this day millions Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work, leaving the streets free of any traffic jam, when a driver gets stressed out he most, as stated in source 3. This shows the number of people who participated in this event and also shows their, less stressful, alternative modes of transportation.

Along with relieving stress, pollution will become less of a problem. Cars are beneficial when it comes transportation, but they can cause harm to the environment as well. Pollution is a major problem in the today's world, and with the number of cars that are in use everyday it will only become worse. Smog or any other type of pollution can cause a city or even a country to take action. Such a Paris, Fance, who put a ban on driving to reduce pollution in their city, which rivaled Beijing, China, known as the one the most polluted cities in the world, as said in source 2. This strenghens the problems that cars pose on the world, these problems can lead to delivery companies losing money because the ban was put up and won't be lifted until the smog is gone. In addition, more information about car pollution can be found in source 1. There it talks about how cars are the ""linchpin"" of suburbs, and how they're ""a huge impediment to current efforts to drasticallly reduce greenhouse gas emissions."" In some places this is slowly resolving itself places such as the United States have seen a drop in miles driven per person since it's peak in 2009. Sociologists believe that, ""it will have beneficial implications carbon emissions and the environment""Source 4. This indicates that, while it is a major issue it is not impossible to solve it.

Cars are an easy and fast form of transportation, but they can also cause harm to people and the environment. No matter how beneficial cars are to us, wouldn't it be better to limit the use of them? This way if cars usage is limited, then the less problems we face.",0
52152787,1,"Dear state senator, Many people believe that the Electoral College should be abolished, while others believe that the Electoral College should stay as it is. However, what most people who want to keep the electoral college, do not know is that when you vote for a presidential candidate you are actually voting for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. Which means that the people do not get a direct vote towards the president. Therefore, it can cause disinterest in people who are eligible to vote. That is why I argue in favor of changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States.

The first reason as to why I favor in abolishing the Electoral college is because you can not always trust the electors. As shown back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy so that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy. Also, due to the winnertakeall system, candidates do not spend time in states they know they have no chance in winning, it is obvious that they just want to win and you can not trust those candidates, especially the people who promise to do things they know they can not fulfill. The electors that ""the people vote for"" do not want to help their state, they do not even care for the needs of the people, they are just there for the money. Another reason as to why you can not trust the electors is because it is known that the electors can vote for whomever they choose and forget about the people's needs. One of the main reasons as to why this causes disinterest in potential voters. If the people vote directly for the president they have a better chance in speaking up and fighting for what they want therefore, trusting. Those are some of the rights that are taken away by the electoral college and people do not even realize it.

Another reason as to why I believe the electoral college should be abolished is because the electoral college is unfair to voters. Over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. That is more than half of the people! If the government really cared for what the people want, the electoral college would have been abolished by now. Studies have shown that only half of the people living in the U.S have voted in the pasts elections. If you really want the number of voters to increase and for citizens of the U.S to express their political preferences you should actually listen to them and abolish the electoral college.

Lastly, the electoral college prevents voters from controling who they vote for. Many voters now in days believe that when they vote, their one vote decides the election but, they are wrong. If they abolish the electoral college the voters would have a better chance in having who they want for president. The people who vote in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference we'll have more citizens voting if the electoral college is abolished. How do you expect for U.",0
527d106b,1,"I think that keeping electoral college would be a great idea for many reasons, we have had the electoral college for many years now and it has been great it has many good benefits to it. but many people are against it they believe there voices aren't being heard but it is just be revised by that people that know what is best for the country.

One of the reasons the electoral college must stay is that the will be a certainty of the outcomes, they will know exacty what will be coming out as a result instead of being uncertain for examplesource 1 Obama recived 6.1 percent from the electoral vote and 51.3 percent for the poplar votes. It was an uncertain vote because the college don't know what the people would pick as a result. but many people think that it should be like that because they are voting for a slate of elector and not for president.source 2 Another good reason why the electoral college is a good idea is that it balances the state votes. The states that are larger such as Texas and california have a much larger population so the votes would be larger but the electoral college balances out and the smaller states such as new jersey and main have a small population so the votes wold be smaller. The larger states get more attention from the presidential candidates than the smaller states, so the electoral college balances it out.source 3 Also the electoral college avoids runoff elections. The electoral college give more for a cleary response, for example,source 3 nixon in 1968 and clinton both had 43 percent plurality of popular votes but the electoral votes gave them a more accurate result of 301 nixon and 370 cliton. the electoral college gave a more accurate result of who sould of win the election.

That's why I think that the electoral college is better it gives certainty of outcome, balances out the big states, and avoids runoff elections. While popular vote does give us the same certainty.",0
52906497,0,"Beep! Beep! Everyday people around the world drive to accommodate their busy schedule. With so many vehicles swarming the streets of the world there is bound to be consequences. Although it is impossible to understand how todays actions will affect the future. We can hypothesise that by reducing car usage we can preserve the world by lowering emissions and conserving resources, create stronger communities, and keep cities beautiful.

Today nations around the world are working to create communities that offer an enjoyable life without the use of a car. For example in Vauban, Germany a suburban community has made car use generally forbidden. if fact poeple themselves are pushing for a way to avoid cars. In article one it was reported that ""57 percent of vaughn's families sold a car to move to that community."" One mom reports how she enjoys to be able to walkdown the streets listening to the sound of children playingArticle 1. In America teenagers are driving later because they don't feel the need to drive. In article four Elisabeth Rosenthal has found that her children would rather find summer jobs that they can access without the use of car. In Bogota, Columbia the citizen have been enjoying the 118 miles of bicycle paths that have been in place since the mid1990s. Today they continue to be enthralled with a carless city with the pop ups of new parts and sport centers. now citizens can take a stroll and visit restaurants and upscale shopping districts all without the use of the carArticle 3. With the renewal of city centers the old life in suburbs has become less and less appealing.

Even more importantly reducing drivers would help preserve the world. the idea is that by limiting the cars on the road emissions can be brought down. in response to smog conditions Paris, France took the intuitive to issue a partial driving ban. Article 2 Paris bans driving due to smog explains how Paris went about this feat ""On Monday motorists with even numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fibne. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day."" During that week congestion was down 60 percent. they took this drastic approach because they were nearing the amount of smog in one ofthe most polluted city in the world, Beijing, China. According to article 4 recently in america researchers have found that the rate of car ownership is dropping. ""Many sociologists believe that is this pattern persists it wil have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of america's emissions""Article 4.

One thing is for certian the current trends is leading to less cars and the creation odf additional methods of transportation such as Ford and Mercedes who have already started to create a ""broader product range beyond the personal vechicle""Source 4. Although Bill Ford along with other car companies would suffer from the conversion he surprisingly has been pushing for a world without carsArticle 4. In fact at the mobile world Convention in 2012""Bill Ford laid outr a business plan for a world in which personal vechicle ownership is impractical or underirable. He proposed partening with telecommunications industry to create cities in which pedestrian, bibycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation office are woven into a connected network to save time, connserve resources, lower emissionsand imporve safetyArticle4.The world is certianly moving toward a world were car emissions are reduced, life is more enjoyable, and world city maintian their charm. By invovling yourself in this new type of world you are ensuring that future generations get to experience the same beuatiful world that exists today. There are big plans for this world join them.",0
52fe7d33,0,"My fellow citizens, allow me to make an urgent announcement. Stop with the constant use of cars. It's damaging not only us, but the environment. We live in world where cars are now becoming a major trend, and we're driving them more and more. If we keep drawing that pattern, we won't have a stable world to live in.

I'm not saying to completely stop using your vehicles, although we might see a larger change than expected, what I'm saying is to manage your car usage wisely. Every time we pick up the keys, start our engine and take off to the nearest grocery store, we add a larger threat to the environment. In paris Bans Driving Due To smog by Robert Duffer, it informs of the enforcement France is taking to clean up it's polluted cities. Duffer shows us how ""the smog"" that invades the city became a rival to Beijing, China, which is known as the most polluted cities in the world. Imagine going outside to see the beautiful sun, and instead open the door to cars delivering blinding ""smog."" We can't allow ourselves to become the most polluted cities, and the first step is to manage ourselves with our cars.

There's some of us who suffer from stress and anxiety. There's some of us who look at our community and are probably never wanting to go outside again. That is not a community to live in. We deserve to feel relieved, relaxed, and renewed from time to time. In carFree Day Is Spinning Into a Big Hit in bogota by Andrew Selsky, it demonstrates a perfect example. Selsky writes about a ""CarFree"" day in Bogota, Columbia, and a man shares his side of this event. Carlos Arturo Plaza tells us, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air polluton."" Selsky writes in paragraph 28 the benefits of this event. He writes, ""Parks and sport centers bloomed... Dramatically cut traffic... New restaurants and shopping districts developed."" Look what we can accomplish from not using our cars as much.

We're in a time where money is the top priority in our lives. All those gas prices, and the car insurance car owners must pay is ridiculous. Sometimes people can't even sleep at night due to all the thinking of ""how will I pay this?"", or ""how will I pay that?"" It later becomes a constant battle. This is when technology comes in handy. Now with the common ""Facebook"" and other social media, we're able to connect more and more. It's sad to see people waste their money going to a friends house for probably an hour or so, when they can just talk virtually. Elisabeth Rosenthal, writer of 'The End of Car Culture,' most likely will agree with me. Rosenthal inputs Mimi Sheller's say in all this. Sheller is a sociology professor at Drexel University, and she cites important factors on paragraph 35. ""Internet makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends."" Why drive and pay for gas when you can get on the web? You'll be glad you did.

Now, many will be able to disagree with me saying that, ""we need cars to drive long distances,"" or, ""I rather pay and have my own privacy then be with twenty people I don't know on a bus."" That's fine. I'm not saying to wipe out the fact that you have a car, all I'm saying is to use it wisely. Drive long distances, not short ones that can take you ten minutes to walk. ""What about the people who work in car companies?"" Well, if we all followed what Bogota is doing and develop shopping districts and renewal companies, I'm sure there will be many jobs available. No matter the pay, you'll still have no worry about your automobile bills, which will help you save a huge amount of money. We need to save ourselves from driving and polluting the earth, or else we won't have a great life to live. Blinding smog will cover the sky, and many won't be able to enjoy the rich outside there once was. All we will see are streets instead of parks. We need to stop ourselves from driving too much in order to live to the fullest.",0
53393dbd,1,"Every 4 years, the first Tuesday in November. When its time for it, president elections is one of the most hectic times of the year. But what should the winner depend on? Electoral College should be removed by the government and just have popular vote be responsible. Electoral College can have electors go on the opposite candidates side so they lost a vote, which is just wrong. This argumentative essay will argue why Electoral College should be taken out by government.

One may say that Electoral College is the best system for voting, but then again that may just be the cheaters. Electoral College believers think that having electors go on either side to let one candidate win, is right. ""Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by popular vote..""Posner. So these Electoral College followers agree with the electors actually selecting the winner because they don't have to do anything. People can just sit back and watch the electors take the power, while the others do nothing but be slumps. In source one, the Office of the Federal Register mention that ""when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors."", which means that if voters have friends in the position of an elector, voters might just vote for the elector because theres nothing else to really pay attention to.

Even though there are people who support the Electoral College, there are many people who are against it. In source three, Posner states ""it is the electors who elect the president, not the people.""If one has gone through an election, theres a long process and hassle of being able to vote, but if people go through the craziness to vote, why not make the vote count?""""Faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please.""Plumer, paragraph 11. Not only are voters wasting their time to vote but the electors cheat. For example, if one candidate has the urge to win, they will send one of their electors to be on the opponents side so the opponent loses a vote that they believed would be theres. Electoral College also may not be fair to those in a small state. ""a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does..."", as said by Posner. Its not fair that even the people who vote from a small state, won't really get recognized because there are bigger states to overrule, and even then, the electors will still choose who they desire. Electoral College is an unfair, and a cheating way to vote.

To conclude the argument, Electoral College should forsure be removed. Citizens favor popular vote over an electors vote. Candidates and voters enter a whole different threshold to express their political preferance. Why should the government even have voting if there really not truly being seen in the correct way. Citizens want to take a stand and vote in what the mind believes in. Take out Electoral College, and let the voters vote, actually count.",0
534e6fd0,1,"To the senator of the state of Florida you have asked us to write a letter explaining why we believe in keeping the Electoral College and the answer to that is no we should not how many votes have gone to waste because of this unfair system? and wasn't the United States a democratic country? we as citizens deserve to atleast pick who runs our country, By having this system you are not giving us the right to vote if you think about it, like Bob Dole once said ""Abolish the Electoral College!"".

I believe, that this way of running presidential elections should be thought about more. You do realize people stand HOURS not a couple minutes or 20 minutes hours waiting and thinking that they are going to actually pick the president they believe this country needs when in reality you are actually picking electors that may or may not help you elect the president that you picked. ""What is the Electoral College"" By the Office of the Federal Register explains in detail much more about the electoral college and like he said ""You help choose your state's electors when you vote for president because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors."" We as citizen should have the right to pick our leader the one that will help us overcome our problems not some candidates.

For instance, Let's take the 2000 gallop poll also called the ""Biggest election crisis in a century"" by Bradford Plumer in his story ""The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defense of the system are wrong"" Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency all together and we found that out thanks to the quirks of the electoral college. Do you imagine how many presidents that must have happened to? it is like when you are first place in a race your close to the finish line, you can feel your legs giving up on you but you don't stop you keep going because you know your gonna win after all you are the first one, you're so close your about to step on the line when boom! the person that was behind you caught up and well.. you lost. Can you imagine how many votes have just gone to waste and how many hours in peoples days.

However, Some of our best presidents have gotten picked by the Electoral College there is no doubt in that. But it still does not change the fact that its an unfair system, the story by Richard A. Posner ""In defense of the electoral college:Five reasons to keep our despised the method of choosing the President"" explains that ""As we saw in 2012 elections.. Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign to really listen to the competing candidatesknowing that they are going to decide the election."" What he is saying is thta basically some states do not even have billboards! how are we suppose to feel like citizens when you don't give us atleast a poster to know who is running for president? The big states get the most candidates ofcourse so basically, one states could decide who wins. The system has UNFAIR written all over it and we are all just waiting for you to see it.

In the end, It is the congress decision, But we do hope you look at these letters and realize how this is taking our rights away, how many votes have not even counted, and how selfish the whole system is. I do hope you take in my letter into consideration and decide the best decision for us. But please do remember that Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, The U.S Chamber of Commerce and the AFLCIO said "" Abolish the Electoral College!"".",0
5350394f,0,"To start, people use cars everyday to go to work, drive their kids to school, or just going out somewhere. Some people instead of using a car to get somewhere in close distance they ride a bike or walk there. Like poeple use cars for long distances like going to work, visiting someone that might live in a different county than you. Limiting car usage is an advantage because it allows you to get more exercise, doesn't cause more pollution, and causes less traffic on the road.

Moreover, limiting car usage is an advantage because it allows you to get more exercise. When you need to go to a store thats right down the street, instead of taking a car jog, walk, or ride a bike over there so you can get a breathe of fresh air. Walking to the store to get a few things allows you to stay in shape and not get tied down or lazy. When you drive a car your sitting down the whole time and not really moving besides moving your foot back and forth for the gas and brake, and moving your arms to turn the steering wheel. If you sit around all day and watch TV or you work all day and you have to sit down to work, walking somewhere instead of driving loosens up your legs because you've been sitting all day long.

Continuing, limiting car usage is an advantage because it keeps you from letting more pollution into the air from the smoke of your exhaust. Every day there is a ton of smoke from cars exhaust going to the air and polluting it even more. Smoke from cars exhaust has made most of the ozone layer around the Earth disappear because the smoke has rotted it away. The summers have been hotter and the winters have been extremely cold, record breaking almost every year because the ozone layer can't protect us from that as well anymore. Breathing in the smoke from cars exhaust isn't good for us either because it goes into our lungs. Breathing in smoke into your lungs can give a person cancer possibly.

Nevertheless, limiting car usage is an advantage because it causes less traffic. There is always an accident on the highway, side street, and neighborhood everyday because of traffic. When your in traffic its usually stop and go and someone might not brake in time or expect it and slam right into the back of you without you knowing and give and injury or kill you because of the traffic. Some people are very tense behind the wheel of a car and the slights little thing can startle them and make them have an accident. Some people get annoyed sitting in traffic and try to race through it at high rates of speed and maybe loose control and crash into someone. You hear about car accidents injuring people every day on the news because of traffic, most of the time its on the highway.

Without a doubt, limiting car usage is an advantage because it allows you to get more exercise, it keeps you from putting more pollution into the air, and causes less traffic on the road.

For those people who live close to a school, store, or work, take a bike or walk there instead using a car. Another plus to walking or riding a bike instead of driving is you will be saving money because you won't have to pay for gas.",0
53d22c47,0,"Going place to place in a car is surely the fastest way possible, compared to taking a crowded bus or train. Having your own car is very wonderful, you get to have the space to yourself no noisy people around you, you can turn the music all the way up if you wanted to. Yes, all that's great for you but, have you thought about the consequences? Well, not consequences per say but there are bad side effects to having a car. The biggest reason being is that heavy car usage can pollute the air and harm the environment as well as yourself. Some people think that cars aren't the biggest reason as to why the air is polluted, and use that as an excuse to keep driving. ""The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" quoted from source 2. The smog that was mentioned was from the over usage of cars in Pairs, smog that heavy could be toxic and very bad for your health. Heavy car usage does pay a strong role in the pollution that we have. Since most people who have a car use it all the time, I could just imagine how bad the air is right now.

Due to the high smog levels in Paris they had to put a ban on using cars, and if someone were to use their cars they would be charged a 22euro fine which is 31 USD. This ban was later lifted to oddnumbered plates when the smog cleared enough. Pairs wasn't the only one to ban cars. As quoted from source 1 ""VAUBAN, GermanyResidents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up their cars."" In Vauban, Germany they have completly taken away cars! Unlike some people who can't live without their car for more than 2 days, A whole community has been without one for much longer. "" when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way' said Heidrun Walter,"" quoted from source 1. Without a car they have nothing to worry about and in term live much happier lives, they also save up money since they don't have to pay for gas, doesn't that sound good? Now, you don't have to go to the extremes of giving up your car completly but limiting the amount of times you use your car would be a fantastic start and if everyone around the world limits the amount of time they use their car by half, even by a quarter, the air around us would be much more clean and happy.

Alternatives other than using your car can be going on a train or bus, and yes I know I said that they can be a little unappealing, but I rather suffer a couple of minutes on a bus or train than having the long term effects of a polluted environment. Don't like the idea of going on public transportation? How about car pooling? If your friend wants you to drop them off somewhere that's on your way to work anyhow, give it to them, beats having them drive their car and get more pollution in the air. As stated in Source 4 ""I was curious about what kind of car people drove, but young people don't really car. A car is just a means of getting from A to B when BART doesn't work."" BART is reffering to the Bay Area Rapid Transit. As you can see, even young people would rather take public transportation if available.

Cutting down car usage can also mean you get to go out for more walks than usual! Walking is very important for your health but also for the environment, since of course, walking doesn't cause pollution. As stated in source 3 ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" This all happend in Bogota, Colombia ever since their ""Day Without Cars"" started, their community and outdoor lives have improved dramatically. Walking can give you a chance to get some fresh air and cool your minds off things you might be dealing with. If you don't want to walk alone, walk with a friend and get to know each other better, don't just sit in a car talking on the phone with them, cars have made people less interactive. Invite your friends to go out walking with you, to a park, to the mall maybe catch a movie, or something else along those lines. Not only walking, but biking or skatebording can be a fun alternative, distract your mind with other activities or find a fun and enjoyable way for you to get you fom one place to the next, without the use of a car!

""But America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. When adjusted for population growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily thereafter."" quoted from source 4. This is an amazing start for us in the US, we are slowly growing away from cars, or well, we seem to be a little less interested in them than we were years ago! We still have a long way to go, but, I strongly believe that going without cars or using cars less is a real benefit to our society, and to us as individuals.",0
53e28f47,0,"In the past, the act of driving was a mandatory ability to possess, but as time progresses, the use of personal cars is declining. The decrease of drivers can be attributed to several events, one such event being the large quantity of greenhouse gas emissions caused by vehicles, especially cars. With society shifting to become less car centered, communities are adjusting accordingly, becoming more compressed to enable walking to ones workplace or a store. Additionally, the lowered use of cars results in a greater usage of more physical methods of transit, such as riding a bike or skating to a destination while saving the money that would have been spent on maintaining a car.

Pollution is an important issue on a global scale, having the potential to drastically impact the lives of both humans and other life forms. A large amount of pollution brings negative health effects upon most living creatures, making it essential to reduce pollution levels for the betterment of the environment. Some may think that cars don't have a large influence on pollution, but ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States,"" Rosenthal Paragraph 5. Automobiles are responsible for a large portion of greenhouse gasses, as ""transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants,"" Rosenthal Paragraph 34. The enormous amount of pollution in some areas of the world even resulted in temporary bans of personal vehicles to reduce the smog, and at one point ""Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city,"" Duffer Paragraph 10. As a result of this temporary ban in the previously smog filled city of Paris, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France,"" Duffer paragraph 14.

In order for society to shift away from the use of personal vehicles, distances between destinations must be reduced. There are experimental communities to test the effects of more compact cities, the most drastic being a Vauban, Germany, a suburb without cars. ""Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life,"" Rosenthal paragraph 6. These compacted cities have homes and stores placed close to one another, eliminating the necessity for a car or other vehicle. ""In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway,"" Rosenthal paragraph 6. Life within a smaller community saves the residents a lot of time which would have otherwise been spent on lengthy commutes. Additionally, through living in a less spread out society, people are more connected to one another, better learning their neighbors who are closer, while developing a deeper feeling of a community, by living in a closeknit zone. This reduction or even elimination of personal vehicle usage would enable more funds to be put toward public transport or pavement, as opposed to the current setup where ""80 percent of appropriations have by law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport,"" Rosenthal paragraph 9.

Not only does the reduction of car use have environmental, time, and societal benefits, but there are also health as well as economic benefits to be wrought from avoiding car use. When not using a personal vehicle for transportation, other methods must be applied to reach a destination. Among these methods there are choices of public transportation, riding a bike, hiking, skating, and more. By not taking a vehicle and instead commuting by foot or bike, the commuters health improves as a result of the exercise. Many claim that traveling by other methods than a car reduces stress, one such testamony coming from businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza: ""'It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,'"" Selsky paragraph 24.

In addition to health benefits, there are also economic benefits, as there is no need to maintain a car when one is not in use.

In conclusion, there are various benefits to not using a car.",0
540af857,1,"I believe that the electoral college is an outdated system of voting, and that we should get rid of it. If we removed the electoral college, votes could be counted much quicker, and more accurately. Our system now is outdated, and needs to be replaced with something different.

The electoral college was established in a time where technology was very primitive, and votes had to be taken as a general consensus, because counting hundreds of thousands of votes would take a large amount of time and was impractical. In current time though, counting single votes is much faster and accurate than going through the process of the electoral college. A large poll could be taken that digitally stores the votes of citizens quickly and safely. The electoral college is not very accurate either. For example, as stated in source 2, Al Gore won the popular vote, but loss due to the way that the electoral college works. Many citizens feel as if their vote doesn't matter, because they aren't directly voting for a candidate, they're voting for electors that will vote for a candidate.

The thought that in a democracy, that the voting system that we use to pick our ""leader"" is a winnertakeall ideology is absurd. If we are to keep the electoral college, we must change the way that the electoral vote system works. We must change it so that it is no longer winnertakeall, and make it so that a certain percentage of votes goes the party that the vote is for. For example, if 50% of people voted for rodney, and 50% voted for Obama, we should split the electoral votes right down the middle, so that the amount of electoral votes a candidate gets reflects their popular vote. Many presidents focus on larger states, which is understandable due to the fact that they have more votes, but if we change the way that the votes work, the candidate that focuses on many smaller states can stand a chance in the election.

So as you can see, if we want our future presidents to be elected fairly, our voting system must change. Whether it is completely taking away the electoral college, or just changing the way that electoral votes are counted, there must be a change. I don't think that you want to see the candidate that you voted for to lose as Al Gore did back in 2000.",0
5412a432,1,"Dear Mr. Senate, I believe that we should change the Electoral College to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. I think we should change it because it's unfair to voters, you can't trust that the electors will vote for who you want to vote for, and then there is the disaster factor'.

First off, the Electoral College is unfair to voters. As Bradford Plumer pointed out in the article, The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,""The electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning,focusing only on the tight races in the 'swing' states.""So basically what he is saying is that if one state already has a lead and the candidate has no chance of winning he isn't going to focus on them. The candidate is only going to focus on the states where he has a chance of swinging the vote towards himhence the term swing states.For example during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all.

Second of all, you cant trust that the electors that you vote for are going to vote for the president you want. For example, what if you want to vote for Obama and so you vote for the elector that says he will vote for Obama, but then when its time to vote the elector changes his mind and she votes for rodney instead. Now what? You put your trust in one person and she didnt vote for who you wanted. Now you might have to wait another four years to have a chance of getting a different president.

Last but not least, one of the single best arguments against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor'. In the article, The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,it states,""Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people. Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. In the same vein, faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please."" The oppsong claim states that we should keep the electoral college. Some reasons stated in the article, In Defense of the Electoral COllege: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President,are,""A dispute over the outcome of an ELectoral College vote is possibleit happened in 2000 but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The Electoral Colllege requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. The winnertakeall method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidatesas we saw in 2012's election to focus their campaign efforts on the tossup states. The elctoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states by population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution. The electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast.",0
5418f03d,1,"I believe that my state senator should remove the electoral colleges. To change the election by popular vote for the president of the United States. For the fact that voters vote not for the president but for a slate of electors. Who can always defy the will of the people. It should also be removed because its simply unfair to the voters. There votes may or may not be counted or may vote for the wrong person or opposite party. Also the problem comes up that the candidates do no go to there state thus never seeing them.

To began with I believe we should remove the Electoral Colleges. For the reason that voter are not voting but for a slate of electors. Who then elect the president, for example ""if you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for John Kerry. You'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry.""qoute form source 2 Those 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry may not win the statewide election. The voters also are not always able to control who there electors vote for. ""Legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" qoute form source 2. So there a chance they may change there mind and the president they wished to win may not win because the legislatures do not have to vote in there favor. In some case seventeen states didn't even see the candidates at all. Some states including Rhode Island and South Carolina, ""and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" Also another reason why we should remove the Electoral Colleges is for the reason that voters may become confuse and vote for the wrong person.

furthermore we should remove the Electors Colleges, because its unfair to the voters. For example the winner takes all system in each state. Candidates don't spend times in the states they know they have no chance winning. ""It can be argued that the Electoral college method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state."" qoute from source 3. But then what happens to the people in that wants to vote for them but can't because there votes go toward a slate of electors that votes for the other party. They focus on the swing states mostly. For Instance a Presidential race that happen were the electoral votes caused a certain party to win was. In 2000 U.S. presidential race, Al Hore received more in dividual votes than George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266. The electoral votes need to be removed because it causes problems in elections which makes any side able to win even though they don't have more individual votes. Another example is ""Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast on him."" qoute from sorce 3. Study shows that 60% of voters would prefer a direct election rather then what they have now.

On the other hand having the electoral votes may not be such a bad thing. The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. The Electoral College also restore some of the weight in the political balance that large states. If you elect a good representive that you believe, and trust that will vote to your liking. Someone that would not turn his back on the will of the people then it would not be that bad. The process they go throught maybe difficult and hard to understand. So it could be a good thing they take the hard work off our backs and do it for us to save us the time and hardwork. The Electoral Colleges requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal rather then a single region appeal.

To conclude I believe that my state senator should remove the electoral colleges. To change the election by popular vote for the president of the United States. For the fact that voters vote not for the president but for a slate of electors. Who can always defy the will of the people. It should also be removed because its simply unfair to the voters. There votes may or may not be counted or may vote for the wrong person or opposite party. The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational.",0
5464f4d5,1,"I think the Electoral College should stay, because even if its ""indefensible"", ""corrupt"", ""Despised"" the Electoral College has its outcomes Big States, RunOffs and Presidential desputes. Its a process, Are own founding fathers who where enlightment thinkers, who thought more then what was written on the script. They thought outside the box, they wanted to know the ""why"" and how it will affect and how to bring this nation to its highest. Placing it in the constitution, knowing this method will do justice on future on elections. Its one of the best laid method in the world and removing it will just imbalance everything.

In the United States, each states has a majority and majority. Where people consist the most is by the coast, west and east. Its in are human nature, its been around for ages that humans live more on coastal or river areas. Any area where it consist of water,Harbor and trading routes. They receive the most of products around the world, and maintain abandons of humans. So the bigger states are California, Florida, NY, Virgina, Texas and etc. The electoral votes restores the balance. In campaigns propaganda is used alot. commercials, ads, anything they can publish themselves to show and persuade the people in elections. larger states gets more attention from presidential candidates then smaller states. Smaller states in the middle of the U.S consist of small populations so with electoral votes the weight using the population census lose by the virtue of malAppointment of the senate. Its all about propaganda that presidential campaigners use to get the big states attention cuase that where the points are at.

Electoral College avoids problem with runoffs in which no candidate receives a majority vote cast, which is the popular vote. Presidential desputes occur when a campaigner manipulates the people with spitting out promises in Propaganda ads, winning the popular vote. But with electoral college, you have a second chance to look closely on whats happening. With electoral college and electing a president you need a system. If the majority of the states and senate are republican and the president is a democrate the two partys arnt gonna agree on anything. Desputes will occure and in 4 years the country will accomplish nothing. With electoral college theres a balance of votes, each states gets there political party they voted on and it evens out when the day comes. Voting is important cuase your choosing whos gonna lead your country for the next four years and electoral college opens up many doors that will help you analysis better in whats occuring and your setting up your country system.

The electoral college may have its problem buts a system that will carry out the nation longer without many torubles then without it. Are founding fathers knew what they where doing, they thought big the U.S and look where the U.S is now. One of the strongest nation in the world, thanks to the system they created and left us.",0
5499a934,0,"Their are so many advantages of limiting car usage, for example having no car might even make someone happy, Heidrun Walter says ""When i had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Also driving cars can cause a lot of pollution, passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of the green house gas emissions in Europe. France had intense smog because of vehicles, it went 60 percent down after five days of no vehicle use.

Another benefit of no vehicle usage is instead of driving a car, you can go hiking, biking, skating , or take buses to your destination. ""It's a good way to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a two seat bicycle with his wife. The day without cars has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, which is the most of any other Latin American city. Parks and sports centers bloomed throughout the city on the day without cars in Bogota.

Also, in the United States Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses. Instead of driving vehicles to work, one can carpool with a workmate. New York has a new bike sharing program anits skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect new priorities, swell as carsharing programs across the nation. Driving by young people decreased 23 percent as of 2001 to 2009.

Even though driving a car might get you to your destination quicker, it is better to go on a train, bike, skate, bus, taxi, carpool, or even walk because when you use a car too much you pollute the Earth. Biking, skating, and walking can also be fun sometimes, so stop driving a car and do something more alternative and less air pollution, save the Earth.",0
551f7de2,0,"Decreasing car usage would serve as a benefit to our communities and environment. Many countries are already being influenced by the new trend. As proven that without cars we could provide ourselves with cleaner air, physically healthier bodies and a more pleasant social atmosphere.

With the purchase of a car comes the consequences to our only environment. In ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", it is shown that ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50% in some carintensive areas in the United States"". If we started to limit car usage these numbers could drop giving us cleaner air to breathe and a longer lasting environment. Some heavily populated cities such as Beijing, China are so polluted that there is a smog covering the entire city. The thick, grey cloud over Beijing is caused primarily by the greenhouse gas emissions from cars and various other pollution sources. Not only is Beijing to be held accountable but also cities in Europe such as Paris. From source 2, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", it is said that ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals"", because of the over usage of diesel fuel vehicles Paris had to put a hault to motorists for a few days. If Parisians were not complient with the ban they were fined with 22.

Giving up your vehicle for a day or two may seem like an impossible task but if you were not to have it there would be health benefits. We created the car for a reason, to get places quicker, safer, and more efficiently. Now that we successfully done that and have been doing it for quite some time, we have become much too dependent on them. I'm not saying to completely give up the usage of our beloved vehicles but just become more aware of when and where to we use them. If people used their cars a little less and started walking places, biking, skateboarding, etc. we would have a much healthier community. People wouldn't be so lazy or unfit and it would create a more sociable community.

Limiting car usage would enhance the idea of being social with your friends, family, a neighbor, or anybody for that matter. You could see more people walking down the street as opposed to being inside a car with a limited number of people. It would break down barriers of being afraid if you are walking alone, instead you'd have plenty of around who are mostly aware of their environment.

Car usage should be decreased a bit more than it is now for a better community and environment. We only have one planet and we should do as much as possible to try and keep it as clean as possible for as long as possible.",0
553b7a52,0,"Driving cars may seem like the best way to get from point A to point B, and in many ways, it is. Cars are fast, they are comfortable, and they can fit multiple people. The auto industry is big because of these factors. Though studies show that cars, may not be the best option for the environment and therefore, ourselves.

There is a city in Germany, Vauban. This city is almost completely devoid of cars. How do they do it? Well most of them ride bikes, or simply walk. If there is a distance to far for biking or walking, there is also a tram that runs through the city. The people who live in this city seem to be incredibly happy ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier now"" Source 1 says Heidrum Walter, citizen of Vauban. This trend of separation from automobiles is happening not only in europe, but everywhere in the world. The EPA is advocating ""car reduced communities"" in the United States. The world is changing ""All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change"" Source 1 The benefit of going carfree, goes beyond making people happier, it might even save the human race. Global warming is a major problem. Though an even bigger problem, is that most people in the US do not believe that global warming even exists. One way that scientists know that global warming is happening, is by looking in the ice of the artic. By drilling deep holes in the artic, scientists can extract tubes of ice millions of years old. Just how you can tell how old a tree is by counting its rings, you can tell how old ice is by doing the same thing. When scientists tested the amount of Co2 in a sample of ice that was formed 50 years after the industrial revolution, then compared it to the level of Co2 in a tube of ice 50 years before the industrial revolution. They saw a remarkable increase in Co2 levels after the industrial revolution. Many people do not know, but mercury looked a lot like earth a billion or so years ago. Now mercury is a desolated wasteland, thanks to the amount of volcanos spewing Co2 into the atmosphere. A similar phenomena is happening all over the world in places like Paris and China. Paris' pollution was so bad, that they had to ban driving for a couple days ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine"" Source 2 In Bagota, Columbia, people take part in a carfree day in order to reduce smog. ""Millions of Columbians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday"" Source 3 This is another example of people taking the initiative to give up cars, even if its only for one day.

People are finally staring to realize that cars cause pollution to the Earth. Even the president is backing the cause, which honestly might be why more people have not accepted global warming as a fact. The level of driving has decreased over the years ""As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995"" Source 4 It is fantastic to know that people are finally embracing science as something to learn from, and not something to fear. What we all need to realize is that, our planet will live on millions of years after we are gone. We are not saving our planet by preventing global warming, we are saving ourselves.",0
553fd04a,1,"Electoral college... what a compromise! the electoral college should be removed and replaced by the popular vote for the president because our votes don't really count and the electors are not always fair.

In the passage it had said ""you help choose your state's electors when you vote for the president because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate electors."" This means our votes are not really counting. The state electors are the ones who are actually selecting the president for us. Candidates don't spend time in states that they have no chance of winning. Putting the fate of presidency in the hands of a few swing votes is ridiculous. The electoral college is irrational and doesn't show much of reality. Some people tend to lose interest in the president's because of the way they feel about their votes. Thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election and vote directly instead for representatives to do so. People have refused to vote for party candidates and wan't to cast a vote for whomever they please. There are over sixty percent of people that would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now.

Another reason why electoral college should get replaced is because it is not fair sometimes. ""can voters control whom their electors vote for? not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? sometimes."" This is the disaster factor, it is hardly expected to reflect on the will of the people. A large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than small states do. At times a presidents can have more popular votes and the other less fewer electoral votes and the one with the popular votes lose and that only happened once. In run off elections if people know that their vote will not have an effect and think its unfair than they have less incentive to pay attention to any campaign than they would if the president were picked by popular votes. Potential voters will turn off the electoral method if they know a candidate has not hope of building up their state.

That is why electoral votes should be replaced with popular votes for the president because most of the time our votes do not count and it is unfair to us.",0
555f9607,0,"Have you ever seen a smog cloud before? Or even been a city that has a really high level of it? It's typically caused by the vehicles, and how much that they're used in the area that you happened to be in. There are some places that have days where your not aloud to drive. There are some places that people don't even own cars, and places where people only go by bus, bike, car pooling, or train. But there is one thing we notice about all of these people, and the places that they live in when they have people consistently going by other means, and not using their car. It's been a problem that has been up in the air for the longest time, and people are starting to do something about it, and probably without even knowing it.

The city of Vauban, Germany is pretty normal. it consist of normal homes, normal people, and just normal everyday life. Except for two things. ""vaughn's streets are completely ""carfree""except the main thoroughfare"" paragraph 2, Source 1. Even if you owned a car, ""there are only two places to parklarge garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for fortythousand dollars, along with a home"" paragraph 2, Source 1. The other crazy thing about this town is that Vauban is ""home to five thousandfive hundred residents within a rectangular square mile "" paragraph 6, Source 1. Their town is free of the green house emissions that are caused by passanger cars. It's there way of smart planning, and other cities are starting to try to find ways to become cleaner, and better at being somehow like Vauban. People here say that it reduces the stress of driving, and traffic jams, and makes life simply easier by not driving. But imagine if you were banned from driving in a place where you were used to driving everyday.

Paris decided that ""after days of nearrecord pollution, they would enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"" paragraph 10, Source 2. some 4,000 drivers were given a fine of thirtyone dollars, and there were twentyseven cars impounded due to disobeying the ban. however, after 5 days of this ban going in to effect, ""Congestion was down sixty percent in the capital of france"" paragraph 14, Source 2. The people driving isn't really the problem, it's the fact that ""France has a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline"" paragraph 16, Source 2 and they're saying that becuase it makes up such a higher percentage of vehicles in France compared to the rest of Western Europe that it's causing their smog levels to go up higher as well. Gradually the smog lifted off of the city of paris, and they were finally able to start letting certain amounts of cars back on the road without fines. There are some places that they have days that are car free?

In the LatinAmerican city of Bogota, they have a day that's carfree. ""Millions of columbians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work"" paragraph 20, Source 3. They only face a small fine of twentyfive bucks if they decide to drive, but msot people don't have to worry if they don't have a bike or don't want to walk. Buses and taxis are still aloud on the roads. Even on the days where ""gray clouds dumped occasional rain showers on Bogota, the rain hasn't stopped people from participating"" paragraph 2223, Source 3. It's not just 5,500 people who don't do it, there are seven million people in the capital city who don't drive. It's been going on since the 1990s. The city has planned, and made efforts to have these days so that they can also take part in the reductin of the emiisions of green house gases. ""The city has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths and uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth ones"" paragraph 2728, Source 3. Many places are trying to encorporate designs in to their cities to do these things, and to become better at traveling in means other than your personal vehicle. but even without our knowledge, people are starting to limit car usage without being told to, it's just inch by inch.

People are beggingin to drive less, and ""America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling"" paragraph 32, Source 4. however in the past few years, americans have bught fewer cars, and ""the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and has dropped steadily therafter"" paragraph 32, Source 4. reseachers are intrigued that car ownership per household had gone down, three to four years before they noticed this. This pattern continuing, which they believe it will, would ""have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the enviroment"" paragraph 34, Source 4. Other odd things have changed too. ""There has been a large drop in the percentage of sixteen to thirtynine year olds gettign a license. ""A study last year found that driving by young people decreased twentythree percent between 20012009"" paragraph 41, Source 4. Plans are being put in action to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, and to put more ways into cities for people to travel alternatively to their normal going by car. The way that we're building cities, new suburbs, and things like that are beginning to incorporate other ideas from around the world to help not just everyone including yourself, but also the enviroment itself.

Meeting new people really isn't all that bad, and traveling by bus, train, transit, taxi, car pooling, bicycling, tram, trolley, walking, skating or even the interesting inventions we see by people all the time. There are many different ways that you can avoid having to drive your own car. It isn't a hassle. It's also a stress reliever, and helps you not get worried about how your going to avoid that five o'clock rush hour traffic jam that you have to sit and yell at people in. Not only does it probably save you money not having to buy gas every couple of days, it also helps you and the enviroment. Breathing cleaner air helps you to live longer than breathing air that has all that smog, and nastiness in the air. Your city is only a step in a new direction, and it's only a matter of how you want to do it. There's optoins, like you hear in the insruance commercials, that you can take and be just fine. There's a lot of advantages to the limiting of car uses, and the carfree days. It's just on you whether or not you want to take that route, make a change in your daily habit, and find that simple way to limit your car usage.",0
558eab79,1,"Presidential elections provides the United States of America with an opportunity of unification. The process of choosing the next leader of the United States always brings the people of the country together knowing that all of them play a role in the election. This is present in the popular vote, a vote consisting of the general population. However, the popular vote is not always accurate, as anyone of any background can vote as long as they hold proper citizenship. The electoral college on the other hand, is a process that serves as a compromise between Congress and the rest of America. The fact of the matter is, the electoral college is beneficial to the presidential election because it unifies Congress and the people of America, and is part of the country's roots.

To begin with, the electoral college, more than anything, unifies the people. The electors were once, as everyone in the nation is, an average citizen. According to Bradford Plumer the electors chosen, ""...depend on the state. Sometimes state conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates themselves."" On top of that Bradford identifies the electors as, ""...anyone not holding a public office."". Bradford Plumer illustrates better than anyone that the electors chosen are average citizens who think the same as the rest of the general population while still keeping in mind that Congress must also be represented. Knowing this, the workingclass people of America, and Congress can rest easy knowing that the electoral college process will make the decision that is best for the nation as a whole. This decision making, whether directly or indirectly, unifies the country. In 2012 more than threefourth of the nation tuned in to watch the presidential election in the end being one of the most watched televised elections in the country's history. This number includes Congressmen. This shows that the decision making process of the electoral college brings all the people of the nation together to decide on the choosing of the countries next leader.

The general population, though average citizens, are somtimes not as qualified as Congress to make unbiased, beneficial decisions on behalf of the rest of the country. However, knowing that the next President could be a part of Congress, sometimes sways the decision in favor of a particular candidate. In this paradox of the qualification of Congress and the average citizen, the electoral college is used to fill the void. The electoral college has been used since the founding of the country. The founding fathers of America George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc.must have developed the electoral college process for some reason. According to the Office of the Federal Register, ""The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" More than anything the electoral college is a mutual and nuetral process that represents something inbetween the biased politics of Congress and the average citizen. The average working class person is the greatest example of American integrity. This person shows that in this great nation, if you set a goal and are willing to work to acheive that goal, it can be acheived. Why strip this moral that has represented the United States of America since its first years?

While there have been a few flaws in the electoral college throughout history, this decision making process still unifies the people of America and is still, most importantly, part of its roots. More than anything, the electoral college process represents the two sides of the country: Congress and the average working class citizen. So, rest easy knowing that the next election, there is a process between Congress and average working citizens that works to make the decision that is best for the people of this great nation, the United States of America.",0
5598a0a8,1,"Dear or. Senator, I believe that America should keep the Electoral College to elect the president of the United States. I believe this because the Electoral College makes a guaranteed outcome, it gives proper representation to big states, and the president has to have a transregional appeal.

The Electoral College has more of a certainty of outcome for an election. For example, in the 2012 election, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral votes a very convincing number but only 51.3% of the popular vote not as convincing. The Electoral College also avoids the problem of a tie in the votes. Even though the Electoral College has 538 votes, which would make it possible for a tie, it is very unlikely that there is a tie in the Electoral College. For example, Richard Nixon in 1968 only received 43% of the popular votes, but won 301237 in the Electoral College. Bill Clinton in 1992 had only 43% of the popular vote, but also won 370168. The pressure of a runoff election is reduced with the Electoral College.

The Electoral College gives the big states more representation than the smaller states. For example, Florida has 29 Electoral votes, while a state like Maine only has 4. In 2012, the popular vote was really close in Florida, but Obama won and got 29 electoral votes. If the same thing happened in Maine, the winner would only receive 3 Electoral votes. If America used the popular vote to decide who won, the win by a few votes would mean almost nothing, and the big states would have the same representation as the small states.

The president can't win the election by just winning one region of states. The Electoral College has made it that the candidate would have to have a transregional appeal. This is desirable for most people because a president that is only popular in one region, and not everywhere will not be a good president. This is why candidates don't campaign in places that they know they will win, and branch out to the swing states. These swing states basically decide the election. They are the states that do not favor either the democratic or republican candidate, so they have important votes. If swing states go one way, so will the election. This is why many candidates campaign in these Swing States.

As you can see or. Senator, the Electoral College is the best way to go for electing a new president. It has a more certain and guaranteed outcome than the popular vote, it gives more representation to the bigger states, and requires appeal from people all over America, not just people in one region.",0
559df96f,0,"People use them to commute around various locations and it releases harmful emissions. The object that is being referred to is a car, a car is beneficial but people should limit car usage because it cuts down on pollution of the atmosphere and it is not as bad as it seems to not use a car all the time, and limiting usage of cars is starting to trend.

Cars release green house gas emissions that affect the ozone layer of the atmosphere. that is a main cause as to why people shoul limit car usage. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog...the smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" as explained in the article Paris bans driving due to smog. This shows that smog is caused a good amount by cars and has affected major cities around the world. it also showed that when less usage of cars happened there was a 60 percent decrease in congestion which is a big percentile. in paragraph 5 of the article In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars.

it is explaining that automobiles are a big part of the suburbs and is a affect on the efforts to try in cut down on green house emissions of cars. its states in the article by Elisabeth Rosenthal, that ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of green house emissions in Europe.... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States. Some may argue that the percent of green house emissions produced by cars is not high, but in reality it is and the numbers keep rising. If people limit the use of automobiles the numbers can be cut down and reduce pollution in areas that have heavy amounts of smog, smog affects the health of people and is toxic. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" as atated in the article Paris bans driving due to smog this shows that driving is a major contributor to smog and can be reduced by people limiting the usage of cars.

limiting car usage is not so bad and can even promote a happier lifestyle as shown in the articles about limiting driving. ""when i had a car i was always tense. i'm much happier this way,"" said a media trainer and a mother of two whos statement is said in the article In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars.

This shows even when the people of the community of Vauban, Germany, experince a fortuitous life style. "" Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to seperate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a move,ent called ""smart planning"" as stated in the article In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars.

this shows that limiting car usage is a ""trend"" and it leads to a positive outcome that affects generations to come. People around the world are also taking up the movement of limiting car usage, in Bogotoa, Columbia a buisness man named Carlos Arturo said ""it's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" as referred to in the article Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota thsi shows that not only the advantages of limiting car usage is decrease in air pollution but can also benifiet the individual. 'If the pattern persistsand many sociologists believe it willit will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the enviroment."" as explained in the article The End Of Car Culture.

this is relatin to the pattern of how in America the buying of cars is going down since 2005. which as result of that ocurring has benifited or will benifiet the enviroment. This shows how more and more peole are traveling less by car.

The advantages of limiting car use far outway the disadvantages of not using a car. this means that people are duing more to commute less by car and more by eco friendly transportation like bikes. The limiting of car usage not only impact people now but will do so in the future of the world and if not changed will result in the mass pollution of the globe.",0
55a611ad,0,"In today's world, many of us see cars as a necessary tool used to get us where we need to go in the shortest time possible. However, what many do not realize is how much restricting our usage of the personal automobile will actually help society in the long run. Decreasing our usage of the car will not only cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, but will also improve congestion and see an a boost in the economy of cities and countries around the world.

There is no doubt that cutting down on driving will greatly reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. As detailed in ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, the effect of just one day of reduced driving played a significant impact on the amount of smog in Paris, France. The smog which covered the city of Paris rivaled that of Beijing, China, one of the most polluted cities in the world. The cause of the intense fog is thought to be diesel fuel, which is the most commonly used type of automobile fuel in France. Because of this, Paris has a very high smog concentration compared to other Western European capitals. The temporary ban on driving drastically improved the conditions in Paris, and the ban was lifted after only one day. If this idea of reducing the use of automobiles spreader to other cardependent countries such as the U.S., there is no telling how much the impact of society on the emission of greenhouse gasses will reduce.

Additionally, the increasingly popular idea of favoring walking or biking over driving to one's destination has seemed to have a significant impact around the world. In the passage ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky, the capital city of Bogota, Colombia has participated in the Day Without Cars program for three straight years. This has led to an increase in the creation of bicycle paths and cut down on congestion and traffic jams normally common in the city. In addition, the uprising of parks and recreation centers has also helped to boost the city's economy. However, this program has not been restricted to Bogota, as many people from countries around the world have come to see the event. This has the potential to become an internationally now phenomena, which will greatly improve the health and wellbeing of the people of the world. New bicycling opprotunities will mean no longer getting in traffic jams and will reduce stress and congestion in the long run.

In conclusion, the limiting of car usage would have a profound impact on our society, not only on pollution and the envorinment, but on our personal wellbeing. The limiting of our dependency on cars has had a great effect on the emission of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and smog has the potential to be removed from modern cities all together the economy would also benefit, as fewer cars means fewer roads needing to be built and an increase of bicycle trails, parks, and shopping centers in walking distance of neighborhoods. Overall, the limiting of car usage would have a fantastic impact on society and our world as a whole.",0
55ba6cf0,0,"The idea of a carfree life has become more appealing around the world. In the United States, South America and across Europe, they have developed new ways of transportation that seem to be more beneficial. In these sources they explain the many advantages of limiting car usage such as its better for the environment and people find more alternative ways of transportation easier and cheaper.

There are many benefits to limiting car usage and the first is it improves the environment. In Source 1, it says that reducing car usage would be, ""A huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe"". Passengers in Europe are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and 50 percent in the United States. ""All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change,"" said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America. In that change recently,there has been many efforts to promote ""car reduced"" communities. In Source 2, Paris shows that they have made improvements in banning driving on certain days of the week due to smog. That smog cleared enough for the people to drive on days they were allowed to.

The second benefit to limiting car usage would be that people find more alternative ways of transportation easier and they are happier. ""When i had a car iwas always tense. Im much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor. Many people expressed that other ways of transportation like biking or walking are much easier. In Source 3, it explains that Colombia has carfree days where they skate, bike, hike, or take buses instead. ""Its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife.

In Source 4, it says that because of other ways of transportation are easier and cheaper, ""Recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses each year."" It goes on to explain that ""Part of the explanation certainly lies in the recession, because cashstrapped Americans could not afford new cars, and the unemployed werent going to work anyway."" As more people become jobless, they find that taking buses or walking is much easier. That could be an advantage because Bill Ford, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company laid out a plan where cities in which ""pedstrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety."" In conclusion, there are many ways in limiting car usage can be benefical such as with the enviroment, to the people, and it can change in the way this world operates. Living a carfree life would soon be very desirable in this world soon.",0
55bbac4b,0,"there are many thing in life people want and need such as money, families and fame. but what people dont understand is that most of what they want is stuff they dont need and they would be better off without it. cars are beginning to be something people dont need. all it is doing is causing more problems then solutions. Major people are starting to notice,presidents and governments, and are acting apon it. limiting car usage would bring a lot of advantages such as more pocket money, more excrises and less harm to the earth acorrding to Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in bogota by Andrew Selsky, Paris bans driving due to smog by Robert Duffer and the end of car culture by Elisabeth Rosenthal.

Cars are defined as a motor veshel that provides fast transportation for more then one person at a time. thats what most people veiw it as, what that dont know and relize is that it give people a lot more stress to deal with because of either car payments, repairs, or even runing out of gas. acorrding to Heidrun Walter in the passage in german suburb, life goes on without cars she said that when she had a car she was always tense and now that she doesnt have a car sge is more relaxed and is better off without it. she doesnt have to pay for insurance, car payments, repairs on the car and not even gas. that will leave her with a lot of stress free moments.

cars do not only stress out people but they are pulloting the earth. almost all cars run on gas which is put in the car and releases pollution into the earth. paris had to enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air of pollution.... that is how much damage it is doing to the earth. it took five days the smog finally rivaled beijing, china which is know as one of the most pullated cities in the world. this could have made people go to the hospital because they could have gotten sick or even die from the pollution. many countries are banning cars for a couple of days each year because of this global problem. according to carfree day is spinning into a big hit in bogota in colombia they have a program that bans cars a for a day which leaves people to walk, hike or even bike to where they need to go. its a good way to take away stress and lower air pollution said carlos arturo plaza.

furthermore not only does it help the envirment for limting car usage and gives relief to peopl. it will also make people healther because they would then have to walk, ride or hike to work or any other place thay need to go. this will strength peoples bodies by doing everyday things more often. it would require more work to walk to a destiantion rather then to sit down in a car and press on the brake and gas pedal with our foot. limting car usage will not only make people helthier but it will make people less lazy. for example if a person was lazy and had no food in hisher house they would just easly get in there car and drive to a local fast food restruant to get food. on ther other hand if they did not have a car they would have to walk all the way to the grocery story burning off lots of caliores and buying lots more food rather then stoping at a fast food place just to get a quick meal.

in clonclusion limting car usage would be a more beifical thing to do rather then a problem due to the stress reilf, envimental saftey and healther citzens.",0
55c182da,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, We, the people of Florida are concerned about the Electoral College system. I am writing to you to explain our opinions on this way to elect our president. I believe that the Electoral College should not be used to choose the president of the United States because it lacks reasoning, it is unfair to voters, and disloyalty and mistakes can easily occur.

The Electoral College should be abolished due to the simple fact that many voters do not feel that is fair or have equality during the elections. In the article, The Indefensible Electoral College: Why Even the Bestlaid Defenses of the System Are Wrong, it states, ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't see a single campaign."" Various people do not have any connection with the candidates that have a chance to be in control of the country they live in. The candidates only worry about the tossup states, because they know in the other states they have no chance of winning, which is not fair for some areas and should be changed. States are forgotten and not considered, which is unacceptable when they live in a place of equality.

The abolishment of the Electoral College should occur, because it is irrational and lacks correct organization. When a tie occurs in the electoral vote, the election is dependent on the House of Representatives, therefore the state delegations vote on the candidates. With this said, representatives of small populated areas would have the equality of representatives in over populated states that include thirtyfive million voters. In addition there has been accidents where a candidate has more popular votes than his opponent but fewer electoral votes, therefore he does not win. The numbers are not put into thought.

Unlike the popular votes, disloyalty is a large problem and a possibility of the Electoral College system. The people are not voting for the president, instead they are voting for a slate of electors, who supposedly elect the president. The process is very disorganized, because all the states choose the electors differently and have no control of whom they are voting for. In the article, In Defense of the Electoral College, it states, ""But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed."" Its advocates realize the misloyality yet they ignore it. With the Electoral College there are many possibilities that the president elected did not win fairly or without contributing to their success.

The Electoral College has been used for several years, but there is a need for change. Its advocates claim that mistakes rarely occur and should not be abolished for those reason, but I belive they should still be put in consideration and not be ignored.",0
55da60a8,0,"Have you ever wondered what it would be like to live in a world with not a lot of car usage? Imagine never driving but walking or ridding a bike to any place you would want to go to. The mall, grocery store, movies all a small walking distance away. That would be great right? You'd be helping yourself and the world by making you fit and the world's pollution decrees. That sound interesting I feel like the world is slowly coming to a stopping point with car use.

A world with cleaner air is what we would have if everyone limited the use of their cars. According to "" In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal "" Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the united states."" The United States produces a greater amount of greenhouse gasses. If we limited the use of our cars the United States would have better air making the United States a better place to live. The United States has a very large number of people already pulling away from using cars. According to "" The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal."" Americans are buying fewer cars,driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" Cars are not needed for everyday use because people seem to get around greatly.

Limiting the use of you care can greatly help everyone. The United States has a very large amount of unhealthy people. People who don't get to walk or do fitness regularly to be able to stay healthy and fit. Having limited the use of your car it would as help you mentally. In the article ""In Germany Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal Heidrun Walter a mother of two says "" When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" If a mother of two says that not using her car makes her happier. In the article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota."" by Andrew selsky a businessman said "" It's a good way to take away stress and lower air pollution."" So if you ask me the would would be better without using cars everyday it's a win win situation.

People all around the world are taking part in limiting the use of cars. People from Colombia to Pairs to Germany. People all over the word are all trying to help out the world by limiting the use of cars. In the article "" Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky the author talks about how everyone took a ""car free"" This was Bogota's third straight year of no car day the only cars that were allowed to be on the road were those of busies or taxis. The violators that drove their car are faced with a fine of 25. In the text of ""The end of car culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal. She says that the worlds car culture is slowly coming to a end fewer people are getting their licenses and more are organizing their social lives and summer jobs around where they could was or take a buss to.

The world is on a better path with people trying to limit the use of their cars. The world gets better and so do you. In the articel ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota "" by Andrew Selsky says that the business in the small town have also boomed "" Parks and sports centers also have boomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rush hour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restraints and up scale shopping districts have cropped up."" So if everyone limited the use of their cars the everyone would win.",0
55de0e42,0,"There are many advantages of limiting car usage. Using cars less reduces pollution, stress, money spent on gas, and it also brings people together.

When people give up using cars they seem generally happier. Heidrun Walter states in In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars by Elisabeth Rosenthal, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" The community of Vauban is a closer community because they don't use cars. They have to walk everywhere so they're talking more with their fellow neighbors. People are creating stronger relationships with the people in their community which creates trust. Strangers are now becoming friends. Businesses are popping up in every corner. The economy is probably up as well as their happiness. The suburb of Vauban may only have 5,500 residents but those 5,500 people surely are more excited to start and continue their life than cities where people are constantly using cars and not talking to each other.

Cars cause so much pollution that huge cities, like Paris, have to have a partial driving ban to clear the air. Paris ordered vehicle users to leave their car at home on a certain day if they had an evennumbered license plate. Car pollution are ruining beautiful cities like Paris and Beijing. The warm days of Paris caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions according to Paris bans driving due to smog by Robert Duffer. By just not using cars for one day the smog cleared enough so the oddnumbered license plate users didn't have to leave their cars at home. Imagine if cars were banned once a week Paris and other cities might actually be able to breathe fresh air.

Bogota, Colombia is having an annual Day Without Cars, the only exception being buses and taxis according to Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota by Andrew Selsky. Columbians have stated that the day takes away stress as well as the obvious air pollution. Car traffic is decreased which would obviously decrease car accidents. Without using cars, people don't have the stress of having to pay for gas or if they're car breaks down. They can ride a bike and enjoy being outside instead of being in a mobile machine all day.

Research shows Americans are generally buying less cars each years. This is great news for America seeing as transportation is second largest source of America's emissions says The End of Car Culture by Elisabeth Rosenthal. The telecommunications industry is higher now because people can communicate online rather than driving to see their friend. The younger generation is not using cars as much because cars aren't a priority anymore. They can use public transportation or walk to the places they need to go.

There are many reasons why cars shouldn't be used. This is a gradual revolution because people aren't going to stop using their cars out of the blue. People must see the many benefits of not using cars.",0
55e8ee7e,0,"Driving is one of America's favorite things to do, it is looked at as a right of passage, of sorts, for young American's and yet driving is now becoming less and less important to them. The decrease in the amount of people who are driving and using cars is not only happening in the United States, all over the world people are limiting their car usage. There is a plethora of advantages to limiting car usage with the main three being that it can make people happier by reducing stress, it allows people to get more excessive, and it can drastically reduce pollution.

First and foremost, people limiting their car usage can make them considerably happier. One reason for this occurance could be that using a motor vehicle less can help reduce stress. In the article""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"", when asked Heidrun Walter said that ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way.""Rosenthal,3. She lives in a town where there are almost no privately owned motor vehicles. A business man from Bogota,Columbia has also said that using a car less, or even not using one for a day, as they do in Bogota, is ""a good opportunity to take away stress,""Selsky,24. If people don't have to worry about all of the extra expenses and responsibilities that come with a car, then they will not have any stress regarding them and will be happier.

Likewise, limiting car usage can help people get more excessive and lead to a healthier lifestyle. In his article,"" Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", Andrew Selsky describes a program in which cars are banned and only public transportation is allowed on the Day Without Cars in Bogota, Columbia. Bogota has been having a Day Without Cars for 3 years and Selsky says that one of the goals ""is to promote alternative transportation""Selsky,21. On the Day Without Cars,""millions of Columbians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work..., leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams.""Selsky,20. Implementing a program like this helps people get excessive by promoting biking and walking to work and can lead to a healthier lifestyle by encouraging people to use those methods of transportation on a daily basis.

Equally as important, when people reduce their car usage it can drastically reduce pollution. Robert Duffer says that ""After days of nearrecord pollution,Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air.""Duffer,10 in his article, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"". Duffer says that in Paris the ban was set up so that all people with even numbered license plates were told to leave their cars at home on one day and the next day people with odd numbered license plates were told to leave their cars at home. If a person violated the ban then they were fined 22 euros. After only five days, congestion was cut down 60 percent according to Duffer and by the next Monday the smog had cleared enough for the French ruling party to ""rescind the ban""Duffer, 19. By limiting their automobile usage for just one week Paris was able to reduce their air pollution by a large amount. In the article, ""The End of Car Culture"" Elisabeth Rosenthal states that if the pattern of less American's buying cars persists then "" it will have benificial implications for carbon emissions and for the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions,""Rosenthal,34.

In summation, there are many advantages to limiting car usage. Limiting car usage can have postitive effects on people and the Earth because it can make people happier by reducing stress, it allows people to get more excessive and lead healthier lives, and it can drastically reduce pollution. Many sources believe that the advantages of limiting car use greatly outweigh the disadvantages and think that the limited use of motor vehicles will increase in popularity.",0
55ef0196,1,"Presidenas, ahey are ahe mosa powerful people in ahe Uniaed Saaaes of America. They are ahe people who make ahe aough calls for ahe masses ao make sure ahe benefias of ahe majoriay are mea because ahe needs of ahe many oua weigh ahe needs of ahe few. Some people ahink ahaa ahe way our presidenas are elecaed aoday are noa very pracaice meahods bua some people do. Presidenas are elecaed using awo processes, ahose processes are popular voae and Elecaoral College. The Elecaoral College is noa very pracaical in my book because ahey don'a spend aime in ahe places ahaa ahey know ahey are going ao win or noa going ao and Elecaoral College is noa by majoriay.

Presidenas are like supersaars of ahe poliaical world bua ahey don'a spend any aime in ahe places ahey are know ahey will win or lose. Source 2 saaaes ""Candidaaes dona spend ahe aime in saaaes ahey know ahey have no chance of winning."" The candidaaes for ahe presidenaial elecaion don""a even ary ao sway some of ahe saaaes ahaa eiaher ahey know aren'a going ao voae for ahem or ahe opponena has already been ahere and gave ahem his idea on ceaain maaaers. Voaers are usally more ahoughaful when ahey dona know who ao voae for so ahe lisaen ao boah sides, bua ahere is also ahe problem of majoriay in some places and noa oahers.

Majoriay also plays an impaca on ahe voae of ahe presidency. Look aa how many Elecaoral College voaes California has, ahey have a aoaal of 55 voaes ahaas more ahan Wyoming by a land slide because Wyoming only has 3 voaes aoaal. If one side goa Florida, california, Texas and Massachuseaas ahen ahe opposing side would have ao gea all of ahe oaher saaaes jusa ao caach up. The disarabuaion of ahe voaes is a problem because some saaaes are humongous bua ahey dona have a large populaaion. Some saaaes are really shrimpy bua have a abundance of people. These are jusa awo reasons why ahe Elecaoral College process should be aossed oua of ahe elecaion decisions in general.

Some people say ahe Elecaoral College process is jusa fine because ahis process avoids run off elecaions. Source 3 saaaes ""Elecaoral College avoids ahe problem of elecaions in which no candidaae receives ahe majoriay of ahe voaes casa."" They say ahis because of whaa happened in ahe Nixon and Clinaon race in 1992. Neiaher one of ahem goa ahe majoriay ahe boah goa 43 precena of ahe voaes casa. This doesn'a help ahe real problems aa hand like ahe aime managemena and majoriay issues in ahe saaaes ahaa have large amounas of people and liaale land and vis versa. The amouna of voaes each saaae geas is based on ias populaaion and ias noa fair ao ahe saaeas ahaa have less people jusa because of ahere locaaion ao suffer while ahe smaller more populous saaaes don'a.

In fuaure elecaion ahe Elecaoral College should be aaken oua of ahe process in which ahe presidena is elecaed because of ahe miss use of aime and ahe disaribuaion of populaaion. The popular voae process would eliminaae boah problems if ia was ahe only process. Ia would eliminaae ahe aime spena in saaaes by making ahem go ao every single one or close ao ahaa. They would do ahis ao make sure ahey goa as many voaes as possible. Ia would also eliminaae ahe populaaion aspeca because every saaae would gea ao make a difference in ahe elecaion of ahe presidena insaead of having 3 voaes and mosa of ahe oaher saaaes having awice ahaa or more. This elecaion process is ao complicaaed you should dumb ia down or simplify ia ao increase ahe impaca of each saaae and ahe simplficaaion for ahe soon ao be presidena. We don'a wana him ao change his mind aboua doing ahis imporaana job for us as a counary.",0
5670fb1d,0,"I have never liked Government intervention on decisions that should be left up to the people who feel the effect of mandate. However, Government intervention on limiting the amount of car usage may prove to be a genuinely good cause. It may prove to accomplish what Government was first formed to do help shape the world to make it a better place to coexist, not only with each other, but with the whole Earth.

At fist, it may seem a little crazy in our day and age to actually reverse the climb of our use of technology and innovation, like vehicles. After all, isn't that what we're supposed to do? Isn't it natural to constantly evolve as time passes? Well, cars aren't natural, and they destroy what is.

We are facing dangerous pollution ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"" Source 2, 10. This is alarming to me and many people who care for the Earth. Every day, we're facing new headlines of negativity, and although whether Kim kardashians dress fits or not is upsetting, I think we need to focus on more important things and expell the negativity we're always bashed with. We could be developing things that will really make an impact, like new breakthrough sciences on space, medical sciences, and so much more. Instead, ""All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change"" Source 1, 7.

But, there is hope in all this. Already, we're seeing improvements. ""The number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily thereafter, according to an analysis by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment research company"" Source 4, 32. Maybe reversing the climb of our use of cars isn't so hard after all we can hit the ground running.

A reduction in the ownership of cars has also shown a surprising improvement of psychological wellbeing. In Vauban, Germany, they have almost completely cut out automobile use in their community. ""'When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor"" Source 1, 3. It sounds like people can be much happier without the constant buzz of cars coming and going. The mention of children also makes me think that it would be a much safer environment to raise children without the stress of parents having to worry if their children would be safe with so many cars about. I think everyone remembers their parents telling them time and time again to look both ways before crossing, and then double check, and then hold their hand, and watch out for rightturning traffic. A reduction in automobile use, in this case, is directly related to the stress parents have over their children when doing something so simple as crossing the street.

In addition, a reduction in automobile use and ownership gives the local Government something more beneficial to focus on, rather than spending millions on repaving roads ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"" Source 3, 28. With this change, local Government can focus on really improving the standard of living more job openings with more buisinesses, easier travel despite what one might think during rushhour, and a higher level of general safety with less danger of car accidents.

All in all, I think it will be a hard transition to go through if Government does plan to get involved in the reduction of car usage. It's easy to make bad habits, but it's hard to break them. However, if we do succeed, we will see a huge improvement on the environment and the standard of living, and it will be really worth it. These are not views or opinions these are facts.",0
575e5af1,1,"There has been a lot of dispute about the electoral college, therefore causing much confusion. The president should be elected by popular vote only. This allows all voters to be treated equal, avoid untrustworthy electors and everyone will be given the same amount of knowledge about the campaigns.

The electoral college creates an unfair set up for the voters. The winnertakes all system gives all the electors to the presidential candidate who won. This system disregards that the opposing candidate received any votes, because all the electors are given to the winner. This doesn't give a chance to the candidates whose party is not necessarily popular in that state. Candidates, therefore spend more time and money campaigning in states they know their party is popular in. According to bradford Plumer in 2000, 25 of the largest media markets did not see a campaign ad, because they lived in one of the seventeen states that had no campaigning. Some candidates don't even campaign in some states based on this. According to an excerpt from Mother Jones by bradfordd Plumer most candidates focus on the ""swing"" states where it is close competiton. In the case of tie in the electoral vote, the house of representatives vote. This means one vote represents the whole state. How is that fair for a state like Wyoming that has 500,000 voters?

Another popular dilemma of the electoral college is untrustworthy electors. The electors are chosen in different ways. According to bradfordd Palmer in 1960 there was a problemwith the Louisiana legislature choosing bias electors. Segregationists wanted to be rid the democratic electors and replace them with electors who would not vote for John F. Kennedy. In another case, there has been a history of electors voting for whom they want instead of their party's vote.

Voters often are not update onall the campaigns due to the unfairness of the electoral vote. There's no doubt that the electoral college is a confusing subject, but this often creates confusion in the ballot box too. There has been times when voters have casted votes for the wrong candidate. The voters know about the presidential candidate not the elector. States often do not get the same level of campaigning as eachother. According to Slate Magazine a larger state gets more attention from the presidential candidates than a smaller state does. Over 60 percent of citizens who vote would like a direct election instead of the kind we have now, says bradfordd Palmer.

The electoral college has caused enough confusion in its lifetime. The United States should change to using only the popular vote to allow all the voters to be created equal, avoid untrustworthy electors, and everyone will be given the same amount of knowledge. This will prevent bias people and a more knowledgable campaign.",0
5765bd43,0,"Everyone today believes that having a car is the best thing for them. Truthfully, it is not. Not having a car can prevent from polluting the earth and benefit us as people in a much better way. Not having a car will stop accidents, prevent deaths, and save you money.

In Vauban, many families now do not own cars. Heidrum Walter states ""When i had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Not having a car could actually make you a much happier person as well. You would'nt have to worry about spending too much money on gas or even getting into accidents. If you have to go somewhere far, you can just hop on a subway or pay for a taxi. I know, your probaly thinking: Paying for a taxi or paying for a subway ticket cost money but definitely not nearly as much as having a car.

Next, without having to drive cars, our air we breath in will be much less polluted then it would be with cars. Paris eventually ended up on banning driving because the smog was so harsh to the environment. Anyone who drove cars were then fined. According to the article ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France."" Congestion is car traffic so therefore, there was less smog in the air. In the article Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in bogota , it states ""It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced 25 fines."" Anyone who violated the rule was then fined a specific amount to stop the people from driving cars. Businessesman Carlos Arturo Plaza stated that ""It's a good opportunity to take stress and lower air polution."" Not owning a car can help you and your family become closer because you will have to walk places together, it will help you stay fit and it will benefit the companies because they will start to boom. In source 4, Michael Sivak says ""What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person started to come down two to three years before the downturn."" This means that more families are getting rid of their cars then they ever have before which will make the families closer. Walking everywhere will help you stay fit because your walking not sitting. Last but not least, companies will begin to boom. Source 3 states that ""uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad smooth sidewalks: rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic: and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" They are trying everything they can to make this world a better place. They are redoing a bunch of stuff just to show that they care. So lets show them that we care about our world too.

So lets think about the benefits of not having a car. You will be less stressed, you'll be in less accidents and you will save money. If I could have that decision I totally would take it. It is benifical for all of us so lets just live life healthy.",0
57b45998,1,"I agree that changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States would be a better choice than to continue Electoral College. You may ask yourself why. Well, it's not fair to have to pick a random person to do something you should be the one doing. It's like saying you pick your neighbor to clean your house. Your house is still being cleaned, but not by you, instead, a random person you don't even know. Thus, continuing Electoral College is the same because in this case, the elector you pick and don't even know is going to make choices that at the end of the day you might not even agree on and you can't do nothing about it at that point.

During electoral College voters get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate. This means, there is too many names on the list that you most likely have never even heard in your life, therefore leading you to voting for the wrong candidate. Some electors aren't even faithful, instead of going for their party's candidate, they rather decide voting for whomever they please. Most likely leading to alot of conflict because the candidate is not even on their party and the voters would hate to have to follow someone else's rules, yet again, can't do nothing about it.

Voters would always love to control whom their electors vote for, but this will never happen with Electoral College. The whole point to me for the Electoral College is so that the people voting for the electors won't have any power against anything. So that the government continues to have power over the people. That can be great at some point, but sooner or later will cause confict because some people don't always agree with what the government has to say or do. Therefore, changing to election by popular vote for president of U.S would be much better than to continue Electoral College.

On the article, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong "". States that ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" Now right there is a perfect example of electors being ""unfair"". Electors want people to keep voting for them so that they can pick the candidates, yet, they always skip the part of showing who the candidates are. There is no why people will randomly guess how their candidates will end up being if they never even hear a few words from them.

In conclusion, I strongly believe changing to election by popular vote for president of U.S is a wiser decision than to continue Electoral College because it'll be fair to the people who are voting. People will start to get together to try and get to know the candidate, and most likely agree more to the idea than anything else. Mean while, Electoral College is a very unfair system because they have no idea who the elector is going to pick as candidate, and if they pick someone who they don't even know at the end of the day they will be stuck with a total stranger.",0
57d84ac0,0,"What would living in a world without cars be like? It doesn't sound very pleasant. Getting from point A to point B would be a definite hassle, right? Well, not exactly. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the United States was back in January 1995. he number of miles driven here in the U.S. peaked in 2005 and has steadily dropped. Car usage is not only dropping here, but around the world as well. Paris banned cars due to smog that was polluting the city. But, is using cars less all that bad? Nope! Here's why.

To begin with, it can help reduce pollution around the world. Source 2 states ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partialdriving ban to clear the air of the global city."" That's how bad the pollution was in the City of Love. Almost 4,000 drivers were fined 22 euros because of using their car. ""Congestion traffic was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after 5 days of intensifying smog. The smog rivaled Beijing, China which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" Sounds like a really bad title for a city that attracts many tourists every year. The ban allowed for the smog to clear.

Next, limiting car usage can benefit the current efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States,"" Source 1 states. If car usage is limited, it can help reduce the greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere by a significant amount. ""President Obama's ambitious goals to curb the United State's greenhouse gas emissions, unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from te incipient shift in American behavior,"" Source 4 states "" Recent studies show that Americans are buying fewer cars and driving less."" Good going, America!

Of course, many people might say ""Why would not having a car be beneficial to me?"" It certainly can be! ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza in Source 3. The stress of having to be careful with your car or face the consequences from the insurance policies or lawsuits can finally be lifted of your shoulders. You will be rid of the struggles of the rush hour, as well as the need to be having to pay for gas which is not exactly cheap.

""Different things are converging which suggests that we are witnessing a longterm cultural drift, said Mimi Sheller in Source 4. This is a good thing to be a part of. Soon enough, we'll be seeing people walking and riding bikes from point A to point B, like they do in Vauban, Germany. I don't know about future complete bans of cars here in the U.S, but I believe they will be far less common.",0
58059ff4,0,"There can be many advantages and disadvantages to having a car but the advantages to not having a card greatly outweighs having one. There can be many reasons why not having a car is great but the main three are it reduces pollution, reduces stress, and having less cars reduces the noice pollution in a city. Can you imagine a place with no cars?

First off the main advantage of limiting car use is less pollution. Cars account for 12% of gas emissions in Europe and 50% in America. Without cars the air would be much cleaner and the Smog would be gone over the cities. London had so much smog over the city that they had to cut car use in half with all of their citizens. After only five days most of the smog was gone and people could go back to driving. Imagine if we had everycar in the world stopped driving we could get rid of most of the smog in less than one week.

Another great point on how limiting car use can help is it will reduce the stress greatly in peoples lives. In the first source a man from Vauban Germany said, ""When I had a Car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Also another man from Columbia said during a day without cars, ""Its a good opportunity to take away stress..."" Most stress comes from roadrage or getting stuck in a major traffic jam. Imagine how stresless people will be without cars Finnaly reducing car use will greatly reduce the noice pollution everywhere. When you go out side whats the first thing you hear? People? children? NO, all you can hear is the engine of cars everywhere. In a city where they banned most cars the sound of childrean drown out the occasional car engine not the other way around. Can you imagine how peacefull that would be not waking up to the sound of cars?

In conclusion having a car can have its advantages but limiting there use would be far better for people. It would help stop air pollution, reduce stress, and reduce noice pollution in cities and suburbs.",0
58121ae0,0,"Families all over the world use cars on a daily basis. Cars help us get to places faster and in a more convenient way. Using cars eventually comes to a point were the environment can no longer take much of the diesel fuel, therefore car usage should be limited because its releases toxic gas to the environment, more exercise would be done, and more bicycles would be put to use. Limiting car usage would not only help people, but it would help the environment too.

First of all, toxic gas is released into the environment due to the burning fuels released by the exhaust pipe in a car. According to Robert Duffer, ""paris typically has more smog than other European capitals...last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter pm per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in london, Reuters found"" this shows how cars produce so much smog it harms the human beings lungs when inhaledsource 2. Also as stated by Elisabeth Rosenthal, ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emission in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States""source 1. This represents how much burned diesel gas we are breathing in instead of oxygen. There is a 1 in 2 chance that you will breathe in diesel fuels instead of oxygen, in the areas of high concentrated cars.

Therefore, more exercise would be done by people who limit their car time. Scince more bikes would be used the entire body is in motion ion other to get from one destination to another. Usage of bikes would also help prevent the leading cause of death in America, obessity. ""New York's new bikesharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect those new priorities, as do a proliferation of carsharing programs across the nation"" these new inventions keep the United States busy and keep them from using cars, a busy city such a New York, would benefit more from the usage of bikes, trains, skateboards and skates because if not it could end up like Paris, a city full of smogsource 4. Bicycles are a great way to get around easily, ""parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewaalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districs have cropped out"", this excerpt explains how society has improved the conditions for bicyclist and skaters. The fixing of sidewalks helps bikers stay on a safe and smooth path to their destination. The exercises produced will help the body stay in shape and healthy.

To conclude, limiting car usage is something all people should be aware of. If we limit car usage, the environment would not be as harmed by burned fuels, people would exercise more, be more active and stay healthy, and finally more bikes would be put into a good use. Limiting car usage is a great idea and would bring more reasources and needed thinbgs to the community.",0
585624b3,0,"There are many advantages of limiting car usage. It affects your mental health. It effects your environment. It effects people and companies economically, too. These articles provide a lot of information, and I'm going to use examples from the text to show you.

First, limiting car usage affects peoples mental health. Most people say it makes them happier using different modes of transportation.

""""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two,..."" This is an example from the 1st article, in German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" written by Elizabeth Rosenthal.

""""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife."" Here's another example, from carfree day is spinning into a big hit in bogota written by Andrew Selsky. Although some people are mad having to use a bus or a train with other people, it's a good stress reliever not having to drive all the time and not having to deal with the road rage.

Second, limiting car usage effects the environment. Cars give off gas that's not good for the Earth. The gas from the cars creates smog in some parts of the world.

""Paris typically has more smog than any other European capitals..."" In that quote from paris bans driving due to smog written by Robert Duffer, it shows that the smog is having an affect of them. Safety is also something that would be increased if we limited car usage.

""""Pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial, and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety."""" With less cars around, people would be less likely to get hit. Right now, many people die every day from a car accident or a hit and run. If we lessen the amount of cars on the road, we'd also improve road rage and traffic flow.

Finally, limiting the amount of car usage would effect people and companies economically. People wouldn't have to pay for gas as much as they would have to. It would help out public transportation companies, like the company that runs the Lynx busses or the Line' in Chicago. It would cause a decline in autoinsurance companies and car companies that sell the cars.

""...companies like Ford and Mercedes are already rebranding themselves ""mobility"" companies with a broader product range beyond the personal vehicle."" This quote from the article 'The End of Car Culture' by Elisabeth Rosenthal, shows that car companies are trying to stay ahead of their competition. They're trying to appeal to people who prefer bikes or buses rather than a personal vehicle.

""...recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" In this quote from the same passege, it shows that we're already nearing this goal. Car usage is already being limited by the newer generations of people who care about the planet and find it easier to bike or use public transportation.

In conclusion, limiting the usage of cars would help a lot. I think that helping the environment would really be good for us as people. Limiting the usage of cars would make it safer to walk around and bike outside, even drive. It helps people economically even though it hurts certain companies economically. It also helps us mentally by helping us be less stressful and calming down more easily. It would reduce road race as well as certain stress alltogether.",0
586c86a1,0,"A time without cars would be a very interesting idea, but now that almost everyone has a car some people think that it would be hard to separate from them. So instead of completely sepereateing from them lets try to limit their usage. Think of all the benefits not just for you for everyone. Most cars pollute the air we breath, things would be different because think of all the money you could save by not having to buy gas or another car, and also think of how lazy cars have made people today cities would improve if people just walked instead of driving to and from work.

We all know how unhealthy cars can be to the environment, but did you know it could get so bad it could really hurt people. according to Robert duffer paris had to place a ban on half of the cars because they had so much smog in their city. ""On monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine"" Robert Duffer. he also said that diesel fuel was blamed and that it is worse than the normal gasoline. once a majority of the people had stayed off the roads for a while the smog eventually cleared up. So once again this shows how harmful cars can be to an environment.

The reason america is having a drop in driven miles in the past years is that with the unemployment rate high and most americans can't afford cars. the article by Elisabeth Rosenthal has showed that since 2005 the number of miles driven has decreased and that the explanation of the recession is because of ""cashstrapped americans could not afford new cars"" Elisabeth Rosenthal. Another statistic from the passage was that ""the rates of car ownership per household and per person started to come down two to three yeas before the downturn""Elisabeth Rosenthal. Even most middle class people have working cars some struggle to pay their car payments and with the cost of gas high too they could really have a hard time.

Many people belive that the car is one of the main reasons that people today are as lazy as they are. just think if their were no cars everyone would get exersize by walking too and from work or the store. In Bogota Columbia parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city. Just because they have something called a car free day this major event has inspired new bike paths and sidewalks throughout the city. and that was only a day out of the year and most of the people gladly participated. this was the third straight year of this event but it still goes on even when the rain is coming down people still want to be apart of events without cars.

Unfortunatly most people would only see the bad side of things if anyone tried to completley get rid of cars forever. But there are always a good side of things with anything including the car. The problems of polution, the expenses of the things you need to have to keep a car running or with you, and the fact that it help stop the laziness of some countrys and help make them look new.",0
587055e2,1,"Dear State Senator, Even though you're most likely aware of this, as the United States,we are currently using the Electoral College system as our voting process. This system should be abolished due to all of the factors that could go wrong. The Electoral College is a multiprocess system, which can confuse some of the voters. As an example, there could be a case like this, ""Is it Robert Peterson that's the elector for Jacqueline Smith, or Peter Robertson?"" With uncertainty like this, we can't be sure if our leader was intentional or an accident. Some other confusion that can occur within electors is that they might say that they're going to vote for Jacqueline Smith, when in reality they are planning on choosing Henry Harrison. Another negative is that They often only visit swing states so they can over rule the large state. This isn't fair to other smaller states who may need the candidates motivation. Last, but luckly least possible, is that the number of total electors is an even number. Hopefully it doesn't get to the point of being a tie, but it will be a possibility for as long os the Electoral College is standing tall.

An alternative process to this current system would be Popular Vote. This would solve all of the problems listed above. If the election process is done by popular vote, there will be no confusion because it will all be done individually. An additional plus of the direct voting being more straight forward is that the voters won't have to worry about whether or not the elector will vote for the candidate they want. With Popular Vote, the candidates will have to visit many more states in order to reach most potential voters, this is because they will see that the poeple of their party is spread all over the United States. There will also be less of a chance for there to be a tie becuase the voting is based per person, and with a bigger number there's less of a chance for the votes to be split evenly.

Hopefully after this being read, there will be a change to the current voting system the America.",0
59395fb5,1,"Dear, State senator Voting is a public thing that happens every fourth year when a President is resining or cannidating for a second run. People all around the United States vote for a President they think can run the country the best. I think it's not fair that our votes are getting thrown away, and not even looked at. bradford Plumer said that ""the Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational source 2 paragraph 14, and i think that is true. I think we should Bannish the Electoral College because it is a old process, unfair to Americans, and can lead to disasters.

The Electoral College is a very outdated process. Dont you think we should use a new one? The electoral College has been use since the 13 colonies, and has been ignoring the public ever since. I think its only fair if we have a part in the president election. Also, if we could change it to popular vote, more people would be intact with politics. Bradford Plumer says that ""the election is only a few swing voters away from a catastrophe. source 2 paragraph 12. I agree with him because the Electoral College is very old and can break at any time. I think its time that we change that and start fresh.

America's saying is ""home of the free, land of the brave"" well its not free if we cant vote for our president we want, and the government does it for us. Bradford Plumer says that the electoral college is unfair to voters, and candidates because of the winner takes all system source 2 paragraph 13. The winner takes all system is states choosing if the are going to pick a republican president or demicrate president. Lastly. it is unfair to us. We have no power against the government, and our votes mean nothing to them.

The Electoral College can also lead to disasters! rivets can flood the streets if they dont like the legislators choice, and that can lead to deaths. Secondly, shootings could start to occurring around the states, and can get out of hand. Inicent silvilians can get hurt for no reasons. Lastly, there can be financial crashes, and everyone around the states could go in dept.

to sum up my letter i think the electoral College should be bannished for good. You have heard that it is a old process and can lead to falure, it is unfair to americans, and it can lead to disasters all around the country.",0
59905bc5,0,"There are many ways a person can get from one place to another whether it is by bus, plane, train or car. Car and truck transportation is one of the leading causes in air pollution. reducing the use of cars will be beneficial to the public, not only on the streets, but to the citizens themselves.

To start off, the reduction of cars on the streets will cause less stress to the people who drive them. For example, in Source 1 it shows how a woman is happier and the loss of her car has changed her life for the better. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" she says. The tension of being in a car and waiting in traffic can be stressful and cause people to get impatient, grumpy, and even irritated. The woman proves that her life has changed because she doesn't have to go through that anymore. Her carless life is the one that makes her happy.

Besides that, not only does car reduction cause better mood for people, but it also lessens the air pollution and makes the environment cleaner and better for people to live in. According to Source 4, ""If the pattern persists and many sociologists believe it will it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants."" This proves that when cars are being used less, there is also less carbon emission into the air and that is helpful to the environment. This benefits and makes the air cleaner and safer to breathe.

Now with every thing good, there is always a bad. In source 2 it is explained how the delivery companies were complaining of lost revenue. Yes, this will be a problem with the delivery companies, but there are other ways of transporting goods to their destination such as by train, boat etc. Also in Source 2 there were arrangements made for the the cars to go out on certain days, so the delivery companies' problems were not all that bad. The reduction of cars benefits the public more than it what it hurts.

The results of limiting car usage has been greatly proven through studies done in source 4 and it is believed that it should continue to be limited and or reinforced. The people are happier, the environment is safer and the air is clean. There is more help than there is hinder and soon it will be seen throughout the world that cars are better in the garage.",0
59f4a7cf,1,"The Electoral College is a method of voting for President and Vice President that was produced by our founding fathers in the articles of the Constitution. The Electoral College has been in use for centuries, but it is time that we disregard it. The Electoral College was a smart idea in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds, but as our country continues to change, it is necessary to change the way that we elect our leaders. The Electoral College has remained untouched and exactly the same for hundreds of years and this has caused it to be extremely outdated. Not only is it far too outdated and complicated to help our voting process, but the Electoral College does not give the voters voice instead, it takes it away from them. The Electoral College also can lead to concerning situations that the country and its people do not want to be put in. For these reasons, I strongly encourage you to make the change and switch to election by popular vote.

The question of whether or not to abolish or keep the Electoral College in tact is a heavily debated one, but it is clear that getting rid of the Electoral College will be highly beneficial to the voters of America. The Electoral College was established hundreds of years ago when our Constitution came about and it created a complicated process to elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Our country is changing day by day, and we certainly have made monumental changes since the Electoral College came to be. According to Bradford Plumer, author of, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" a poll was taken by gallop in the year 2000 that showed that less than just forty percent of Americans support the election system that we have now. This proves that it is time for a change and that the system that we currently have in place has been in place for far too long. The everchanging United States of America is in desperate need of an uptodate election system that fits the current needs of the American people. The Electoral College is not only outdated, but it is also an extremely complex voting method. In an article entitled, ""What Is the Electoral College,"" written by the Office of the Federal Register, it is explained that the Electoral College is a lengthy process that involves the choosing of electors and the issuing of Certificates of Ascertainment after both the people and the electors have voted. The Electoral College does far more harm than good for our country and for this reason especially, I believe that America should begin to elect its Presidents using the popular voting method.

Moreover, the Electoral College should no longer be the voting method of the American people because the people are given no voice with the Electoral College process. In his article, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" Bradford Plumer specifically states that the people themselves do not vote for their desired candidate, but instead, they vote for electors who then vote for the more popular presidential candidate. The people should be the ones who vote for the president because they will be the ones who are governed by the president. The Electoral College gives no voice to the people and is considered by many to be a nondemocratic way of voting and is often referred to anachronism. Today, it is a struggle to encourage people to vote and be present on election day because no one feels like their vote matters. People say that one vote doesn't make a difference and that there is no point in filling out a ballot if it has no real affect on which candidate is chosen. The Electoral College and the process it established is really just confirming these opinions. People do not feel like they are contributing because when it comes down to it, the electoral votes are the deciding votes. The Electoral College only has a little over five hundred electors that are representing the millions of regular people who show up at the polls on election day. In order to make the people feel like their opinions are being voiced and their voice is being heard, and to increase voter turnout on election day, it is imperative that the country switches over to election by popular vote.

Most importantly, using the Electoral College as our voting method can lead to some serious problems. The replacing of electors that oppose the popular vote result is a problem that comes with using the Electoral College. Not only is it not hard to accomplish, but it has happened before. According to Bradford Plumer in his article, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" in the early 1960s, people who favored races being seperated in society were almost able to replace Democratic electors with a new set of electors who supported the opposite party. Also, some corrupt electors who are not pleased with the popular vote will simply vote for whomever they please. Electors clearly have trouble being trusted and there is obviously some extreme dislike for the system we have now. The Electoral College also causes some problems when instances like a tie in the electoral vote come about. In this case, a tie in the Electoral College would be thrown to the House of Representatives, who would then vote for the President. The Electoral College brings about uneccessary problems that could all be avoided if the country converted the way of electing to election by popular vote.

In summation, the Electoral College has been around for hundreds of years, but it is time that the United States makes the change that would improve the way of electing its future Presidents. The Electoral College is outdated and complicated, does not allow the voice of the people to be heard, and leads to uneccessary voting complications. For these reasons, I vehemently feel that we should switch from the Electoral College to election by popular vote.",0
5a29f673,1,"Even though you may believe that keeping the electoral college is a great idea and a benefit to all, its not. Americans votes no longer count when having the electoral college and do not care for our opinion on whom we believe should become our president, they decide in what they think is best for us. ""The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational"". Plumer, paragraph 14. Most americns believe that the electoral college is unfair and voting has become a waste of their time and that there is no need to vote if their votes no longer count.

Our votes do not count and we are no longer in control. ""Most states have a winner take all system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate."" The Office Of The Florida Register, paragraph 7 Therefore no matter who wants what if that is what the electoral college decides thats what goes, And many americans are getting tired of doing pointless voting if it doesnt even matter. ""Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for congress, the house selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people."" Plumer, paragraph 12 Yes, The electoral college might be voting for what they think is best for us, but whats best for us might not be want we want, it might not be what we think is best for us why does are vote no longer count? ""But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the partys nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed... however, is is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote"" Posner, paragraph 16 Our votes are just a back up plan and we are not important. ""The electoral college avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."" Posner, paragraph 22 If the electoral college leads to a tie our votes become the tie braker but that method has never been use so why are we even voting? "" It is the electors whyo elect the president, not the people."" Posner, paragraph 15 Because the electoral college is voting for which ""package"" they think is best they believe that our opinions are unimportant and they know what is best beyond what we believe. ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for the slate of elecetors, who in turn elect the president."" Plumer, paragrph10 Our votes are just a second optiion and is not resonible and fair to each and every american who truly believe that they can make a diffrenece when they truly cant because they are an ""extra."" All in all the electoral college should not be kept. Most americans now believe that we are not important and voting is just a waste of time which is currently true and fighting againt the truth is not going anywhere. Loose electoral college or loose active americans.",0
5a2acdf7,1,"Dear State senator, The Electoral college is a process that was established by our founding fathers in a constitution as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens.The electoral college consists of the selection of the electors then that carries into the meeting or gathering of the electors.In that type of meeting of the electors they vote for the president and the vice president,Next is the counting of the electoral votes by congress.The electoral college consists of 538 electors,Did you know that a majority of those electors votes are required to elect the president.Well 270 electoral votes to be exact.Well how did the number of electoral get chosen? The way that exact number got chosen is because there is one electoral to each member in the House of Representatives.Don't you agree that that was a wise choice? Also dont you think that our founding fathers really sat back and but real thought and effort in to a decision like this,something to put into the constitution.

Personally,I believe that the electoral College should be kept in place and not depend on a popular vote to elect our president,for two reasons.The first reason is because most people who are about to vote they dont actually sit and take the time to see who they are voting for,they just ""christmas tree"" all of the options that they have. The second reason why i believe that i believe that the electoral college should stay in place because that this is a good process to have in place.

How many people do you think actually sit there and research and put thought into the president that they are chosing to run their country? Do you really believe that everyone does that? Think about the young and inexperienced voters who are fresh out of highschool and probably just getting into college,Do you think that on top of their school work that they'll sit there and add something else on to their plate? To be completly honest i would not. I would either not vote or just pick at a random.Many people have a family and a job or jobs and have alot on their plate so the last thing they're gonna do is take the time out of their busy schedules and researchand find information on something that they dont need to do.

I also believe that the electoral college should stay in place because it's a good process to have. Having the electoral college in effect takes the stress off of the voters so they can continue on with their busy lives and not have to stand in those unreasonably long lines in the cold,hot,rain, or even snow. The people workers out in those lines are irritable and dont want to be there along with the voters,They look at it as a a waist of their time. No one likes to feel like their time was waisted because ""Time is Money"".

I hope you actually get this letter,read it,and but thought into what you just read.The Electoral college is a very good process to have in effect. Remeber that it keeps peole stress free and less irritable and if you use the Electors and not citizens you will end up getting a more educated vote because they sat back and analyzed the actions from the past of each canadate that is running and is making a vote based off of knowledge,not picking at a random.",0
5a3184fb,1,"Dear Senator of Florida, I believe the electoral college should be abolished as a process over all. The electoral college should be abolished because it does not benefit the U.S. in anyway and has caused multiple problems in elections over the past years. The electoral college should not be a part of the U.S. Constitution and it only causes issues while elections are present therefore we as a country should elect by popular vote.

The electoral college should be abloshied because it has caused multiple problems over the past years during elections and could continue to cause problems. The electoral college process consists of selecting electors, as you know, but those electors do not always vote for their parties candidates like they should. This process causes the popular vote to not always guarantee presidency to a certain candidate even if they have the popular vote. In 2000 Al Gore had won the popular vote but lost presidency because of the electoral college. Not only did one incident occur but multiple occur because of the electoral college. As stated in paragraph 11 of Bradford plumber's article, in 1960 segregationists in louisiana legislature almost succeeded in replacing Democratic electors with new electors who opposed John F. Kennedy so if Kennedy got the popular vote he wouldnt have got the presidency. Like Bradford Plumer clearly stated ""the electoral college is unfair outdated and irrational."" The electoral college should be abolished so that problems can be eliminated and elections are fair.

The electoral college should not only be abolished, or destroyed, because it causes problems but also because it does not benefit the United States in any way. The outdated, unfair system just hurts the U.S. government and the country as a whole, it does not benefit our government or citizens in anyway what so ever. Under the electoral college system voters are voting for a slate of electors who don't always vote for their own party candidate rather than voting for the candidate they want to govern our country. 60% of voters would prefer direct election and popular vote anyway so why not throw out the old worn down process that docent work and replace it with something the people of this country actually want, popular vote. Some people might say we should keep the electoral college because each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee so nothing can happen but according to history things can happen such as in the 2000 election. Why keep a process that the majority of the citizens of this country don't want and a process that just causes issues.

The electoral college is a thing of the past, a has been that almost no one wants around. Popular vote elections would be more fair and will not have mistakes during elections like the huge mistakes the electoral college system has proven to display. The citizens of America want the electoral college gone and popular vote elections should be what the government is aiming for so we do not have mistakes in our elections and so the U.S. can benefit from actually having a working election process.",0
5a6c9d91,0,"Have you ever thought about what the world would do without automobiles. I have and it isn't pretty. Paris has enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. Now, chew on that! I mean if you think about all the gas stations, and all the space that automobiles take up, it really wouldn't be a bad idea in banning cars in like city and small towns. If you were to drive 20 miles in 8 minutes, How fast do you think you would get to that destination if you were to walk that 20 miles. Some situations just isn't fair, Like motorists with evennumbered license plates would have to leave their car at their home, or suffer a 31 fine. One of the most populated city in the world has gone down to 60% of their population in about five days of intensifying smog. If you were to get rid of all these cars, Who would be getting up every morning just to go to school or even their jobs?

I've thought about lot of things in my life, But never across the fact of get rid of cars. The advantages of limiting automobiles are high, just for the fact of smog problems, or even damaging the air that we breath. Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicle in France, compared to 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters.Duffer,16 Pow!

You just ran into a car trying to park the long bed V8 44 Nissian Titan at gatorbait in Melrose FL. All that money that you payed to get the stupid truck, and now you dented the front bumper. That will be 12,000 for the truck, with another 2,000 to fix the front bumper. How can save money, but also get rid of all this crammed space. I will have to say that we need to get rid of all these cars and just leave them at the house.

I don't know what will happen to automobile shops, but it isn't about the lousy shops! It's about our freedom to do what we please, and if that means that automobiles are in the way, remove them. We, the people, need to make more compact, accessible places where it will be with less space to park. I have an idea, let's forbidden street parking, Driveways, home garages, and generally anything that can be used to park or put a car in. Until that happens it is just a dream, that hundreds would love to become reality. Fellow citizens should also make only 2 places avaliable to park, and that would be parking garages or you have to pay 40 and buy a house if you break a rule to drive your car to a place.

It just dosen't make sense to keep something that is causing us so much greaf. Did you know that passanger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe,While up to 50% in the U.S is car intensive areas. Life as we know still goes on like nothing has every really bothered us like the Automobiles do. ""Our Development since World War 2 has been centered around the car, now that has go to change."" Said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America. They are promoting new communities that would be less dependent on cars. I believe that we finish this car problems, We can focus on more important things such as life, family, and Money.

As I write, People are out in the real world making cars for humans like me and you. If we can't put a stop to having all these new vehicles, than it truly will say something about us and who we are as a community. Yes, I agree with having vehicles to drive from point A to B, But that dosen't mean that I don't want change that will help us with money issues. Automobiles are a waste of space, and can hurt by putting all this money that we're just throwing away like we are the richest country in the World. But, we are not.",0
5a810c9d,0,"There are several advantages in limiting car usage. It helps the environment, lowers the chance of crashing, removes stress, and also congestion.

A reason why limiting car usage is beneficial is that it helps the environment. In source 2, France reached several days of ""nearrecord pollution"". This is mainly because of the substantial numbers of cars in France. Since France is dependent more on Diesel rather than gasoline, it emits more pollution causing smog to be more evident. In paragraph 14, it states, ""...The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."". China has far more than triple the population of France. Yet, France is able to reach the same level of smog as China. If an abundant amount of people continue to drive cars as the way they do, every country is going to have the smog problem Beijing and France are having. Also possessing so much smog is a safety hazard being that it limits your ability to see from a distance.

In addition, limiting car usage can reduce stress. In source 1, Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, said "" When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."". In source 3, Carlos arturo Plaza quotes "" its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"". It is not only one person who can vouch on the reduction of stress by limiting car usage. A woman in Germany and a man in Colombia can both agree on the idea that limiting car usage reduces stress. When you dont drive a car as much you have less things to worry about. Like, Fearing the possibility of crashing, running out of gas, dealing with traffic, and several more problems. If someone drives less you would have less stress in theory. The idea of stress reduction is an amazing advantage someone recieves if they limit their car usage.

Reducing car usage can also lower congestion. In source 2, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of france, after 5 days of intensifying smog..."". The implication of limited car usage brought the congestion down 60 percent. That is a major advantage since there is a decrease in the number of cars on the streets. This reduces traffic and allows people to reach their destination sooner than they would if it was more congested. The drop in congestion means that there are less cars on the streets so there would be a lesser chance of crashing. This is a factor that can reduce stress. The reduction of congestion is a positive product of the limitation of car use.

In closing, the limitation of car usage gives the advantage of aiding the environment, reducing the likelihood of crashing, stress, and congestion.",0
5aa35c97,1,"We run our elections by a process called Electoral College. This process consists of tje selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by congress. The Electoral College consists or 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President.

There also is another process which is the election by popular vote for the president of the United States. We could change to popular vote but why would we change how we run the election if this is how we have been doing it for years. Also there are many other reasons why we should keep the Electoral College. Such as certainty of outcome, everyone's president, swing states, Big states,and also avoid runoff elections.

A dispute over the outcome of an electoral Collge vote is possible but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning candidates share of the electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes, 538, is an even number, but it is highly unlikely. Also the electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president.

The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states by population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the constitution. The winner take all method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates. Voters in toss up states are more likely to pay more attentionto the campaign to really listen to the competing candidates, knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters.

It can be argued that the president may turn off potential voters for a canidate who has no hope of carrying their state. I believe that we should not change our electorial process to popular vote and i think we should stick with the process we have now Elecoral College. I listed my resonas why but the main reason is that everyone is so used to the Electoral College process because we have been doing it for years so to change it, it might confuse everyone and actual make the elections even more difficult and it might end up messing up our election and cause an unfair vote.",0
5b1c86a2,1,"The electoral collage should be disbanded. Not only is it unfair to minority party voters, but it also is unreliable.

The electoral collage consists of people voting for an elector, which in turn votes for a presedent. This may sound like a good idea, but in reality, it overcomplicated and scrambles things. This has lead to a less wanted candidate able to win the election. During 2000, presidential candidate Al Gore recieved the popular vote, but not the presidency, due to the process of voting for the electors, rather than the presidents. This led to Al Gore recieving 266 electoral votes, and George W. Bush winning 271, therefore electing a less popular president. Not only that, but the electors being voted for may not even vote for the candidate they say they will.

The winnertakesall strategy was placed to reduce the chance of ties and have the candidates focus on taking over the swingstate votes, but an unintended consequence was the reduction of voting from minory party votes, for example, when a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in New York votes, they hardly get any say, and therefore may stop voting. A popular vote for presidency would alleviate this problem and make it able for anyone from a state to have an equal voice in the state.

Popular vote would lead to members of different states having the same amount of power, while the electoral collage leads to unequal representation. Because of the Senate's two representatives per state, people in less populous states have more power. For example, California has 2 Senate representatives and 35 million voters, and Wyoming, with a much smaller population, has the same amount of representatives in the Senate, leading to a Wyoming resident having much more than a Californian one.

All in all, the ellectoral collage is a bad idea. Not only does it ensure inequallity, but it also leads to inaccurate voting and discrimination against a voter who votes for a minority statewide candidate. To trully be fair to all voters, the popular vote method should be implemented to resolve all the problems.",0
5b286cba,0,"Is driving a car really that crucial? Do people really need their own personal means of transportation? Around the world people are limiting their usage of cars. The advantages of limiting car usage are lower pollution, you can decrease your expenses by not having to pay a car payment or insurance, and many people have started to limit car usage so you dont have to worry about standing out socially.

Pollution is a big issue when it comes to driving because cars cause a lot of pollution. In Paris a partial driving ban has been passed to try and clear the smog out of the city. ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day"" Duffer 11. 4,000 people were fined but congestion was down 60 percent. This was done because paris has more smog than other European capitals. Smog is not the only reason you should limit your car use if you dont have a car at all you are probably saving a lot of money.

If you limit your car use to the point where you dont even own a car you can save a lot of money. You wouldn't have to pay your car payment and you wouldn't have to pay for insurance either. The downside of this is you would have to rely on other means of transportation and it would be hard to if you lived in a large city. If you lived in Vauban Germany however, you could bet away without a car. "" While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs.... Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in low car suburban life"" Rosenthal 6. In this suburban area people have given up their cars and turned to ""smart planning"". Some people are not worried about the money or pollution involed but are more concerned about they will be accepted socially.

Social acceptance is what holds some people back from limiting car use. Even for those people limiting car use will not be a problem because in the united states car use has declined. ""America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. When adjusted for population growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily there after"" Rosenthal 32. This means that either Americans are going to keep steadily declining from using cars or this is just the younger generation and once they grow up they will have to get cars to go about their routines as adults.

The main reasons for limiting car usage are lower pollution, not spending as much money, and not having to worry about social acceptance. It is for these reasons that limiting car use is not only good but it is an advantage.",0
5b57999b,0,"There are a lot advantages and disadvantages of limiting car usage around the world but let's talk about the advantage of limited car usage right now if cars were limited there are a lot of great things that can happen for one greenhouse gases emissions will reduce drastically, the streets will be more safer no more accidents, people will save more money from not buying a car, crime rate will go down, and people can get exercise if they walked or biked to places instead.

Firstly, if cars get limited then greenhouse gas effect will go down that means less pollution and to destroy the ozone layer which means a lot of pollution needs to disappear if we don't want the hole in the ozone layer to get bigger then it already is which means more UV light is coming in from the sun because our protection is slowly being eaten away from all this pollution that means we can get burned more easily from the sun and eventually the world can catch fire more easily when even more UV gets in that is why a lot more forests are getting burned it's because all of this dry weather doesn't mix well with a lot of UV light coming in and also all forests can destroyed and not come back and the animals will go extinct.

Secondly, if cars are limited the streets will be safer because less and less people are driving that means no more hit and runs, drunk driving, accidents in the road to cause a blockage making people late or stuck for an hour or so, less lives taken, no more traffic, no more texting and driving, no more cras explosions or fires to cause anymore damage, kids will be able to play more often outside then inside, and no more damage to buildings.

Thirdly, if cars are limited people will have more money if they buy a car a lot of people in the United States are having financial issues where they don't have money to pay certain bill or get things that they need because they have a car which means gas money when it needs gas, when gotten into an accident you gotta pay to get it fixed while its being fixed you gotta get a rental car, and when it breaks down and doesn't work anymore you haft to get a new one but if cars were limited money will be easier to save.

Fourthly, if cars are limited then people can get exercise obesity has increased over the years because of all of the fatty food we have people are gaining weight fast and it doesn't help that people have cars which makes it easier to get around and get even more food to stuff their faces with but if cars get limited then people can either bike or walk to places giving them the excercise they need to lose all that weight and obesity rates will go down and everyone will be healthy and not a lot of people will die from a heartattack.

Finally, if cars were limited then crime rates will go down that means less DUIs, no more theft of cars, theft of household items, hit and run, speed chases, drive by shootings, life will be safer when cars are off the streets, worry free environment, and people won't haft to worry about getting objects getting destroyed in any wreckage of a criminal who is running away from the police.

In conclusion, if cars get limited pollution will drop, no more accidents on the street, financial issues will go away, crimes will slowly go away, and obesity rates will go down from the excersise that people will get if cars were limited people could live a simple life, worry free but they can't because no one stops the productions of cars that people are afraid of because they are dangerous to people and the world so it would be easier if cars didn't exsist.",0
5c2f5c42,1,"Dear Senator, We the people, of the United States of America..... These are the first words written upon the Declaration of Independence. This is our very earliest document showing our democratic tendencies, and how we act as one. It also shows how we make decisions among ourselves as a people, as opposed to having other make decisions for us. This leads me to what I wish to discuss with you. Others do not vote for us. We vote for ourselves. We decide who leads us, who will help us get to a better place, who will decide what to do about the national debt, who will pass laws concerning immigrants and the minimum wage. We do. Not you, not the House of representatives, and most certainly not the Electoral College. Which is why there should be no Electoral College.

The Electoral College is a group of people whom elect the president2. How many for each candidate there are is decided by us, the voters. But heres the thing most voters think they're voting for the president. They dont even know what they're voting for! And even if some do, its easy to get confused and accidentally vote for the wrong candidate10. While one vote may not skew the entire election, a couple thousand can.

Many who support the Electoral College will say that voting by popular vote is a bad idea because of the possibility of a tie18. But in reality, it is just as easy to tie in the Electoral College. Its happened recently too, in 1888 and again in 200018.

This isn't the only thing thats broken about the Electoral College. The possibility that a president could win by popular vote, but lose the campaign due to the electoral vote is filthy. It is unfair to the people, and far from democratic. The Electoral College is an anachronism15. It reminds me of the Roman Republic really, and we are not romans, and this is not a republic. Or, at least, its not supposed to be.

Something else that is unfair to the people. Due to the Electoral College candidates only focus on large states, or swing states13. Voters in small states, such as Wyoming, will never see the candidates and may see only one or two camaign ads. They can't get to know the candidates and make an informed decision. And even in the regional states, democrats should always be trying to convert republicans to their side and vice versa. But because of the large swing states, this rarely happens.

The possibilty of corruption among the Electoral College, is also a present danger. I'm sure you remember form history class how party bosses took advantage of naive immigrants. I can imagine republican electors being paid off or threatened so that they vote democrat. Can you really trust the electors?

According to a poll in 2000, 60% of people want to activate a popular vote system. Popular soverignty worked well for awhile when it came to the topic of slavery, why won't it work for us now? And why would anyone want such an outdated system like the Electoral College in place? Think upon my words Mr. Senator. The Electoral College needs to end.",0
5c3e4f99,0,"America's great past time might now be just that, in the past. This isn't baseball though, it's the usage of our American vehicles. America was the frontrunner in the invention of cars and has the motor capital of the world in Detroit. However, We've come a long way since the model T and now it is time to move forward into a new, cleaner era of transportation. Cities all across the world have begun the process of minimizing the usage of private motor vehicles to help stop pollution, and to encourage the use of public transportation. The trend is already upon us in America as well, as a study showed that between 2001 and 2009 the amount of young people driving has decreased by 23 percent. Life without cars has proven beneficial to many cities around the world and it is time to spread to all cities.

First off, limiting the usage of cars will vastly decrease the amount of pollution to our environment. Recently in Paris, France the government banned all drivers with odd license plates on the first day and all even number plates the second during a two day effort to minimize the smog and pollution of the city. This method proved to be very effective the capital decreased its congestion by 60 percent. This little experiment may seem like a very small accomplishment, but it should serve to be the precedent by which other countries can help stop pollution. If this was done once very month in major cities around the world it would cause a major decrease in pollution. In the long term it shows people that having their own car isn't always necessary and it is better for the environment to use public transportation, and or other means to get to one's destination. Bogota, Colombia also participated in their second annual carfree day. This was considered to be a huge success by their mayor and many other South American leaders came to witness it themselves. They were all thoroughly impressed by the programs effectiveness and have thought about implementing it in their own countries.

Secondly, limiting car usage will result in different city layouts that could prove to be more desirable and efficient. In Vauban, Germany they have decided to go nearly car free with 70 percent of residents not owning a car. Car ownership is allowed but the owner of the vehicle must buy a space in a large parking garage for 40,000 dollars. Many of the residents claim that they lived a more stressful life when they owned a car and are now much happier because of the sale of their vehicle. This has started a trend in Europe of small suburban communities going car free to help the environment and their lives. This shift into a car free world is sparking the idea for new city designs to make them denser so mit is easier for people to travel from place to place. Stores can be placed only a walk away on a main street as opposed to a large shopping mall that is along a large highway.

In conclusion, limiting the use of cars and motor vehicles would prove to be extremely benficial for our world and our society. It would help solve the pollution and global warming crisis by limiting the amounts of carbon dioxide we put into our atmosphere. It would also change the shape of our suburban life, making it easier for people to get from place to place while still maintaining their green lifestyle. An Earth without cars becomes an Earth with a more peaceful environment and a healthy atmosphere.",0
5c45240e,0,"Driving Everyones dreams when there're just hitting those teenage years. The day their parents hand them a key to their brand new car. We shouldn't live off our cars, we should be able to go anywhere we want and not worried to see if you don't have gas in your car, or if your license plate is expired. My fellow citizens there is many advantages of limiting car usage. Not being tense, not worried about the responsibilities on your car, and helps us to stop polluting the air.

To start, there are many places that don't have cars and their life keeps on going they are even stressfree. For example vaughn's streets are completely ""car free."" Heidrum Walter says ""when I had a car I was always tese. I'm much happier this way."" Source 1. Living without a car is not that bad. Living without a car can be much better for us. However the fact that living without car can be an advantage to us not everyone agress to the fact of it. After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global cirty. congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of intensifying smog. Paris typically has more smog than oter European capital. Delivery companies complained of lost reveue, while exceptios were made for plug in cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers. Source 2. If the delivery companies and my fellow citizens can realize is that the cars that we so called center our development on is polluting our air causing smog in certain areas of the world, and you can see because Paris banned certain cars in its area the smog ended up going away. So instead of driving our cars everywhere we can use this to our advantages and limit our car usage, so we can prevet smog in our community and pollution in atmosphere.

In addition, good car less is a stress free zone. Business Carlos Arturo Plaza stated ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Which is absolutely true in my view because in Bogota, colombia a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombias hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car free day, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams. Source 3. The car free day in Bogota and how people walked, biked, skated, and etc shows a great way to to take away stress. While you are either walking, biking, and so forth you have the chance to clear your mind and at the same time your not in a car that can pollute the air which can't result in smog. Also going car free is also becoming the new tread, a study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009, there has also been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39 year olds getting a license. source 4 I'm here today to show that this new tread that is spreading is one that we should take to our advantage and use it, it's making things better for us and also our communities.

To sum up, my fellow citizens we should limit our car usage. We all can enter this stree free zone together as one, we can help the place we all call our home. Don't be against it and just use it to your advantage. Going car free is the right way to go.",0
5c641d02,0,"Cars are one of thee most common theings in most countries today. Not a day goes by where a person will not see a car drive by, it has become thee main use of transportation and, for thee most part, can be thee easiest use of transportation. But, so many people have been getting cars lately, theat some problems have been arising. For example, thee gas theat cars release can be harmful to thee environment, cars overall have been making people much less active, and we can easily use electric cars instead of cars theat run on gasoline.

To begin withe, cars release chemicals from thee gasoline theat can pollute thee air. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear thee air of thee global city."" Duffer 10. This states theat thee air has been getting so polluted theat some cities have been temporarily banning thee use of cars because of theis issue. Earthe has been getting too polluted and destroyed lately, to thee point theat some people have been trying to predict an ""end is nigh"" date due to all of theese issues withe earthe. Scientists have been talking about global warming for years now, and thee problems we have been having withe thee greenhouse effect and thee ozone layer. ""President Obama's ambitious goals to curb thee United States' greenhouse gas emissions, unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in American behavior: recent studies suggest theat Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" Elisabethe Rosentheal 29. So it seems theat thee lower use of cars by Americans has been helping thee atmosphere and postponing thee date of thee complete destruction of thee ozone layer. That was why cars have such a big impact on thee environment as a whole.

Next, cars have also been making people less active. One of thee largest issues for parents in today's world is trying to get theeir children away from thee computer, television, and cell phone. Technology has lessened thee need for toys and books, since children entertain theemselves withe games on theeir tablets or books theey download also on thee tablet. But cars play a big part in theis. When a person first gets a car, heshe feels free. You feel like thee world is yours because you can go anywhere. But thee problem is theat people become less social withe cars. Instead of going to play a sport withe some friends, most people would ratheer drive somewhere else. It is also thee reason thee United States is ranked second in country withe thee most overweight people, vehicles are so inexpensive here theat anyone is able to purchase a car and drive to theeir destination instead of riding a bicycle or skateboard and getting some real exercise. ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed theroughout thee city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smoothe sidewalks"" Selsky 28. This also shows thee improvement on thee cities sidewalks and thee increase of people attending parks. Witheout cars, thee streets look better and people recieve more exercise.

Finally, thee use of cars is quite a problem but theere is anotheer solution: Electric cars. Electric cars are a new invention, and for thee past decade theey have been atempting at perfecting an electric car. The brand, Tesla , has already released a few electric cars theat seem to work quite well. The vehicles make no noise when driving, and theey even have a new ""sportsy"" look to theem, for the young adults theat want a nice looking car. But thee only problem is thee battery. Electric cars are being banned in some states due to thee lack of reliability withe theese batteries. They have not yet been perfected, and can cause accidents. But even withe thee risk one would be taking while driving one of theese cars on thee streets, it is still a fantastic replacement for normal cars, since it does not release anytheing theat can harm thee environment. So thee best solution would be to wait a few years until thee batteries get better and thee prices drop, theen purchase an electric car, but still know when to stop using it and ride thee bicycle instead. Combining thee use of a battery ratheer thean gasoline, and not overusing thee car, you will have thee perfect combination, which is what everybody should strive to accomplish. Help thee environment, and get thee right amount of exercise.

In thee end, cars are still one of thee most common and one of thee greatest theings on Earthe today. Getting a first car is a dream come true, but too much of it can be harmful. So get some use out of thee bicycle, avoid poisoning thee atmosphere, and cars will be a vehicle withe no reprocautions at all, and it will be thee perfect source for transportation, while keeping your morals where theey should be.",0
5c9ad5e6,0,"Limiting car usage has great advantages wether you believe it or not. Sometimes you don't think about it but you really can do harm to ourselves by polluting the air with the gases that the car releases. There are many advantages to limiting car usage such as reducing smog,improving safety and it gets you active.

Smog can greatly affect people while they are driving. In Bogota, Colombia they have a program every year to reduce smog. Throughout the whole day people hiked,biked,skated,or took buses to get to their destination. It has been three straight years that cars have been banned in Colombia. The goal of this program is to promote alternative transportation and to reduce smog. The plan is so effective that even the rain won't stop the people from participating. This plan is set to spread to other countries. Beijing, China is one of the most polluted cities due to smog. Paris is said to have more smog than any other European capitals.

Although it may not seem like it but limiting your car usage can really improve safety. Transportation is the second largest source of America's emmisions. Everyone knows that transportation is the method of getting from point A to point B.The environment is what gives you oxygen to breath everyday. If the environment is polluted with smog it can cause danger to your health. If you just leave your car for a moment take a walk breath some fresh air you will feel better. There is 70 percent of Vauban families that do not own cars. Heidrun Walter is one of those persons that do not own a car and he says ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way:"" People can live happily without cars. In the end your safety is improved because you could be saving yourself from a future health risk.

Indeed if you use a car everyday to get to your destinations you really are'nt doing anything that gets you active. Just how you have a car there are also other methods for you to get to your destinations. You can ride your bike,ride buses,or walk to your destinations too. In the mid 1990's the day without cars began in Bogota. If you really think about it cities could be built in which ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial, and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emmisions, and improve safety"". This helps you to at least take a walk everyday and it would also stop the pollution to the environment.

Limiting your car usage can have great advantages. Sometimes youprobably just didn't realize it but those advantages could really have an effect in the waqy you live. There are advantages such as reducing smog, improving your safety, and getting you active.",0
5ca3f137,0,"In the past years the car industry has ruled over people's everyday transportation, the question presents itself ""What are the advantages to limiting car usage?"" The actual amount of people driving and getting their license has decreased over the past couple years and this is due to two reasons, not driving helps the environment and it helps the community.

One reason that limiting car usage benefits us is that it helps the environment. In the article, Paris bans driving due to smog , Robert Duffer explains a recent experiment conducted by Paris to reduce smog. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city,"" states Duffer. In this experiment Paris ordered motorists with even numbered license plates to leave their cars at home or have to pay a 22euro fine. The next day motorists with oddnumbered license plates were ordered to do the same. There was an exemption of this order for plugin cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers and public transportation was free. As a result of this Paris had reduced the number of micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter to 147.

Another reason that limiting car usage benefits us is that it helps community. In the article, In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars by Elisabeth Rosenthal, Rosenthal describes a community in Vauban, Germany that has given up cars. She states, ""As a result, 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wndering children drown out the occasional distant motor."" Here Rosenthal provides the evidence that the lack of automobiles in this community has left people less stressed and more at peace with everyday activities. In the article, Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota , Andrew Selsky introduces the tradition in Bogota, Columbia of CarFree Day. In CarFree Day only buses and taxis are permitted in the capitla city of 7 million. One result of this according to Selsky is, ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city eneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"". These additions to the city will improve the activity of people's fitness and improve the well being of the capital of Columbia.

There has been large amounts of information drawn from certain ""CarFree"" experiments around the world. It has shown that the limited usage of cars has improved the environment by reducing smog in Paris and has also helped communities like Vaubaun increase the happiness of its citizens, and Bogota by improving the city to fit a ""CarFree"" environment. With the introduction of the improvements to public transportation and accessibality of cities, exessive car usage may be a thing of the past.",0
5cd6a57e,0,"Cars our main source for travel, what we depend on. But consider how things were before cars, and can going back to those times make a positive impact? How can limiting car usage be advantageous to people, the environment, and just everything in general?

In German Suberb, Life Goes On Without Cars by Elisabeth Rosenthal, a city has already adapted to the idea of a car free, or a noncar dependant city. They did so by having ""only two places to park large garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home."" This limit of parking space can cause drivers to just stop trying to drive, because why bother if there is limited to no places to put the car? This change allows for people to be less stressed, and when one doesn't have a car, there's less of a rush to get somewhere because the ability to rush is gone. There's also the need of less pollution that causes car usage to go down. ""And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe.... Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" The above quote by Elisabeth Rosenthal proves that something must be done to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing car usage can do so. Vauban finds is useful, why doesn't everyone?

Paris bans driving due to smog by Robert Duffer, cars were slowly banned in order to clear the air, sort of like when one puts their body through a detox. When that ended up helping, more cars were banned, and this led to the realization that cars were bad, more or less. The environment needs less cars, which means we need to be less dependant on cars for everything, because soon this so called need for cars is going to leave us gasping for breath, and that is not a good thing. ""Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions. Diesel fuel was blamed, since France has... tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. Diesel makes up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters."" The usage of diesel, which is ultimately the usage of cars, is leading to a ""blanket"" of air trapping the car emissions, causing pollution. The pollution is so dangerous to have just sitting there, waiting to be breathed in and choked on. After realizing that the ban of cars has been helpful for the environment, shouldn't everyone else realize it is advantageous too?

The sooner the human race stops depending on cars, the sooner the human race will be able to breath and think carefully and safely again. Everyone is aware pollution is a problem, will continue to complain about it, but then will also continue to fuel the problem, which is quite ironic isn't it? Cars are not worth losing our ability to breath, and if we realize that, then maybe we will be able to breath and see clearly again.",0
5ce3dc15,1,"The electoral college is a time worn system. Some people hate it, others defend it to their dying breath. The electoral college is no longer a good way to select our nations' leader because the power no longer rests with the people.

Through the electoral college system, we put our votes into the trust of strangers who may or may not decide to vote how they want and completely disregard our voices. Plus with all of the corruption in government as it is, it wouldn't be the most difficult thing to buy a voter off and potentially change the outcome of the election. Or the electoral college voters could end up clueless or untrustworthy, as Bradford Plumer, Source 2, paragraph 10, points out: ""Can voters always control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes."", proving the point that the people are not in control.

Granted there are a few small benefits to the electoral college. It usually prevents the confusion of ties inside states, and, as Source 3, paragraph 20, Richard A. Posner says, "" Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaignto really listen to the competing candidatesknowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average, and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election."" The problem with the overwhelming power given to the swing states by the electoral college is that it does not represent the American idea: that no one group of people is in control, that everybody has an equal say in the matter. When a state like California votes for a candidate, that candidate immediately has an advantage from the start. And all the people in California who voted for the other candidate are not heard at all.

Corruption is, again, a major problem with most politics, including the electoral college. In 1960, segregationists nearly replaced all of the democratic electoral voters in Louisiana with voters who would instead oppose John F. Kennedy, and potentially cost him the election. But while a small group of people can be bought off and turned to vote against the majority, it is impossible to corrupt the American people. It would also cause candidates to have to pay more attention to the smaller states and the states that the candidate thinks they will win over automatically due to their current party.

The American people need the power to elect their leader back in their hands again. The electoral college was a good system years ago, but with time comes change.",0
5d461eb1,0,"Highways, roads, streets they are everywhere. No matter where you are or what part of town, these are always found nearby. Wherever roads are found, so are cars. People have been driving vehicles since the 1950's and over time, have had many positive effects on the world but they have also had many negative effects. Luckily, the government has been helping to reduce car usage to save the world. Limiting car usage helps the world become a better place by decreasing pollution and keeping individuals active.

According to Elisabeth Rosenthal, cars make up ""12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe"" and can be responsible for ""50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States,"" In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars. These percentages show how much humans rely on cars, which is negatively impacting countries. Greenhouse gases are extremely awful for the environment, and if they are not decreased significantly, then the Earth could become a bad place for existence. In many places, government officials have been trying to limit the percentage coming from cars, which has helped greatly. Rosenthal claimed in a different article, The End of Car Culture, that ""As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was...equal to where the country was in January 1995."" The drop of this percentage has decreased the amount of greenhouse gases in the world. Many events all over the world have contributed to the lower percentage. For example, the CarFree Day in Bogota, Columbia has been a huge hit since the mid 1990's and is continuing to grow each year Andrew Selsky, CarFree Day is Spinning Into a Big Hit in Bogota. This activity along with others will continue to bring the percentage down until it is hopefully extremely small.

Fast food and the lack of exercise has increased the number of obese people greatly. With a lack of transportation, there is a bigger opportunity for individuals to eat healthier and exercise more. Andrew Selsky, a writer from the Seattle Times published an article about Bogota's CarFree Day. He confirmed that ""It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths,"" CarFree Day is Spinning Into a Big Hit in Bogota. The building of new sidewalks has increased the number of people using them each day. With more people walking and exercising, the rate of obesity should decrease dramatically. Not only is exercising important, but eating healthy is as well. According to Elisabeth Rosenthal, cities in Germany are now stating, ""stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway,"" In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars. Since there can only be a limited number of shops in the city because they have to be close by, healthier options have been chosen more often, keeping people in shape. Not only do the individuals look healthier, but they feel better.

Saving the Earth and other people are two huge causes for limiting car usage. Keeping both alive and healthy can keep everyone happy and safe. Reducing car usage has great advantages and all humans should consider different methods of transportation walking, bking, or even carpooling are great alternatives to help the world. It may not seem like it now, but the decision of limiting car usage can be a life or death situation.",0
5d63fe39,1,"When were voting for president were not technically voting for the president in fact we are voting for the slate of electors. The electors can be anyone without a public holding office. Electoral college process is not a good process for presidency. While a president can get the majority of the popular vote on the other hand, he could have the minority of the electoral college votes. That president would lose the election even though he technically had the most votes. We should change the process into popular votes for the president.

The electoral college can or will defy the will of the people. The article ""The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong ,by Bradford Plumer it quoted ,Back in 1960,segregationists in the louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose Jhon F. Kennedy.So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.The election whould have gone the other way if the due to the electoral college. The electoral college are way too risky to take on. just simply couple of unwilling electors can change the tide of the election.

The electoral college is a unfair process because of the winnertakeall system. In the article called What Is The Electoral College"", by the office of the federal register it quoted most states have a winnertakeall system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. In the other article ""The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong ,by Bradford Plumer it quoted , candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the swing states. Electoral college is a unfair process because of the winner take it all. The winner takes it all system is a unfair process for the American citizens. even with a slightly change in the electoral college could change the tide or even cause a tie in the election.

In conclusion,The electoral college is a unfair process that has cause presidential election to change. The best results for electing president is by the popular vote. Obviously popular votes sounds more efficient and a clean election. The winnertakes it all process counterfits the number of american citizens voting result. Eletoral college process is an extra step to the election with more problems than barely any benefits. Electoral college should be change and alter in to a different process with clean votes that'll actually be fair for once.",0
5d8168fa,1,"The Electoral College is a easy, yet hard way of a candidate becomingthe President of the United States. The Electoral college was created by how ever many majority of the electoral votes will become the new president. This brings many issues within the U.S.. The popularity vote does not matter in a situation like this and is not likely relied on to decide who the president will be. The Electoral College is not right, it'sunfair, and is very controversial. The argument though is that withthe Electoral College the votes which are dominant have a better chance of the two nominees not having the same amount of votes rather than if it was relied on by the popularity votes. This still though does not resolve nor question that the Electoral College needs to be replaced.

Initially, the Electoral College is not right at all. The electoral votes in the U.S. combined throughout all the states equals 538votes. Popularity votes which are votes that have an advantage of the election are more than tens of thousands if not more. This is an example on how the Electoral College works. An example of this is in the source by ""Reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" it states, "" Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only 42 percent of the popularity vote but won through the electoral votes because they had bigger states voting for them making them win that election"". This shows how the Electoral College is not right and should reverse the value of electoral and popularity votingPoshner, 22.

Additionally, the Electoral College votingis very unfair because many sources giving have shown to people that many candidateshave had less popularity vote but have won through the majority of the electoral votes. This is unfair because popularity votes mean popularity votes which are votes that are of the majority of all votes. Unfortunately, the popularity votes do not count. As said in the source ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" it states, "" if you wanted to vote for John Kerry and you lived in Texas the vote would go to 34 Democratic electors that pledged to Kerry"". This is why popularity vote should be the deciding factor of who becomes the next President. If every election would be based on popularity vote the candidate won each of those elections would probably all change due to the fact that so many elections have won based on electoral votePlumer,10.

To end with, the Electoral College is so controversial. Out of more than two hundredyears of elections many have been close and many have been a mile away from each other. The electoral vote decides it all though. The main problem with this process is how it is setup. The electoral vote is dominent over the popular vote, but it shouldnt be. The electoral vote has made bad decisions yet good decisions throughout the hundreds of years its been around and the main reasin for electoral votes are to keep the candidates running not havethe same number of votes so that they won't have to have another election and voting cast. ""It is also really controversial since the voting also might rely on the political party that the candidate is running for"", as stated by ""What is the Electoral College"". This Electoral College seems to go by how big the state is, the bigger the state themore electoralvotes that state has the smaller the state the less electoral votes that that state hasFederal Register, 5.

In conclusion, the Electoral College is unaccurate, lazy, unreasonable, yet successful. This process by many sources of evidence have concluded that there are in fact many holesin this system. Yet some sources have provedhow the Electoral College has helped decide the outcomes and have stopped runoff elections. The Electoral College is unfair, not right and controversial and has also proved that it has pros to all these cons as well.",0
5da54e2a,0,"Driving can be a huge hassle. Having to spend money on gas, making sure to not go over the speed limit, and being a safe driver at all times to avoid any accident. There are many advantages to limiting car usage. Such as helping out our economy and reducing pollution, having alternative ways to get places, and not spending money on a car. In not driving you would be the one to benefit from it.

Living in a world that constantly looked beautiful and being able to breath in clean air would be a wonderful thing. We could all make this happen by not driving so often or at all. Cars let out gases that ruin our air. Excessive driving with all the fumes coming out damages our air. Not driving can make a tremendous difference. In ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" according to Duffer in paragraph 5 he described, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog."" After banning driving, France managed to make a stunning change.

Transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants. There are many alternative ways to get places. Such as riding a bus, walking, biking, and so much more. Public transportation is nothing to be afraid of. Doing so helps our community. In the passage ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"" according to Rosenthal in paragraph 7 he suggests, ""all of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change,' said David Goldberg, and official of transportation for America, a fastgrowing coalition of hundreds of groups in the United States... who are promoting new communities that are less dependent on cars."" Spending money on a car takes big bucks. There are an abundant amount of other alternatives than spending money on a car that damages the ozone. There are other ways to put your money into good use than spending it on a car. The amount of people wanting to do this could lead to negative implications for the car industry. In ""The End of Car Culture"" according to the author in paragraph 6 she implies, ""Companies like Ford and Mercedes are already rebranding themselves ""mobility"" companies with a broader product range beyond the personal vehicle."" In conclusion, there are many advantages of limiting car usage. Help not just your community, but the world. Every little thing matters, no matter how miniscule your action is. Not driving helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions, saves a big part of your money, and you have alternative options for transportation. Think of the ways you will be helping our world.",0
5db11d14,0,"There are different advantages that come with limiting car usage. An example of an advantage of limiting car usage would be that there is less pollution in the atmosphere making the air cleaner to breath. If there continues to be massive car usage, especially in Beijing, China, there will be more smog in the air which is caused by car pollution.

Although you may love your car, there will always be something good that will come out of parting ways with it. According to the article, Paris bans driving due to smog, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog... The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" This shows that if you limit car usage, there will be less traffic in the road. With this being said, you will be able to move around freely without having to worry about massive amounts of cars, and also that there becomes less smog in the area meaning there is less pollution that was occurring. Also, the article, Carfree day in spinning into a big hit in Bogota stated that, ""BOGOTA, ColombiaIn a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" This describes that with the limiting of car usage, there is less commotion that will occur in the streets. Since the streets became less busy, you didn't have to worry as much about the cars around you. With limited car usage, the world can become a much cleaner place than it once was because the amount of pollution can be decreased from our atmosphere.

People think that there can never be any possible advantages towards limiting amounts of car usage when in fact there is. As stated in, Carfree day in spinning into a big hit in Bogota, ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" This quote describes basically that with the limited car usage, many things such as sidewalks have been renovated which actually makes people want to use them. With the multiple parks and sports centers that have bloomed, this will cause people to want to excersise and will help them continue not to want to drive their cars but to just ride their bikes or maybe even skateboards along the nice smooth sidewalks. According to the article, The End of Car Culture, ""They organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends."" An advantage that this quote shows is that, the two boys don't mind not having a car because they can carpool with friends giving them more time to hang out. This also shows that percentages have been dropping with teenagers who want to get their license because as I already said, they want to hang out with friends. With all this information that has been given so far, you can see that there are, in fact, advantages towards limiting car usage.

Overall, by limiting car usage, you will find a variety of advantages. Some of these advantages include that there is less pollution in the sky which is good since pollution causes large masses or smog, streets become less busy which means less traffic, people can get more excersise, and teenagers are not wanting to get their license so they actually have an excuse to hang out with friends since they will be carpooling. By limiting car usage, there will be less pollution in the air maybe being able to extend the life of humans since we will be breathing in cleaner air than we have in the past. So, by stating all this information, you can probably tell that there are plenty of advantages that come with limiting car usage.",0
5db48c5e,1,"Dear state senator, It is highly unlikely that you will read this, but hey it is worth a shot. There are many reasons as to why the Electoral College process should be used to elect the president of the United States and many reasons as to why the popular vote process should be used. For this same purpose, there is a controversy as to which process should be used. If I had a say into which should be used and which should not be used, I would rule in the favor of the popular vote process and not in the favor of the Electoral College process.

The first reason as to why I would be in favor of the popular vote process is that in the Electoral College process, big states are being more effective than small states. This might lead the small states to not vote because they feel that they would not make a difference. Source 3 claim the following, "" So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does...."" When bigger states have more electoral votes, the candidates will be lead to thinking that if they get the bigger states, for example California who gets 55 electoral votes, to be in their favor then they might have a bigger chance at winning which will have the small states, like Hawaii who only gets 3 electoral votes, thinking that they have no say as to who gets to be their president. This claim is supported by source 3 when it is stated, "" Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by popular vote"".

The second reason as to why I am not in the favor of the Electoral College process is because as said in source 3, "" Voter is tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign to really listen to the competing candidates knowing that they are going to decide the election"". Candidates mostly pay attention to states that have more electoral votes, this causes them to pay more attention to the bigger states and leave out the smaller ones, as already argued, some states get more electoral votes than others. Another reason why this is bad is because most states will not pay attention in the election because they will not make a difference. If popular vote were to be in action, then more people and citizens will pay attention because it will be a more interesting election since more people have a say and the candidates will pay attention to all states. Even the bigger states with more electoral votes know that they are the ones to basically decide the election.

The popular vote process is more effective and fair for the United States in choosing the President. Most people can argue in that favor as well. If you qwant the elections to be fair, I supposwe that you will pay attention to the voice of thousands of citizens and you will be fair.",0
5e2ea0b8,1,"We should keep the Electoral College for the voting of the United States. One good reason is they know for sure who is going to the president of the United States because of the way the Electoral College is. This voting process helps avoid a lot of bad things too. There are so many good reasons why we should keep this form of voting.

Avoiding RunOff Elections is one good reason why we should keep the Electoral College according to ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President."" It states that, ""The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes."" This is good because they keep one of the presidents that got the majority of the votes to win automatically,instead they have to do some math to see who the winner is."" In the first writing ""What Is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the Federal Register. This writing says that ""Most states have a ""winnertakeall"" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate."" This is basically saying that everyone gets to go the presidential election.

Some more key points are some more notes in the first and last writing. In the writing ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President."" and it states, ""The electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states by population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution..."" This is saying that go by a different rule of voting because of the population being than other states. Another good point is in the first paragraph again and it says ""The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November."" This is good that you have a schedule for for the next voting this gives us enough time to vote, it also gives the time to see if the president is good or not.

There is some downsides to this little thing you have going on here though. That is in the second paragraph and it really gets my attention, ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for the slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" With this in mind it is telling us the people that we are not voting for the president at all that is what most people believe that they are doing so you are kind of lying to some of them.

To wrap things up I am telling you that your Electoral College system is great in most ways. You should try and change some of those things that are bad about it though. Not just the one I talked about but more that others talk about and doing this can you and all that work with ten times better than you were before.",0
5e4387ce,1,"The electoral college is a process where electors are sent to choose who the next president will be. Electors usually vote for who they said they were going to but can change this vote. I think we shouldn't have the electoral college anymore because, The people don't get to actually choose who they want to elect and voters can change who they're going to vote for.

The people who are voting for their president they wanted elected arn't actually voting for him. In source two, it says, ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors who in turn elect the president."" This means that even if the president gets the popular vote, it doesn't mean he will always win. Electors can and will avoid the states that they know are not going to vote for the person they want to win the elections, and will avoid those states. In source two, it says ""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all."" Sometimes the voters don't even get to see the electors they're voting for and some states don't get them at all. The electors also purposely avoid certain states because they know that they won't vote for them or give them a chance to swing the election.

Voters can also change who they're voting for on the spot and no one can say or do anything about. In source two, it says ""In the same vein, faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please."" People voting for who the wanted to win the election could be accidently voting for someone else because of the electors work. The elector shouldn't be allowed to change his vote, because that is cheating people out of who they think should win and making it seem like their vote didn't even matter. Some states also have more electors than others, making it so that the person one state votes for will get more votes than the other states.

Some people think that electoral college system should still be there. Source 3 says, ""But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed."" Even if the electors that are selected and its said that the trust is rarely betrayed, the electors can still betray the person they're voting for and it can happen and it has happened before. It also doesn't say anything about the electors avoiding states that they know won't vote for them and going to states that can swing the election.

In conclusion, people don't get to vote for who they want to and electors can do basically whatever they have to do to win. People vote for the president they want to win and can be cheated out of that by the electors. The electors are allowed to move from a state they think won't vote for them to one they think will. The electors can also change who they're voting for during the elections. The electoral college is a system that cheats voters out of who they want to vote for and seems like a outdated and nondemocratic method.",0
5ea9e48f,1,"Dear Senator, We should abolish the electoral college. It makes voting unfair and is dangerous to the American society. It corrupts the soul of all Americans and makes people unhappy. If we want our society to live, we should end the electoral college.

The electoral college is extremely biased on the candidates and the voters have only a miniscule chance to elect the right voter. The chance is so miniscule that even an atom couldn't fit through it. On the counterclaim that it could be a tie, which has a higher percentage rate to tie, all of America, or 0.00000001% of the population of America? The candidates dont even focus on the states that aren't swing states, such as Wyoming or Alaska. If a president is from California, heshe already has 20% of the vote in hisher pocket. To make things worse, half of the states are not even into the campaign, voting candidates ""they"" think is best, not voting the candidates their state thinks is best.

To top it off, people are just so wooed by the candidate's ad, or their wealth, or their eyes, that they don't stop to think what the canditate could do for them. Just two years ago, I found myself talking to a women who needed Obamacare for her ill son, yet she was going to vote for Romney. People are just too dazzled by how things may seem, when it's just a huge marketing scam.

A large state gets more attention than a smaller state does... Is that what we really want in our country? After all these years of black equality and women's rights, we have decided to just completely ruin our entire form of government by being prejuice to other states. Yes, they may have a lesser population, but that doesn't mean anything. It just means that we are not giving people the right of suffrage.

Apparently, the electoral college elects a ""clear winner"", when the popular vote coiuld do that just fine on its own. Why do you think we have voting day for? I'm sure its so that the president that they didn't vote for was chosen by the elctoral college. Here's some logic, lets choose a selected number of people to vote for president instead of all of America. Isn't that a great idea.

""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election...."" Really, is that why people vote? So you are saying that people vote just because they prefer, or like, the person other another candidate. So going back to my earlier point, people are just so amazed at their ""something"", that they just decide to take the effort to vote for them. No, people, that's not why, it's because they think they can make a change in the everyday world.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's all a game of cruel manipulation, Republicans manipulating the government so they get less taxes, Democrats manipulating the government to achieve free healthcare. It's a dangerous game, but the puppeteer who pulls the strings better than the last is the one who always wins.",0
5ecde751,1,"Dear Florida Senator, I believe that we should not have the Electoral College no more. We are giving people false hopes that there vote counts when it really does not. We see on TV ads that we should vote and let our voices be heard but when in reality it is not. Didn't Lincoln once say ""A nation founded by the people for the people by the people..."" he was saying that we should let people have a a voice in everything that happens in America, but we can not even have a voice in who we wanted as president.

We give all the power to the Electoral College but not to the people. In 2000 Al Gore won the popular votes but lost the presidency. What type of system is this where we vote for who we want but get who we do not want. What the whole reason to vote if the Electoral College vote is more important then our. Beside voting for the president we want we vote for the slate of electors who elect the president. We don't even know who these mysterious Electoral College are they can vote for a president just because he is in the Democratic Party,we have no ideas why.

In 2000 we had the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse when it came to Electoral College. ""Consider that state legislatures was technically responsible for the picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency. The people vote was not heard in that year,because they wanted Al Gore representing by the Democratic Party but we got george W. Bush. I have never heard of a more unfair voting system before. Where were our rights the freedom of speech then, it was no where to be found. I feel that voting for who never we want should be in the Bill of Rights. So it okay to a gun for safety in our bag but isnot okay to vote for what we want.

On most basic level, the Electoral College is unfair to voters, because of the winnertakeallsystem in each state. Some candidates do not spend that much time in states they know they have no chance of winning. In 2000 campaign, seventeen states did not get to see george Bush or Al Gore these states were Rhodes Island with 3 electoral votes and South Carolina with 9 electoral votes. Candidates mostly only visit the states with the most like Florida with 29 and Texas with 38. They do not care about the other states they only care about who have the most electoral votes.

Each party selects slate of electoral they trust to vote for the party nominee and they have rarely been betrayed. It is could be true that the winner of electoral vote will not win base off of the national popular vote. But it is most likely not to happen again like in 2000 when Al Gore had more popular votes then Bush. The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. So no Electoral can have a solid favorite they must vote on who would most likely chance America for the better.

But if the Al Gore vs. Bush happen once what stop it for happening again the reason why it happen was because we had Electoral College so to stop it. We Must stop it.

Florida state Senator as much of a good idea it is to have at some point in time it will go wrong. All good things, have bad endings. So I think it better to stop it now before things for the wrongs like Americans just stop voting becasue we all know our votes do not mean a thing when it come to Electoral College votes.",0
5ed12378,0,"How much money do you think you would you save from gas if you didn't use your car? In Germany people do not use cars, they have given them up. In vaughn's streets they influenced people to not drive their cars or own a car so they would not pay have to pay 40,000 for a garage to store in their car, including a home. Over all vaughn's streets are car free, 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own a car and 50 percent sold a car to move there. When a place becomes car free it leaves more space for walking and less space for parking.

Paris enforced to ban driving to clear the air of the global city. Drivers would have to leave their cars at home if they had odd or even numbered license plates or pay a 22euro fine. Car traffic decreased to 60 percent in the capital of France after five days of intensifying smog. Exceptions were made for plugin cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers. Public transportation was free from Friday to Monday. Paris has more smog than other European capitals. The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to recind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday.

Carfree day is a program in Bogota, Colombiait began in the mid1990s. The program is meaning to spread to other countries and the goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. colombians did a variety or activities as a use of transportation hiking, biking, skating, taking buses, taxis to work on carfree day. Streets were more clear. When Colombians drove cars on this day they would pay a 25 fine. Two cities from Colombia, Cali and Valledupar joined this event, people would still participate despite the weather condition they were in. Changes were occurring, parks and sports centers were blooming in the city, uneven sidewalks were replaced by smooth sidewalks, new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up.

President Obama's goals were to curb the United States' greenhouse gas emissions. Recent studies say that Americans are buying and driving less cars and licenses are decreasing as each year goes by. The rise of cellphones and carpolling apps has facilitated and more commuting arrangements, including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work. New York's biking program bridges and tunnel tolls reflect new priorites as of carsharing programs accross the nation. People have used other kinds of transportation instead of using their own. Mr. Sivak's son lives in San Fransico and owns a car but uses Bay Area Rapid Transit. A study has shown that fewer people have found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 20012009.

You waste money on gas for your car. There is another way of transportation you could take to arrive to your destination to save money. You could go car polling with a friend or take the communities cheap transportation. Using a bike is also a simple transportation and walking...most people are capable of walking. When cars use gas it eventually spreads in the air that we breath. The only way to decrease the polluted air is to limit car usage. Countries are helping in a way, by encouraging them to participate in a program carfree day and banning cars.",0
5f019f6d,1,"Dear senator, My associates and I, have thought long and hard that we should have the Electoral College removed. Why? The Electoral college is unfair, outdated, and boring. We feel as if we should spice things up and be able to decide and presidents wit a majority vote rule. I know what your saying, "" The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."" With that I want to include that, if a state were to have it's own vote within the state and turn that into a vote then use that as a majority rule everything would be much easier. For Instance, in florida if lets say 72% vote President Obama, then that would be a vote for obama from florida and with the other 49 states doing the same thing then we have a easy way of using the majority rule.

Bob Dole was right we should abolish the electoral college. Why should we vote for someone who half the time picks the president you dont want. There are many reasons why we should ban the electoral college we dont necessarily have use the majority rules method, but any other idea besides the electoral college i would go with any day. Why? Would you want to keep the electoral college? Why? Do you think this is helping america, its not really doing us harm, but why?

I see you might argue that the electoral college is widely regarded an an anachronism, a nondemocratic method of deciding on a president. Is needs to be overruled by another method or even the majority rule. Considering you tried to i assume balance powers by making us vote for electors, who actually they get to vote for the president. You also might say their are five reasons you might want to keep the electoral college. The certainty of outcome, everyone's president, swing states, big states, avoid runoff elections.

And with all that said. I want just want you to think of other possibilities to use to replace Electoral College. I assure you that if the it is removed and you use the majority rule something similar you can decide a president much faster.",0
5f484130,0,"""Congestionwas down 60% in the capital of france after five days of intensifying smog"" duffer par.14. have you ever thought how bad cars are for this planet?

""Its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution""plaza par.24. I think it is a good idea to banned cars for a few days. This is my opinion because if we take cars away then people will see how much more clear the air is, how much easier it is to breath, what good excersie it is for you, it will open some peoples minds about how the environment works and how bad cars are for our economy. ""These people are generating a revolutionary change and this is crossing borders""rivera par.26. It is good because there is so much fog and pollution in the air that it is bad for society and how it is bad for us and the planet that we live on.

""americas love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling. when adjusting to the population growth"" rosenthal par.32.people are realizing that their love with their cars isnt as big as their love for their own life and for their friends and family lives.""as of april 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9% below the peak and equal to where the country was in january 1995. Part of the explanation certainly lines in the recession, because cashstrapped americans could not afford new cars, and the unemployed werent going to work anyway""rosenthal par.32. people now a days dont have enough money to by a car for themselves because there arent enough jobs for all the people because of the big population growth of america.

people are using technology to talk to people, and this means that people dont have to drive as often to go talk to someone. ""demographic shifts in the driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate. there hasa been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39yearolds gettin a license""siva par.38. younger people dont really want to drive to places if they can just talk to people on the phone. some people of this society are lazy because they dont want to get up and go places when they have their phones, but sometimes its for a good reason even if they dont know it they are not polluting the air as much as they would be if they drove to their friendsfamily house.

how do you feel about how cars are affecting this planet and the way it works. these ideas and actions people are taking are going around the globe and it is saving the earth one day at a time with one little idea.",0
5f59a150,1,"I think that they should not change the Electoral College because it tells us what kind of president we will have in the future and what kind of changes he will make. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors and a majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president. You see this is something that happened a long time ago the founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. This is a system that makes sure that we know what kind of president we are putting in the white house and what are things to make this state a better state to live in and to have a good job. Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the district of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purpose of the Electoral College. The electors are generally chosen by the candidates political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. The president only haves four years, it is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. When you vote for your state they have a thing called winnertakeall system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of proportional representation. When the election is done they have a thing they do called certificate of Ascertainment it lists all of the candidates who ran for president in your state along with the names of their respective electors. The Ascertainments are then sent to the Congress and then to the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election.

In the article of The Indefensible Electoral College its trying to ask you why even the best laid defenses of the system are wrong and it tells you why. What have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. chamber of commerce, and the AFLCIO all, in their time, agreed on? They were trying to abolishing the electoral college and they were not alone, according to a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore thanks to the quirks of the electoral college won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. This is the thing that can not be changed because this is a system that we can pull up see what they were elected for and why they were voted president and how many times. It helps us how we can choose the right president or the right vice president. In 1960 in Hawaii, Vice President Richard Nixon, who was president over the senate, validated only his opponents electors, but he made sure to do so without establishing a precedent. This happened a long time before i was born. You see only one state can casts only one vote in Wyoming,representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California,who represent 35 million voters. In 1968,a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the electionin 1976, a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 voters on Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way.

In a article i read it says that there are five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president. There are called Certainty of Outcome,Everyones President,Swing States,Big States, and the final one is Avoid RunOff Elections. Each one tells us how choosing the president and shows us a map how it works and we can see which state shows a breakdown of the number of electoral votes given to each state. This is something that can help us understand how to vote and how long they will be the president or the vice president i think that we should not change the Electoral College because how would it work without it and how would we pick the next president. This is a hard thing because it would take time to discusses it with the senators and it would take a lot of votes to agree or disagree to the idea. This is why i think that they should not change this because its been around longer before i was born.",0
5f7e2ffd,0,"""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walker, in ""carfree cities"" by Elizabeth Rosenthal. Currently in the United States, 82 percent of people own a vehicle. Which means in the average city is a busy street, car horns honking, triffic conjested place to live. Limiting car usage can be beneficial to you, your city, and your planet.

Limiting car usage can have great advantages on the Earth. Almost half of the greenhouse gas in the united states is from cars. Greenhouse gas has an effect on the North and South Poles that makes them melt faster causing the sea level to rise. So, if we were to lessen the use of cars we would be doing a great favor to the Earth. Many times on the news we hear about oil spills, and big or small, it hurts so many sea animals because it gets in their fur and when prey wants to eat those contaminated animals they die. Think of all the innocent animals that get hurt so that cars have gas to run on.

Living in a carfree city can benefit the whole community. Knowing all or your neighbors is pretty rare now because everyone is always on the go driving somewhere, or cooped up in their home. Walking or Biking to the store with your neighbors can be the new normal if car usage was limited. Vehicles will actually hurt your health in the long run, because cars put so much pollution in the air which will eventually make the air too toxic to breathe. In, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by robert Duffer, ""just one day with half of paris not driving the smog cleared enough that they didnt have to ban driving the next day"". According to the U.S. motor vehicle accident website, every ten minutes somebody dies in the United States due to a car accident. Loved ones can be saved if car usage is limited.

Reducing the usage of cars will benefit your well being. Driving a vehicle requires so much attention and focus, it is quite stressful. ""It is a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said Carlos Arturo during Bogota, colombians carfree day. People of Vauban, Germany a city that gave up cars are happier, they have more energy, and they even look younger. Gas is at an everage price of two dollars and thirty cents, think of all the money that can be saved and put towards something else if you never had to pay for gas again! Limiting car usage will help you financially, physically, and mentally.

Overall, a city without cars has many advantages. People can see the people they love and the planet they love prosper without the usage of vehicles. According to, ""The end of car culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, ""Bill Ford, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which, 'pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety.",0
5fb1b1be,0,"Cars have been around for many years and generations. People rely on cars for transportation. However, theres places where car usage is being limited because of the pollution it causes to the environment and help create a better environment for the people.

For for starters, one reason car usage is being limited is because of how much pollution it brings to the environment. According to article 2 paragraph 17, Paris usually has the most smog than any other European capital. The smog cleared enough for the French party to remove the ban of oddnumbered plates on Tuesday. This means cars have been a great cause of the smog in the city. In Bogota Colombia, thers a carfree day in act. According to article 3 paragraph 21, the goal of the day was to promote other transportation and to reduce smog. This shows that people aren't considerate when it comes to the environment and don't realize the pollution they're causing. Therefore limiting car usage is beneficial.

Another advantage to limiting car usage is that it can help create a healthier environment. According to article 2, people would participate in Day Without Cars regardless of weather. ""The rain hasn't stopped people from participating."" explained Bogota Mayor Antanas. The campaign brought constructs of 118 miles of bicycle paths. Parks and sport centers also grew. This demonstrates that people are determine to make the environment they live in into a better place to live. article 4 states that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses each year. This shows America is probably leaving driving for better alternatives for the environment and their lives. And limitation to car usage was a big key to this behaviour change.

Although driving has been abused for years, places are beginning to limit the usage of cars. Some of the reasons cars are being ban are due to the pollution is causes and it helps create a better environment for the city and people lives. Would limitations of car usage ever completely get rid of cars as a transportation.",0
5fbec113,0,"Cars have been used for a very long time now and are a revolutionary invention that completely changed the way humans lived, since it became easier to move from one place to another and increase the size of our cities and mobility in general. Automobiles have always been extremely useful and necessary to our society, however, it had too, some significant disadvantages that could have great impact on our lives. Having this clear now we can point out the advantages of limiting the car usage no matter how hard or difficultt it might be to the biggest cities or more developed societies.

It is important to notice an experiment that was conducted in Germany, the city of Vauban was finished in 2006 and it is an example of a ""carfree"" environment with a few exceptions such as the main street and borders, according to Elizabeth Rosenthal in her article: ""In German Suburbs, Life Goes On Without Cars"". In the passage it is explained how people gave up a certain lifestyle to participate in this new progect and it proves how limiting the usage of car can create a very successful and less stressful future. 70% of the population of this city do not own cars, one of them, Heidrum Walter said: ""When I had a car I was always tense, I'm much happier this way,"" proving again how advantageous is this experiment.

In the other had, there is France's capital Paris, which banned driving due to smog. ""Diesel fuel was blamed"" expressed Robert Duffer on his article, additionally referring to its use which makes up 67% of the vehicles in France. As a result of the fines and free public transportation on business days the smog cleared enough so part of the ban was rescinded. Another example of the advantages of reducing car usage is how ""its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" added Carlos A. Plaza, a colombian participating in the carfree day that takes place in Bogota every year. This event motivates people not just in the Colombian capital to ride bikes and be healthier but everyone around them, including adjacent southamerican countries. For instance, statistics talk too, and it is possible that America getting over its obsession with cars, which is amazing news due to the fact that mobiles vehicles represent the second largest source of carbon emissions in America, as discused on ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elizabeth Rosenthal.

All in all, limiting car usage although a difficult decision for most residents of developed firstworls countries might just be one of the greatest steps we could take towards helping our envirionment and forging a new society, shaping it a better way, building healthier kids that will excersice and ejoy more the outsides, and that will breathe cleaner, fresher air. We can improve our atmosphere's condition refereing to greenhouse gasses and carbon emissions and in addition, lead out economy a different direction, maybe to a better, improved world and society that does not depend on mechanic vehicles.",0
5fff10f6,1,"Dear State Senator, My name is PROPER_NAME and i am an American Citizen. I already know about The Electoral College and its process. I know it has 538 electors and 270 of the electoral votes are needed to elect president. Along with that, I know that our founding fathers developed it in the constitution and their chosen by the candidate's political party. But i do not know why so much people bash The Electoral College when its a good thing. Based on my research, The Electoral College should stay and should be used overtime in an election for President.

To Start off, most people think of The Electoral College as a nondemocratic method of selecting a president based on Source 3: by Richard A. Posner. Its is a nondemocratic method because its the electors who elect the president not the people. Based on Richard however, ""each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed"". Its possible to win the electoral vote but not the national popular vote. It happened in 2000, with Gore when he was running. But that was the first time since 1888.

There are some flaws of The Electoral College however. According to Source 2: written by Bradford Plumer, voters vote for electors who elect the President not the people. No one really knows the electors and they cant be seen holding public office. It depends on the state to pick the electors and voters cannot always control whom their electors vote for. In addition, as Bradford said ""voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidates"". These disadvantages may want to make people disapprove of The Electoral College disregarding its advantages.

There are five really good reasons for keeping the Electoral College. Based on Source 3 the first is ""certainty of outcome"". This basically means if the winning candidate's share of the Electoral votes is high most likely his popular votes will be too. The next reason is that its everyone's president. Like rodney he only focused on benefiting the one region and the Electoral College had no favor in that and as a result he got no gains from them. The third reason is ""swing state"" like Richard calls it. The ""toss up states"" are the ones who really decide the election. Voters in those states pay more attention to the campaign since they are the ones who will decide the outcome. The last two reasons are the big states and avoiding runoff elections. A large state gets more attention from Presidential candidates in a campaign then a small state does. The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candiates receives a majority of the votes cast.

These five reasons make the electoral College what it is now. Most voters dont watch the Presidential campaign's and chose whoever. The Electoral College is fulled with educated people who actually take the time and watch and study the campaign's so their vote is the vote that makes a difference. Despite the Electoral College's lack of democratic pedigree its still should stay.",0
600cb108,0,"Pretty much all working adults and teenagers own or drive a vehicle on a daily basis. But while all that driving may get you from point A to point B quickly, it is also doing great damage. Constant driving has left cities polluted and covered in smog. People are finally beginning to realize that and have begun making necessary changes in order to prevent this from continuing.

One suburb in Vauban, Germany is a great example of people limiting car use and the positive impact that it has. This upscale community has generally forbidden street parking, driveways, and home garages so that the streets of Vauban are completely carfree. About 70 percent of families in Vauban do not own cars and over 50 percent sold their cars just to move there. Heidrun Walter, a Vauban local and mother of two, is quite pleased with the car ban. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" This ban has drastically reduced greenhouse gas emissions that come from tailpipe on cars. You may think giving up your car ride to work every morning is a terrible idea, but living with pollution, smog, and gas emissions that lead to breathing problems sounds even worse.

The driving ban in Paris, France shows just how bad driving all the time can be. Due to the cold nights and warm days in the popular city, the warmer layer of air trapped car emissions causing five days of smog. Being that France has a tax policy that favors diesel and in turn makes up over 60 percent of vehicles in France, it was to blame for the intense smog. After days of nearrecord pollution, the French party banned driving until the smog cleared. People were left with the choice of leaving their cars at home or facing a 22euro fine. This goes to show you that your daily driving habits have longlasting effects that should be taken care of sooner rather than later.

For another example of people striving to lower air pollution, look at Bogota a city in Columbia that bans cars for one day every year on the annual Day Without Cars event. The purpose of this ban is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. It's obviously doing well because now two more Columbian cities, Cali and Vallendupar, are joining the event. Even authories from other countries have visitied Bogota to witness the event themselves and were quite enthusiastic. Enrique Riera, mayor of Asuncin, Paraguay, said, ""These people are generating a revolutionary change that is crossing borders"" after attending Day Without Cars. More parks and sports centers have opened up and sidewalks are now being replaced with smoother sidealks for people to walk on. Bogota is just one city now realizing the negative impact constant driving has on the town, as well as its people, and taking steps to lower those impacts.

In conclusion, there are many disadvantages to driving all the time. Which means a lot of postive advantages when we stop. Going completely carfree can be difficult especially if you are in an area without buses or taxis, but you can still limit your driving and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. Don't take so many driving trips, car pool with friends, invest in a bike or shop at places closer to you. Limiting your car usage is something everyone can do and will postively affect your environment.",0
6046f42f,0,"With all this talk about greenhouse gasses, you think to yourself ""What can i do to change all of this?"". It's not as hard as you think. Some cities in foreign countries and this one are actually giving up their licence short term or long term so that the can walk, bike, carpool, or take public transportation rather than taking their own car. This is a great thing, especially with global warming and such. Some advantages of limiting car usage can be: a less stressful and safe life, a reduction in harmful gasses, and a healthier lifestyle.

When you walk around your town depending on the size of it you see a lot of cars. You have to walk around on the sidewalks and worry about the fact that a small mistake by a driver can end your life. But in a city that has no cars driving around, you don't have to worry about that at all. You can not worry about how much the gas prices are because you may be car pooling or taking the bus. In "" In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, she asked a citizen on what she thought of the no car law, she said ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" line 3, she saw how having no fastmoving hunks of metal can be a very stresses situation. A community that doesn't have this stress can worry about other things now.

It's often talked about in the news. Greenhouse gasses. Global warming. We hear about all the time and how it's affected by emissions of cars. How could we avoid it? Simple, we stop driving around so much. Cars in Europe are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and we in the United States make up 50 percent of it Elisabeth Rosenthal, line 5. It's especially bad in Paris, where the gasses are so bad that there was 5 days of smog, only rivaled by Beijing, China the most polluted city in the world Robert Duffer, line 14, which it's so bad in Beijing the citizens of the city have to wear masks covering their noses and mouths to protect themselves from the harmful gasses. It's horrible that people have to live in such horrible conditions.

If you gave up driving to everywhere you go, you wouldn't just help the world with greenhouse gasses, you'd also be helping yourself. People nowadays sit at home watching TV and snacking. But do you know how much walking and biking could do to help the health of people. This would be the case if there was a limitation on driving cars. Getting exersize is also a great stressreliever. Also it helps with the nasty smog that's been mentioned. People wouldn't be breathing in harmful gasses if there was a limitation or ban to car usage in most contries. Air pollution effects all of us as human beings.

Most of us can't think of a society without cars, but it's very possible. We can, however, make a society exactly like that to some extent. Running around screaming about global warming won't do much unless you take action. Not only will it help the Earth to have better air, it can help lead a more stressfree, safe life and a healthier one that'll only need you to walk or bike to some places.",0
6049a24f,1,"Presidential election is held every after four years on the first Monday of the month November. We decide who's going to be our next leader, the President. Electoral College is kind of unfair for some people because they think that whoever got the most popular vote should be President. But to think, what if the people we vote to is not right to be the next President and shehe got that most popular vote? Wouldn't that be a disaster? I say we should keep the Electoral College.

Electoral College process in consists of the electors that have been selected by the people. The ones who got selected are the ones with great intelligence and with great sense of leadership. In the first passage it mentioned that ""The Electoral College has a total of 538 electoras and the majority of electoral votes are required to have 270 electoral votes."" This means that for you to be one of the candidates you atleast have to have 270 electoral votes and this is a good way of picking our candidates to run for us for President.

Remember the election between Obama and rodney? It was close but, not that close. Our President, Obama got 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to 51.3 percent of the popular votes for him and Romeny. Almost of every states electoral votes is on a ""winnertakeall"" basis. For every slight of plurality in each of the states, it creates a ""landslide electoralvote"". This means that a tie would be possible because the number 538 votes is uneven but, it's mostly not to happen and this is because of Electoral College.

Electoral College avoids the problem of which didn't receive a majority of the votes. In passage three it gave an example about how Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had 43 percent only in pluraity of the popular votes and the winning number of the Electoral College is 301 and 370 electoral votes. Because of Electoral College the pressure that happens in electing the next President to lead us for four years is reduced and it also tells us which is the winner of the election.

If we elect our President using popular votes it migh be a disaster. Because not all of the candidates are that great of leading the whole country and If heshe got selected to be our next leader for the next four years our country would be in a huge chaos. I slightly agree with electing that person and making himher the next President because they got the most popular votes but, then again I don't think it's the right way of picking our new leader.",0
605bf4c2,0,"A life without Cars. A life without cars would be a completely different than what most Americans experience today. We use Cars for basically everything. Shopping, Recreation, and socialization are all based upon the automobile. As Americans, its the general idea that you go get your license and a car, and its a normal part of life. Not many Cities are based upon the ideals of not needing a vehicle. Places where people can walk to the place they want to eat, or efficient public transportation so they can arrive at the movies on time. Everything they need as components of their lives in in reach.

A smart town is compact, meaning everything you need for a town smushed together. With everything being compacted, resources can be better managed, meaning more resources can be used in a general thing, or just not used at all. Not needing to use enormous amounts of resources is better for the environment, and the tax payer. Tax payer not having the burden of all those taxes, means a happier tax payer. All the money thats not used on on taxes can be used to spend at the local stores, leading to a strong economic outlook. All because we compacted our cities, and limited car use. That's an ideal city to me. Making a compact city might not be in America's future though. We like our wide open spaces, and our huge backyards. So maybe what we need to do is invest in a reliable and smooth public transportation complex. Something that can take the population around the area. Transportation that can get me from my place of residence to a place where I can get a bite, or have a good time. A intertwined suburban existence. Where there are no engine pollution or loud car commotion.

Without all the engine pollution or noise pollution that comes out of these ideal suburbs people will be less stressed. Meaning their lives will also be happier and healthier. Imagine it. All because we changed the way we do things, we can be happy, and eliminate pollution. I could see myself waking up in the morning in a nice little home, and getting ready. Then going down the street to where I can take a bus, or taxi wherever I wanted. I would do what I want, and not need a car for it. I can focus on what's really important.

Like how much pollution we were really letting off from our cars. Different settings had different levels of pollution, but it all leads up to be a ridiculous amount. If we limited our car use we could make a big difference in the amount of greenhouse gases we throw up into our air. Meaning we'll have cleaner air. Can you smell that? Thats the smell of crisp clean air. There's nothing like taking a breath of air out in the wilderness. Where the trees absorbs the contaminated air only leaving the crisp refreshing air behind. That could be everywhere if we limited car use!

A life where it's normal to not have a vehicle in Amerian Society sounds like it would be pretty nice. I would love being able to take a bus or even walk to something interesting. Maybe it's in our future. It may even be right now. Are you willing to try to give up your car? Are you willing to try to have a social revolution and change the way Americans live their lives? I thought so.",0
60602b59,0,"Over the past few decades, talk regarding car pollution and usefulness has become common. Several people believe that the negligence of cars is beneficial to the world, while others hold the belief that automobiles are a necessary part of daily life. Living in a world without cars can be very beneficial on many levels. Many entities benefit as a result of the use of other forms of transportation. The explanations of the help and drawbacks of a carfree society will be examined in this essay.

Car free land helps the environment to a vast extent. In many countries, automobile emission is the leading cause of air pollution that in return can harm the environment. This form of pollution is especially eminent in densely populated cities where public transport is unavailable. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the global city,"" as found in source 2, demonstrates the already global initiatives being taken by the governments of particular nations. Many procar arguments will contend that factories cause more pollution than cars, but they fail to consider how many countries economies depend on factory goods while car usage can be replaced with alternatives that are better for the prosperity of the planet.

Many new alternatives to cars have been created. From source 3, ""The goal is to promote alternative transportation."" Many forms of transportation, be it public or private should be made available to residents of nations. Metros, hybrid power buses, and monorail can be implemented in cities where pollution from smog is a problem, as they pollute in negligible amounts if at all. Private solutions can be viable for people who prefer a more calm approach to saving the world. Hybrid cars are now becoming more widespread and available for almost the same price as regular gas emission vehicles. Hybrids are powered mainly on electricity and batteries, and do not give off harmful carbon monoxide that destroys the ozone layer.

The purchasing rate of cars has already decreased. As demonstrated in source 4, ""If the pattern of the decrease in car purchases persists...it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment."" Here it is evident that the switch to more ""ecofriendly"" solutions to transportation are naturally and calmly happening. Ergo, the people of many states and countries have already taken the initiative to make the change, but it is also now up to the government to implement public transportation for the portion of the population that cannot afford their own form of travel. This initiative has been taken in cities like Paris, New York, San Francisco, and Moscow.

As truly mentioned in the first source, ""People have given up their cars."" This is the first step to a world that is pleasant to the environment all around the world, as the health of plants, animals, and even humans is dependent on the air around them. Not only is public transport becoming more and more evident in select cities, but personal electric vehicles are opportune as well. This is a new age and people should take advantage of it. Smartphones, laptops, and other technological feats are neat, but in order to be able to enjoy those luxuries, we need to be able to appreciate our Earth and treat it with respect by becoming a carfree world.",0
606ec542,0,"I think limiting car usage is a great idea for america. Studies show that in Bogota, ""the people are generating a revolutionary change."" Says Enrique rivera, the major of Asuncion, Paraguay. People are either walking to their destinations or riding their bicycles. Also the less you use your car, means less air pollution everywhere so the Earth is more healthier.

Limiting car usage could also help people's physical and mental health. Walking could lower your stress levels and let you think about the nature that you see instead of thinking about what your mad at. I know this from experience because I get stressed very easilyand walking anywhere helps me calm down. Another thing about limiting car usage is that the car wreck percentage would be lower than it is right now. There would also be less deaths in the world if they limited the usage of cars.

Did you know that there are aproximently 118 miles of bicycle paths only in Bogota? Well there is and according to Mockus, the city's major, ""It's the most of any Latin American city."" Also you could use the bicycle paths as walking paths for exercise or just to walk anywhere. People would be in more shape if they limited cars. But the only bad thing about using a car in Vauban, Germany is that you have to pay for the car and a spot to keep it while only being able to drive it on the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs.

In conclusion I think it would be a great idea for America to go carfree.",0
607520b5,1,"In the United States we have been voting for president for many decades. But now there are protest against the process of electing a president. Many argue that the electoral college should be abolished and others feel that we should elect by popular vote. I strongly believe that we should change to popular vote because the electors could defy peoples will, they are unfair to voters, and people arent necessarily voting for their president.

To begin with, the electors have the power to defy peoples will. State legislators are responsible for picking electors and those electors can defy the will of people. ""Electors have occasionally refused to vote for their partys candidate and cast a deciding for whomever they please."" said Bradford Plumer.This is not right because the legislatures are picking electors that are using their powers for the worst.

Next,the electoral college is unfair to the voters. "" Because of the winnertakesall system in each state,candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning,focusing only on the tight races in the 'swing' states."" said Plumer. For example , during the 2000 campaign only 17 states didnt see the candidates all, that includes Rhode Island and South Carolina. Electoral colleges are not being fair to the states and their voters.

Lastly, the election process should be changed to popular vote because voters are necessarily voting for the president. Most people think that when they go to vote for their president that their votes are what decides the final outcome, but thats not true!.Its the electoral college that decides that. Some people dont vote for that reason , because they dont think that their vote will change anything. And in the end it does not seem very fair that are votes count by very little.

In conclusion, the way we elect are president every four years should be changed. It should go based on popular vote not on electoral college because elector could defy people, they are unfair to voters , and people arent necessarily voting for their president. For all the reason people should be able to vote and they will know that their vote will be counted.",0
60a9ef9e,1,"Dear Senator, I believe that people like Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bob Dole were all right in saying the electoral college should be abolished. I have two simple reasons for this. One being that it is not a 100% way to elect a entire nations leader for four years. The other reason being that 60% of people don't even want it.

First off, the process of the electoral college isn't always accurate. For example, in 2000, Al Gore ran for office against George W. Bush. During this election, Al Gore won the votes of the people, but lost in electoral votes, giving the presidency to George. Since we all know how his presidency turned out, we wonder how Gore would've handled things. Voters cannot always control who their electors vote for, which means if an elector is chosen to vote for Billy Joe, he might just decide, when it becomes time, to vote for Jimmy Washington. This would leave voters of that candidate upset, so maybe they too will understand this flawed system. Another reason we need to abolish the electoral college is something we like to call the disaster factor. This is nothing compared to what happened in 2000 the system allows for much worse. Consider that a states legislature is technically responsible for picking said states electors. Also consider that said elector could always defy the will of the people. In 1960, the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing democratic electors with new ones who would oppose John F. Kennedy. In the same vein, electors without faith, have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast their vote for whomever they please. Ask yourself Senator, if this were to happen again, would you do what is right and try to dispose of this system? I hope so.

In reference to my second point, do you realize that According to a gallop poll 60% of our people don't even want this system. The way I see it, if i asked three people if I should buy a new car or a used car, and two out of the three say I should buy a used one, I'm not going to go buy a new car despite them. This is the same with the electoral college. We shouldn't be forcing this corrupt way of deciding this nations leader for the next four years, down their throat. This nation is based on beliefs that include the peoples right to have a say in how this nation is goverened. It's so simple, a majority of the people are against the electoral college, so it needs to go. If you, like 60% of the United States agree with my points and views on the electoral college, then you need to do what you can with your authority, to put a stop to it.

All in all, I have strong beliefs, like most Americans, that the electoral college is a corrupt way of giving this great nation to somebody who people think don't deserve it. Based on my emphasis of these two reasons that this failing system needs to go, I think you , Senator, need to put all your power into the downfall of it.",0
61789b03,0,"In the US many people use different methods to get around. They walk, take a bus, but many use some sort of automobile. All these ways are very efficient but have you ever thought of maybe the outcomes of what cars do to the planet we live on? Let me tell you the things that would change of limiting car usage.

To start off, having to always worry about paying car payments or getting gas can be very pesky knowing you already have to pay for housing,food,clothing and if you have kids supporting them. All that can be very stressful and make life even harder to live with, like in source 1 mother of two, Heidrun Walter talks about how ""when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Her not having a car made her life way less stressful and tense then before hand.

Another outcome of limiting car usage would be less pollution. All these fumes are not good for the planet we live on and deffintley not good for us human beings. In source 2 it says how Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air from all the gases in the air from motor vehicles. You know how much fumes would have to be in the air for them to make a driving ban? I mean if thats not putting up a red flag i don't know what would. We only have one place to live right now and its our jobs to keep it clean and protect it.

Without cars people are gonna have to find a way to get around. In source 3 it talks about the millions of Columbians finding that way when they didn't have there car to do that for them. They looked too hiking, skating, and walking. All these alternatives are a great way to live a healthier life then to just let machines do the work. When you exercise more its said to widen your life span and prevent diseases like Diabetes or Obesity. Being able to live better heather lives would only effect us is a positive way.

Lastly another advantage would be less deaths due to car accidents. So many people die every year from necklace drivers or people driving under the influence, limiting car usage would drop these numbers down drasically and make life for us way safer.

All these little advantages would make such a big outcome to everyday life as we know it, it would make our lives better in every outlook.",0
6206d698,0,"Many cities around the world have already learned the benefits to limiting or getting rid of car usage. A few of these cities are Vauban, Paris, Bogota. These cities experience less smog and pollution.

People in the places that have limited car uses do not seem to mind. A quote from In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars by Elisabeth Rosenthal explains how giving up their car has improved their live, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"". Cars do cause lot of tension and stress from being in traffic and having to deal it bad drivers on the road. Many people are already too stressed and anything that can limit stress is good for you.

In Bogota, Colombia the city has ond day that is carfree. This day people hike, skate, or used public transportation to get where they needed to be. Violaters are fined 25. The over all goal of this day is to promote different forms of transportation. Even though weather can be a factor it didnt seem to affect people.

Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota by Andrew Selsky states how this is true ""The turnout was large, despite gray clouds that dumped occasional rain showers on Bogota."" This quote also shows that people are fine surviving with out cars.

Paris banned driving for different cars on different days because of the nearrecord pollution. Moday cars with evennumbered license would be fined 22euros if they drove and the next day the rule would apply to oddnumbered licences. There were exceptions for cars that are plugin, car pools with three or more people, and hybrids. Robert duffer, the author of Paris bans driving due to smog shows how well the ban worked in this quote the smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday"". This is a great example of how much pollution would be cut out if we stopped or limited using cars. Just one day with out everyone using cars and there was a difference in the smog amount.

Limiting car usage also will cut carbon emitions and help the environment. In The End of Car Culture the author, Elisabeth Rosenthal states ""...transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions..."" With a limit on cars, trucks, and other moter veicals greenhouse gas emissions will lower. America is already lowering it's car usage by it's self. People are buying fewer cars, getting fewer licenses, and driving less all together.

Over all the affect with giving up moter veicals and finding other forms of transpertation are very positive. People would have less stress, reduce in greenhouse gasses, and lower pollution.",0
621756d9,1,"I believe that we, the people, should elect our presidents by popular vote. although all 48 presidents have been elected by Electoral College, I think its time for some change.

In the second source, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumber, he states that voters vote not for the president but for a slate of electors. These electors are just simply pledged to whom the voters vote for. The people have no control who their electors really vote for.

Now others like in our third source, ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" written by Richard A. Posner, believe that when we vote for that slate of electors, we can ""trust"" that they will vote for the president the people voted for. In my opinion, I urge you to ask yourself. Can you really trust these electors? How do we know they will vote for the president the people really want? How do we know they won't ignore our votes? How can we trust these electors? Just like what Bradford Plumber said, ""Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" To some, the electoral college is unfair because of the winnertakeall system in each state. Candidates usually only go to ""swing"" states. ""Swing"" sates are states with tight races. This, if fact, is not fair at all because some states don't even get to see the candidates. In our second source, it clearly states that in he 2000 campaigns, 17 states didn't see the candidates at all.

In the third source, it states, ""....Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaigns... They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters..."". I completely disagree with this because what mathematical, tangible, or hard core evidence is there to physically prove that the people in tossup sates are more thoughful that the people who aren't. I think that candidates should go to states that have more people that are the opposite party.

So with this said, I think Electoral College should be no more and we should elect our presidents by popular vote. Thank you and have a wonderful day.",0
62212a49,1,"State senator I ask that you favor the idea of keeping the Electoral College instead of changing it to election by popular vote for the president of the United States.

Even though the Electoral College is a despised method for choosing the president it has it's reasons. I'll show you why I am in defense of the Electoral College.

We need a president that would regard all of our interests and concerns. Someone can't just appeal to one region and expect to win because "".. a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president.""source 3 due to no region having the amount to guarantee the electoral votes to elect a president. Dealing with votes it is a problem to have a runoff election. One of the concerns with Electoral College is that "".. voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" stated in source 2. But the Electoral College simplifies that problem with the electoral votes. Remarked in source 3 it says ""For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College 301 and 370 electoral votes, respectively."" without the Electoral College it would have complicated the election process but thanks to the Electoral College reduces the complication and produces a clear winner.

To win, the majority of the states have a system that gives all the electors votes to the winning candidate except Maine and Nebraska having their own way of proportional representation which is explained in source 1. This gives the certainty of a result, for example in source 3 it says that "".. even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state"" this makes it highly unlikely for a tie. The Electoral College gives political balance to large states population wise higher the population the more problems, concerns ,or interests is needed to be attend to. Like how source 3 says "".. a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does..."" To me all these reasons should prove to you that even though the Electoral College has its problems it's benefits outweigh it.",0
6224129c,1,"The Electoral College should get changed to election by popular vote for the president of the United State. Because the voter's vote are not for the presidents, instead they are actually for the slate electors. Which then go and vote for the president. Which isnt fair because for all we know, the state legislatures choose the electors that could go againts the will of people. Also because of the ""winner take all system in each state."" First of all the voter's votes aren't voting ofr the president, they are technically voting for the slate electors. For example, you think you voted for the president. when actually you hav voted for 34 electors pledged to that president. You won't know who those electors are, and sometimes ""the voters get confused about the electors and accidentally vote for the wrong candidate"".

Another thing that could happen is that the state legislatures can choose electors that can go againts with what the people choose. Like for example, ""Back in 1960, segregationists in Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy"". Also they can completely refuse to vote for their party's candidate and go and vote for who ever they want. Which wouldn't be fair to the people who thought they voted for the candidate. But in reality they voted for a party of electors that can go againts the party's candidate and vote for whomever they please.

The ""winner take all system"" is also unfair. because some candidates go to certain states where they know they have a chance of winning. But completely ignore other states that they know they won't have a chance in winning. Like for example, "" During the 2000 campaign, atleast 17 states didnt get to see the candidates at all. Also 25 of the largest media markets didnt get to see a single campaign ad"".

So in conclusion, The Electoral College shoud get changed to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Because The voters vote aren't really voting for the candidate. They are actually voting for the party of electors for the candidate. But those electors can refuse to vote for the candidate and vote for anybody else. Which woudn't be fair to the voter. And finally because the ""winner takes all system isnt' fair"".",0
62426a78,1,"Dear Florida State Senator, I do not believe that we should keep the Electoral College. I think that we should vote for presidents and have them win by popular vote. My reasons for abolishing the Electoral college is that the president should win by popular vote of the citizens of the U.S., we shouldn't let electors be the reason the president wins, and we should have a direct voting system than the Electoral College system.

First, the president should win by popular votes from the citizens, not electors of the candidates. The people would vote directly so the president would win by popularity of people in the states. The presidential candidate has electors. So when one person votes it counts as the electors votes not theirs. I don't think that is fair.

Second, we should not let the electors be the reason our president wins. It states in the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" that the ""faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their own candidate. They decided to vote for whoever they please. Isn't their job supposed to be to vote for their parties candidate. How can we trust them?

Thirdly, I believe that we should have direct voting instead of the Electoral College. The reason why is because we can easily vote ourselves and actually realize that the president we chose was actually us, not the electors. It is nice to know that we made that decision and not remember that it was just the electors getting their votes from ours. It states in the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" that ove sixty percent of voters would prefer a direct election because some states know that the actual voting and winning comes from the states electors. The people would not even pay attention to the campaigns because they don't care anymore.

In conclusion, people would rather have direct voting than the Electoral College. Direct voting is easy and it makes us feel like we actually care. The Electoral College however, doesn't really pay attention to the campaigns either because they are basing their votes from ours. The Electoral College is unfair in many ways. I would rather have direct voting than the Electoral College. Sixty percent of the U.S. would agree with me.",0
624e199a,0,"Our world has became a world that revolves around technology and cars, and it's now starting to show how the affect of these products are tareing away our ozone. Limiting the amount of air pollution can help decease the green house affect.

All over the world people use vehicle to travel all over the place for their daily needs. People are not aware of how close they really are to the things they drive to. If we could just eliminate the amount of usage we use on cars and walk to the places near us we can help with future damage to the earth. In the excerpt Paris bans driving due to smog ,Robert Duffer shares how paris banned there cars for the better of the world. He states ""after days of nearrecord pollution,paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"". By banning the car uses they have made people healthier and the air much cleaner.

What we dont know is that we use about 100 to 150 gallons of gas a week, and its taking its toll. The excerpt paris bans driving due to smog states that ""last week paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter am per cubic meter compared with 114 in brussels and 79.9 in london, reuters found."" Meaning that we are using so much more than we need.

The End of the car culture states that "" many sociologist believe it willit will have a beneficial implication for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of america's emissions, just behind power plants"". that the environment is taking the toll for our wrong doings, and the environment is change because of the new partials in the air, and its not changing for the better.

Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in bogota, Andrew Selky portays how contriving in healthier and better for you, by stating that ""it's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air polution"". The world could use a little more walking instead of riding. By taking a walk or a hike or even riding a bike is not only healthier alternative but it would make people much happier, which could help decrease the vilolance ratings.

By eliminating cars from our daily lives can help with getting rid of our polluted air and help getting our ozone from detriating. The world is suffering and we really need to help get it back to health. Our cars are emitting terrabe thing that are bad for our health and the eniorment so thanks to small countries contibuting to the limitations we are now starting to relise that we need to change for the better.",0
6256a3e5,0,"As time progresses, more and more young people aren't buying personal cars but instead use public transport or walk to where they need to go. Other than the youth, suburbs have found this as a great way to distress as some cities, like Bogota, Columbia, have dedicated a day to stop the use of personal cars for one day. This decline of using our own cars has a positive effect on our air and the way our youth has begun to travel.

People around the world are starting to make this transition from using their personal cars to using public transport or carpooling with friends. The youth today try to mange their schedules so they can find ways to use more and more of public transit. ""There has been a large drop in the percentage of 16 and 39 yearolds getting a license..."" Rosenthal 38, meaning that most of the youth these days are finding it easier and, though a little more time consuming, less worrisome than buying or driving a personal car. It seems getting a license isn't taking top priority for the youth. ""In a study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009..."" Rosenthal 41.Whether the youth is going to start buying cars when they have children or not, it seems the general decline of buying automobiles for yourself isn't a boom like it used to be.

Experiments being hosted all over the world in small areas also show that using no cars is decreasing pollution and allowing us cleaner air overall. In Bogota, Columbia, a program that bans all cars for one day, and despite terrible weather for the third year, and it seems that people are loving it. And despite the threatening rain, the turn out was huge Selsky 22. ""...experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe...""Rosenthal 5. Our personal cars ""are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and 50 percent in the United States where areas are heavily populated with car owners""Rosenthal 5. Numbers like this would decline over time if we start using less and less cars. Maybe then we'd actually have fresh air to breath rather than the polluted air we breath now. Even in Paris, where they have ""enough smog to compete with Beijing""Duffer 14 they banned cars for a while. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paries enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city""Duffer 10. As they enforced the ban, smog started to clear up around the city, meaning that no cars can really help clear up the air we breath in daily.

As the air begins to clear up and our youth taking a stand against owning their own cars, it seems like this could be a steady decline of personal cars and more will start using public transport. It seems time is progressing to an age where young people don't feel the haste of using personal cars and instead resort to public transport.",0
625f42fd,0,"Limiting the usage of cars has a variety of advantages. From having a less expensive life, to less air pollution, and overall a generally happier life. Thinking about all the excess and stress that comes with owning a car is tiring. Not to mention the hazardous effect it had on our lives. Would it not be nice to just take off some of that burden off of you, and be a happier person?.Let me help you out on how to achieve that.

Owning a car is pricey! In Freiburg along with paying for your house you also have to pay for a parking garage, which comes with a hefty price. Did i not mention the distance you have to walk to park? lets just say you might as well have taken the bus.""Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to parklarge garages at the edge of the development,where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home.""source one,section two. With you alone driving to work and back everyday will tally up to over a hundred dollars spent every week, now add children into it, and their after school activities, also add emergencies. See where this is going? sure you might need a car now and then, having a car is not a bad thing. How about Carpooling? It will reduce that price you have on your gas recipts and create more time for bonding and interacting with people.

Health or driving? Well if you are not healthy you can not drive can you? With all of the automobiles we have today it is bound to affect the earth. The smog in the air leading to that first cough that can lead to something more terminal. Imagine what it would be like if you had less cars, or even no cars at all! well the capital of France tried it and the results were amazing.""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..""source two,section fourteen. Now think about if that ban that Paris enforced,was tried out in other countries. Just that little change in the amount of cars on the road let to that difference of the pollution. Probably led to a difference in someones health too.

Everything stated above leads to happiness, from the less expenses that will have to be paid, and the less damage that the pollution will have on your health. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter""source one, section three.Also when there are less cars on the road your community will be able to connect more and have better infranstructure, which would make them happy just like it did for the people of Bogata, Columbia.""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalksrushhour restrictions have dramatically cut trafficand new resturants and upscale shopping districts have been cropped up.""source three,section twentyeight.

Overall the advantages of limiting car usage has many benefits to it. From having a less expensive life, by not having to pay for gas so often, car insurance, and evrything else that comes with it. Having better health also is a advantage of the limitation of car usage. Also one of the most important aspects of life, happiness comes with the limitation of using cars. So there is no reason to not try it out, there will be more benefits.",0
62b3aee1,0,"Many people in today's world depend on cars to get them places. They don't realize the effects cars have on our environment and how much better things would be if we limited car usage. There is many other ways of transportation that are much easier and better for our world. I believe car usage should be limited because it will cause less pollution, it will take away stress, and it will save people money.

When cars are used, they release chemicals into the air which causes pollution. Pollution is not good for our air and wears down our atmosphere. Global warming has always been a serious matter with the amount of people who drive cars so if we cut back on the car usage, it would decrease the amount of pollution going into the air. In Source 2 it shows an example of how Paris had intensifying smog because of these cars. They banned cars for a couple days and the smog level dropped. Also in source 2 it says "" Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of france"". When cutting down on car usage, it helps many things and can help you stay healthy and feeling good.

Another major reason we should cut down on car usage is that it will take away a lot of stress us humans have. In source 3, businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza said "" It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Imagine your driving down the road and some guy pulls in front of you without a blinker and you almost hit him, you get all mad and stressed out that you almost hit him. Road rage is very common in drivers and we could decrease that stress with limiting car usage. Also if you were to get into a car accident, that gives you so much stress which affects your everyday life.

To buy a car, you need lots of money. You need to buy the car, then buy insurance etc. Why don't just save your money instead of buying a new car when you could just use some other form of transportation. In source 4 it states, "".. Cash strapped Americans could not afford new cars, and the unemployed weren't going to work anyways."" This shows that many people don't have the money to buy a car, why spend you money on a car that is not needed instead of buying something else. Cars are not mandatory, you can get to places many other ways and could save lots of money. Also you could save money on gas if you didn't have a car.

In conclusion, limiting car usage will only result for the better. There is plenty of other ways of transportation that aren't as harming and expensive as cars are.",0
62b480e1,0,"The culture of the car has been coming to an end. With many people now choosing to have other forms of transportation. Now in Germany they are making cities where they help banned car usage. In the romantic city of Paris,France they are now starting to banned cars due to the overload of smog. The city of Bogota,colombia is having a special day where they banned cars and see the effect of now having cars for a day. The car usage is now being observed to do damage around the world and due to that now cities all over the world is now banning the car usage. This will help to have a healthier earth and healthier people. The benefits of banning cars is going to help everyone and even our beloved earth.

In Germany the people have made a city where they have given up their cars. The city I believe has a better way to maintain a healthy and cleaner environment than other cities in Germany. The banning of cars has been a great success with now people using bikes or walking as their means of transportation. Even though car ownership is permitted,the problem is that there are only two places to park which cost about 40,000 dollars along with your home. The result of that actions is that 70 percent of people do not own a car and 57 percent sold the car to live in the city. One person states ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" says Heidrun Walter. The citizens of this city have been feeling better about having no car you dont have the stress to have to drive you have the calm relaxing time by walking or biking. did you know that ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in car intensive areas in the United States.""The greenhouse gas has been a problem ever since the development of motor power cars. Now that we are able to stop it lets take that chance to help stop the greenhouse gas and to make cleaner and healthier cities.

The romantic city of paris is having a bit of a problem its that its beautiful city is now being coveres in smog due to the overuse of cars. now that Paris has enforced a partial driving ban to help clear the air they can't help to notice that when there are fewer cars being operated the smog begins to clear up. The smog has always been a problem for Paris it usually has more smog than in any European country. The article states that ""Paris has 147 micrograms of perticulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London,Reuters found."" The romantic city of Paris cant be as wonderful if it always has a problem with having too much smog I believ that the cars are the ones to blame for this matter that if the city of paris bans its cars that the smog will decrease and become a the romantic city that it is. The article states that ""diesel fuel was blamed since France has a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France compared a 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of western Europe."" That means that it is in fact the motor cars that are the ones causeing the overflow of the smog. If the the cars are able to to be banned in paris we will see a drop in the smog and Paris will return to the romantic city that it is.

The city of Bogota,Colombia has been celebrating the day without cars for over three years straight. The car free day help leave the streets of the capital city without any traffic jams. One problem of the road that many countries have in their capital city is that they have to many cars because of the tourist and the huge number of people who live there which causes traffic jams leaving cars in the streets for hours on end. They have the same problem in Brazil where they have one of the worlds worst traffic jams in history. The ones who delevoped the car free day was trying to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Someone states in the article ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" says businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza. The stress of having a car in a countries capital can be stressful to some people and that bikeing or walking is a way to help calm someone after a busy day at work. Due to the car free day the city states that ""uneven, pitted side walks have been replaced by broad,smooth sidewalks, rush hour restirictions have dramatically cut traffic.""The car free day i feel is benefitting everyone from getting rid of traffic jams to clearing up the smog. The replacing of cars for bikes and walking is not so much a bad idea if it will help benefit evryone around you.

In conclusion, the car culture is now coming to its end. That nations all over the world has seen the great benefits from banning cars. The greatest effects that banning cars has is that they are helping to get rid of air pollution,stress,and the grreenhouse gas. These are all benfits for everyone it helps the ither people beside u and the environment. The romantic city of Paris was covered in smog due to cars. In Germany where they have developed a city where there is no car in sight and has everything within a walking or bike distance. The city of Bogota,Colombia making a holiday that has been going on for three years straight to have no cars for a day. The people have been seeing that the effects of having no car is wonderful and that we should all do it to better ourselves and to better out enivornment.",0
62f04245,1,"Dear State Senator, The Electoral College has a negative impact on this country because it has ufair voting that can cause massive problems to the government. Electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. People should have the right to vote on which president they think is fit to run this country. People are hardly know which elector they are voting on.

We shouldn't vote for electors that we don't know. Elections should be held by popular vote because Elector Colleges have a unfair advantage since there vote counts not ours. According to the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by bradford Plumer states, ""Faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please."" The fact that the Congress has unfaithful electors that are supposed to be supporting whomever candidate they choose is a massive unfair problem. Popular votes and Electors votes are the complete opposite. For instance, according to the article ""In defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner states, ""It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral voters, but that was the first time since 1888.""This is unfair and confusing because the electors shouldn't be deciding on what candidate should win. The peoples vote should conclude which candidate is going to win.

Since the first Electoral college was created it has been the same eversince. It is majorly outdated and has to be solved now. According to the article :What is the Electoral College?"" by the office of the Federal Register it states, ""The founding fathers established it in the constitution as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in Congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens.""There is suppose to be vote from the congress and a vote from the population. I think that the congress should be part of the voting that all the qualified citizens are in. There shouldn't be two different parts of voting because it will confuse who is the winner.

The government should have a voting system that is both equally fair and decisive because right now everything is mixed up and it will bring great problems to the campaigns. More and more people will want to stop voting because they do not trust the electors on there decisions. This will cause a great decrease on voters which will impact the populations vote on which President is the winner. According to the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by bradford Plumer states, ""the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse. Those electors could always defy the will of the people."" A solution must be done to prevent any more disasters that can be on there way.

In conclusion, Electoral colleges have a unfair system that could cause negative problems to voting and to the elections. The elections will be confusin and unproffesional. But the government and the people of America can help by changing this and will approve a fair decisive system were all citizens get to choose which president shall win not the type of electors.

Sincerley, Student.",0
62f4c5fb,0,"Today, automobiles are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some areas of the United States. To lower this statistic, many cities around the world are trying to cut down on car use in order to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. Cities like Vauban, Germany, Paris, France, and Bogota, Colombia have their own strategies for the reduction of these emissions from cars. These cities are having extraordinary success and many Americans are limiting their car usage as well.

In Vauban, Germany, many residents have given up their cars. This is due to the strict rules and limitations for car ownership in this experimental new district. If one would like to own a car, large garages that cost 40,000, along with a home must be bought. This has made many residents completely give up the use of cars and rely on public transportation and bicycles. In the article, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, one resident stated,""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Residents are embracing this new and innovative lifestyle and as a result, the greenhouse gas emissions from this area in Germany has decreased exponentially. The location of stores and businesses has also changed due to the very few who use automobiles. In the article, it is revealed, ""In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway."" Even with these limitations, residents are not complaining and as a result, new suburbs around the world may start to look and be like Vauban, Germany.

Many cities around the world are being forced to issue partial driving bans in order to clear the air of the city. In the article, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", by Robert Duffer, it is explained how and why the city of Paris was forced to issue partial driving bans due to the very high levels of smog. Duffer writes, ""On Monday, motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day."" Due to this partial ban, congestion was down 60 percent and 4,000 drivers were fined. These fined drivers paid, in total, around 88,0000euro124,000. Not only did the pollution decrease dramatically but this money went back to the government. The article then reveals, ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" After just one day, the results that was wanted by the city of Paris were achieved. This is absolutely astounding and very beneficial to the city of Paris and also to Europe as a whole.

Like in Paris, France, in Bogota Colombia, carfree days have been established. In the article, "" Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", by Andrew Selsky, the Day Without Cars in Bogota is detailed. Like in Paris, there were fines for violators, however this time it is 25. Due to the fine, many of the 7 million resident used public transportation, taxis, bicycles in order to get where they needed to go. One resident said, ""It's a good way to take away stress and lower air pollution."" As a result of the success that Bogota has with these carfree days, more than 118 miles of bicycle paths have been made, sidewalks have been repaired, and many new restaurants and shopping districts have emerged. Other cities in Colombia and other cities in South America want to follow Bogota's lead. In the article, the mayor of Asuncion, Paraguay Enrique Riera, is quoted saying, ""These people are generating a revolutionary change, and that is crossing borders."" Hopefully, the carfree days that Bogota has will be common around South America and eventually around the world.

A new global trend is emerging and that is the decrease in car usage. Cities like Vauban, Germany has a large majority of its residents using public transportation and bicycles and many residents have acceoted and embraced this lifestyle. Cities like Paris and Bogota have partial driving bans and carfree days, respectively, and as a result smog and pollution in the air has decreased and many residents feel like it is a good way to take away stress. These changes bans and carfree days have lowered pollution dramatically and many feel like this is a good path for the future. Limiting car usage is beneficial to the world and these cities have proven that it can be achieved without many issues and hopefully many other cities around the world will copy this innovative new idea toward decreasing greenhouse emissions.",0
633b4981,0,"Why is is beneficial to have limited car usage? This is a question that has several answers varying from personal health, to economic gain, to environmental gain. Though the car has been the symbol of the modern age, there seem to be few downsides to limiting the usage of these transportation units.

Cars have given mankind the ability to cross great distances in a short amount of time, allowing face to face communication, fast trade between companies and nations, and access to medical and personal care otherwise out of reach. However, the car has also caused lack of mobility, cutting back on people's exercise as they no longer have to walk very far to get from point A to point B, the overwhelming responsibility and cost of owning a car has also put a mental strain on people, causing needless stress. Of course there are places to go and things to do that require traveling large distances, and no one could be a expected to walk from New York to L.A., so car usage should not be utterly removed, but rather restricted.

So how do people properly regulate their car usage? Several different governments and cities have debated this, trying different tactics and having varied results. As shown in Elisabeth Rosenthal's essay, ""In German Suburbs, Life Goes On Without Cars"" , we are shown the result of a community where 70% of the people do not own cars, but with no less activity than their counterparts in cities weighed down by cars. There seem to be several advantages in this city without cars, one being that people seem to be happier. Heidun Walter, a media trainer with two children informed Rosenthal, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"", the lack of cars seems to reduce stress, without restricting life.

So perhaps this is not enough reason for some to limit their usage of the car, alright, there are many more reasons why this is beneficial. One that is quite familiar to all is the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of cars produce greenhouse gas emissions, polluting the environment and quickening the death of the planet, Rosenthal's essay "" In German Suburbs, Life Goes On Without Cars, "", we are told clearly that, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gass emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States. "" This may seem like very little, but with the amount of cars in the world, these numbers add up to staggering damage to the environment. Robert Duffer wrote an essay telling of these harmful effects in a shocking way: "" "". This city had so much pollution that they had to ban the use of cars, ""Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London,"". This pollution is not only in France, but across the globe, it is only a matter of time before it destroys the ecosystems on Earth, and cars are one of the biggest contributers to this destruction, coming in second only to power plants.

One Colombian city chose not to wait until such things happened, instead choosing to promote limited car usage in a more peacful manner, as described by Andrew Selsky's essay, "" Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota "". This city of 7 million people started a program that chooses one day a year to bann all car usage with the exception of buses and taxis, fining violators with 25. One main benefit has come out of this: People are more active phisically and therefore have less stress. Selsky's essay can be quoted saying, "" millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday,"". The benefits of more physical movement are obvious, but one is not so obvious: It lowers stress. A businessman by the name of Carlos Arturo Plaza said, ""It is a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"". If a simple day can cause such drastic changes in the environment, peoples health, and lower stress, why not go ahead and do it?

In summary, while cars help us get from point A to point B quickly, and are very useful when traveling over great distance, they also cause great harm. A simple cut back on using cars would allow the air pollution to be reduced drastically, promote physical movement and personal health, and help productivity and creativity by reducing stress.",0
6353b2f7,0,"Cars have always been known for their efficiency, and speed at which they bring their driver to his or her desired destination. Although, many people are aware of the causes of driving and the negative effects of a car, most never look at the possibilities. They don't know what they are being deprived of due to the simple, solvable problem of driving cars. As countries of the world experience a cultural shift in their daily lives, people are becoming aware of the significant advantages of limited car usage, including lower emissions, increased physical activity, and decreased stress, which in turn would increase overall pleasure.

With a change in one's daily life, the linear relationship between car usage and carbon emissions, means that as car usage decreases so does pollution. In ""The End of Car Culture,"" Elisabeth Rosenthal comments on the scientific opinion regarding this cause and effect relationship in America: ""If the pattern persistsand many sociologists believe it willit will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment."" Cars are a large contributor to the increasing amount of waste and toxins that make one's air water polluted. Therefore, with a drop in the usage of cars, people and land will be become healthier and cleaner. Emissions are also a problem in Europe where the ""Day Without Cars"" was used to promote ""alternative transportation"" in order to reduce ""smog.""Selsky Cars are often used get to specific places such as work or school. So why would two people drive two separate cars if they're going to the same place? By using public transportation such as a bus or subway, one is killing two birds with one stone by using a smaller amount of gas and fossil fuels to delivery two people to their desired locations, a smarter and cleaner choice.

The limit on car usage has also caused an increase of physical activities within a society. The lack of cars has created the desire for outdoor involvement as Andrew Selsky suggests in ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" when he informs people of the ""improvement campaign in Bogota"" that has enouraged the ""construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths."" Since space is no longer needed for the creation of parking lots, people now have ample room to create the resources needed for activities such as bike riding. Just having things such as trails visible to the public, motivates people to be active. The possibilities of physical activity areas are also encouraged by a change in the transportation bill. In current years, a drastic ""80% has gone to highways"" whereas only ""20% went to other transport.""Rosenthal With a decrease in the demand for cars and similiar ways of private transportation, there won't be a need for large highways. Since more money is now available to be used elsewhere, oppurtunities for parks and sports centers are opening up.

Although many may not be aware, a decrease in cars also brings a decrease in stress. This is even hinted at by ""Businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza"" when he says ""'It's a good oppurtunity to take away stress...""Selsky Although people depend on cars for quick transportation, it can become a hastle when traffic comes into play. It also costs people lots of money when it comes to paying for gas, so an overall reduction of cars would fix all problems regarding stress. As a result of the reduction in car usage, several ""new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up,"" as Andrew Selsky informs the public in ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota."" With an increase of space to build malls and social places, people have a better chance of staying relaxed and stressfree. Not only do these places enourage relaxation, but they provide a place for one to spend time with friends and family.

From driving hazardous and wasteproducing cars to saving money, riding bikes, and hanging with friends at the mall, limiting car usage not only creates a healthier community but provides people with oppurtunities to be better. All around the world people are working to change their daily habits that have created the dirty world one lives in today. Limiting car usage creates an overall happier environment to live in and an endless amount of possibilities.",0
63899ad9,0,"The "" "" seems to be a very aggravating phrase for an entire population of people who have become so dependent on it. It's a concept that we can't take in. We Americans use our cars for a personal use daily. We are so accustomed to our cars that we just use it to perform simple tasks that we could use our legs that were given to us, for free, to cross the street. When the average person says that they would like to go to the market across the street, probably about 70%, don't even think about the fact that we could just simply walk there. Cars are enlarging our environment and our health. Cars create so much pollution and is a healthrisk. Our cars seem to be as important as one of our limbs. Something you could not bare to live without. Now here are some of the reasons why.

To begin with, cars are polluting our atmosphere. Have you ever heard of the ""green house effect""? It's endangering our Earth, by polluting it, which is contributing to Global Warming. Cars are something we shouldn't always rely on. We have to get accustomed to the way of the pioneers. We all just need to limit the amount of times we use our cars and think, ""hmm.. do i really need to use my car right now? Can't i just use my two working legs to get to where i want to go, which is right down the block."" In the article, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", paragraph 5 lines 69, the article states that, and i quote, ""passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50% in some carintensive areas of the United States."" Which is a whole lot of damage we are inflicting our own environment that we need to thrive on and live off. In reality, cars are overrated. We don't always need it, so we shouldn't always use it.

In the article, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", paragraph 12 lines 13, it states, ""congestion was down 60% in the capital of France, after 5days of intensifying smog."" Imagine all of that pollution on this earth if we kept using our cars, which are slowly killing us.

Not only do cars endanger our environment, but it also creates a huge healthrisk factor.

Cars can make us become lazy. We can use our cars so much to the point where we could get accustomed to cars and grow tired and weary of using our legs. We may as well just live in a car. Cars could also create lots of stress. In artcile ""Carfree day is spinning a big hit in Bogota."", paragraph 5 lines 12, the author interviews someone and that person claims that, "" It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower airpollution."" In Conclusion, we together as a whole should limit our car usage to cut back on pollution. We should all learn to be in touch with our environment and to just walk around in our clean, ecofriendly air. If we cut back, we wouldn't have to be worried about Global Warming anymore. We would all be closer, one step at a time.",0
63927e8d,0,"""All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change."" David Goldberg. Automobiles have been a major impact on today's technology. The creation of the car was a huge turning point in history. Even though this machine has been such an amazing creation, it still causes a lot of damage in society. Cars affect both the environment and humans. The limit of car usage would be great because then the amount of pollution would decrease, less traffic would occur, and it makes way for alternative transportation opportunities.

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting ""car reduced"" communities. The reduction of cars can lead to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. According to Elisabeth Rosenthal, cities are choking due to the increase number of emissions. Paris had hit nearrecord pollution which lead to an enforced ban of partial driving to clear the air of the global city. according to Robert Duffer, Paris typically has more smog than other European capital. In Bogota, Colombia there is a day called Day Without Cars, there they only let buses and taxis drive around and their goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. If anybody goes against this, they would have to pay 25. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza. This day became really big in Colombia and improved their cities overall look.

Furthermore, the limitation of car usage would decrease the amount of traffic. Traffic is an ongoing issue in everyday life. People arrive late to work or school or wherever they need to go due to traffic or an accident. During the Day Without Cars in Colombia, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses, leaving the city devoid of traffic jams. Traffic jams are usually stressful so if that gets reduced with the limitation of car usage, then stress levels get reduced as well, causing mentally healthier people. Traffic jams also occur due to accidents. Car accidents are one of the many reasons why people end up in hospitals, get sued, get hurt, or loose money. With the limitation of car usage, all these issues will be resolved.

Moreover, new alternative transportation vehicles can come into play with the reduction on car usage. There is a plan where they want suburbs to play a much larger role in a new sixyear federal transportation bill to be approved. Also, during the Day Without Cars, the goal is to promote alternative transportation. Lately, new transportation vehicles have been discovered and created. Some include, a flying car, an elevated train that gets you from point A to point B in seconds, and new hybrid cars. Technology keeps progressing every single day. Today people may be driving their normal SUVs but by tomorrow, they could be drivng the new highspeed flying Ferrari. People are always keeping in mind while creating these machines about how it will affect the community and the consumers. Since it is obvious that the environment isn't as healthy as it was before, they must make sure that these machines limit pollution and emissions that affect the world negatively.

Overall, the limit of car usage would be a good thing. As time goes on people may not even need cars anymore to move from place to place. If everyone works together to solve these issues then the world would become a much better place. The final goal is to get rid of all the bad emissions and issues and just stick to what is best for the environment. When the environment is healthy, the humans are healthy.",0
63a4f67c,0,"Cars are a major aspect of transportation in the twentyfirst century. Having the hottest, newest, model of vehicle is all the craze in todays carloving society. But new research shows that cars are becoming a leading contributor to the pollution of major cities world wide, and cities all across the globe are doing whatever they can to help prevent the pollution.

Eupore has always fancied its luxurious cars, especially in upscale communities. But in recent years countries such as germany and France have made efforts to reduce the amount of cars on the streets in order to reduce the amount of pollution in the air. A new upscale community in Vauban, Germany has been built completely on the basis of no cars. Seventy percent of the residents of this community do not own cars, and those who do own cars, must keep them outside of the community. Many residents here feel that having no cars gives them a little peace of mind. Heidrun Walter, a resident of Vauban says, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" A major upside to not owning a car is the relief from stress. Many people have many worries about their cars whether it will work, the amount of gas in it, the cost of gas, and so on. Getting rid of the problem also gets rid of the worry. Getting rid of cars also allows new opportunities for better city building. making cities and suburbs denser discourages the need for cars and promotes the idea of walking, biking, or skating to a destination.

The United States has always loved its cars, but recently many people have taken to the sidewalks instead of taking to the streets. Transportation is the second largest source of emissions in America and it seems to be declining. studies find that after 2005, many Americans began to stop buysing cars and started to find other ways to go from point A to point B. Many people credit this fact to the recession around 2008. After the down turn, people became more money contious, and the unemployed didn't need to go anywhere anyway. With no cars, Americans can save thousands of dollars a year because of no payments and not having to pay those expensive gas prices! The fewer cars on the street has also had a positive impact on the environment. Less greenhouse gases has made the air in the suburbs and some cities much cleaner. Technology has also made a huge impact on our commute. People connected with friends and family without even having to drive and visit them, and teleconfernces across countries and continents have reduced the need to drive or fly places to do buisness. Many mojor car producig companies have also rebranded themselves in order to make personal transportation a thing of the past and make mass public transportation a obtainable goal.

Smog is a big issue, not only in the United States, but also in places such as Erope and Latin America, both of which have started to make efforts on cleaning the air and redcing the amount of cars on the road. In the 1990's Bogota, Colombia started a tradition in which the citizens find alternative ways of trasportation to work and shops one day out of the year, and for three straight years, cars have been banned in the streets on this ""holiday."" Because this event has grown so poular, many people have started to practice life without cars on a daily basis. New parks have formed, hundreds of biking paths have been added throughout the city, and upscale resturants and stores have began to pop up in the city. The carfree lifestyle has definitely effected Bogota, Colombia. Europe has also had a great quarrel with its smog problem in recent years, and Frane has been making an effort to stop the smog problem from getting any bigger. Paris recently put a ban on driving in the city in effort to reduce smog. On Monday, divers with even license plates were asked to find other ways of transportation, and on Tuesday drivers with odd license plates could not drive. The population did not have a very positive reaction, but the congestion of cars in the capital did go down sixty percent on both days, and the efforts worked so well, the city was able to lift the ban after on week.

Car culture has been a part of our societ for a long time. However, large strides have been made all across the globe in order to reduce the amount of cars on the road and the amount of pollution in the air. These strides have had many positive impacts on the communities they have served in and continute to make tomorrow a better and cleaner world.",0
63c502d2,0,"What's the first thing you think about when you see a car? How much gas mileage its has? What year is it? How fast can it go? Well, have you ever thought about how much pollution it puts into our air that we breathe? Or the car bill you have to pay every month?I'm going to assume you don't. There are ways we can change this problem and im going to prove how!

To begin this argument im going to point out that over 77% of American people are in debt in their car bill, ALONE. That's over 34 of our population in the U.S. You cannot tell me people are not stressed from this over whelming statement! ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."", said by a former car owner Heidrun Walter. She now rides bicycles with her two children and now acar bill is one less thing she has to worry about in her hectic life.

Another advantage of limiting car usage would be do reduce smog pollution. Now this is not only a problem in America, it's all over theworld. Paris is particularly bad in this division. Paris typically has more smog that other European capitals. It got so horrible they has to enforce a ""driving ban"" to ensure all the air was clear in the global city. It even rivaled Beijing, China which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world. After about five days the congestion on the streets plumitted down to 60%.

Having said that, not only is car usage bad for our earth, we could benefit our health from it! In Bogota, Columbia they set up a program named ""Car free day."" Millions of their citizens hiked, climbed, skated or took bus transportation to work. This day left the streets empty with no traffic, and the people that did drive had a 25 fine. Rain or shine nothing could stop these people from participating in this event. The city benefited from this so much that parks and sport centers have boomed from high demand because people want to have a healthier lifestyle in general. One day they hope every city has something similar to this day so that our owlrd will be heathier and even happier!

Therefor it is clearly obvious of the advantages we would have if we limited on car usage. People would be alot healthier not only from the excersise, but the air would be alot more cleaner to breathe in. Also it would be safer and cut down tremendously on deaths.We might just be over the peak of driving.",0
63cdce2d,0,"Almost everyone owns a car because people are traveling constantly to get from point A to point B. No matter who it may be, that person at some point in their lives needs some way to get around. Everyday people need to either go to the store, pick up their kids, go to work, go to school, you name it. That doesn't mean that owning a car is a necessity, all around the world many people are trying to cut down and limit their car usage by having a whole lot of other options. There are buses, people can car pool, walk, skate, bike, and many more. People are coming to the conclusion that if we, as a whole, decide to start cutting down on our usage of cars it can benefit the way we live.

Lots of people actually don't mind not having a car just yet. Most teenagers do want to get their license and a car but there's so much other things they need to focus on. It really is not a priority for them because they have school, work, plus if they do need to get somewhere they can always take the bus and get a ride from a friend Source 4. In Germany, there is a city by the name of Vauban, that is known to be the most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life Source 1. vaughn's goal and idea, which is to cut down on cars for a better living, has made it'a way around the world, so that other states and countries can aspire to do the same and little by little we could have a world that is not so dependent on cars. The idea of using cars, for some, it causes them stress and they're always tense, not using a car makes them happier, as stated by Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two Source 1. The stress aspect of this could be due to the fact that in the most recent years, the percentage of car crashes and accidents have gone up. Many people abhor the idea of using cars because they have been in an terrible accident themselves or someone close to them. Also, it can even just be all the traffic jams that occur during rush hour, which makes people late and accidents do happen. For example in Bogota, Colombia, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to their designated location, to leave the streets due to traffic jams Source 3. Since they knew that lots of their citizens were deciding not to use cars they started making uneven, pitted sidewalks into nice, smooth, replaced ones for them Source 3.

Another reason why people want to limit their usage on cars is because of all the pollution cars create. Passenger cars are rsponsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States Source 1. Not many people think about the effects of air pollution like smog, but it is a big deal. Since people don't think about it often, there is no way for the majority of us to try and find a solution to put into action to stop it or help it go down. In Paris, there was a partial driving ban to clear the air around the city Source 2. Paris' partial ban was their idea to try and make their city a better place. With the ban being enforced and put into play there were about 4,000 drivers fined Source 2. It turns out that since the driving ban was made the congestion, car traffic, had gone down 60 percent in the capital of France, just after five days of less smog pollution and Paris is typically known to have more smog than any other European capitals Source 2. This goes to show, that slowly people are actually becoming aware of what's going on and they actually care enought to try and make things better.

All in all, there are many ways to try and cut down on our car usage for the better. It can be anything from not buying as many cars, to deciding to not use cars at all and deciding to walk, skate, and bike, etc. Not only will limiting our car usage as a whole stop traffic jams, car accidents, air pollution, and more, it will help to benefit our lives for the better whether or not people want to believe it. If things keep going from here, and more and more decide that less car usage is better than over a time span of let's say 2030 years, there could be a lot less dangerous things occuring in our lives.",0
63e19543,1,"Many people across the country would believe that having an Electoral College is good idea. Well, I believe that it is not a good idea to continue having an Electoral College to chose our president because the people deserve to have their votes count. In the process of having an Electoral College the popular votes do not count, only the slate of electors can vote for the candidate. That's not even the worst part to begin with.

In source 2, it says that 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. That is more than half the amount of voters in the country! It even states ""In the same vein, faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please."" meaning that sometimes the electors would not always have the same idea in mind as the people have. To me that is a real bummer especially for the people in the state with those kinds of electors.

Furthermore, the Electoral college may have a few benefits as it states in source 3. Fore example, it says ""The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."" meaning that barely anyone would vote in the state. But that is usually a rare occasion and is easily avoided in every state. As individuals we would usually not avoid coming to vote in an election for certain positions especially when it comes to a president.

Sometimes people would even let the Electoral College vote for them without the people knowing who they voted for. The Electoral College is supposed to represent their state towards a candidate but what if the state rarely has any electors to be represented or doesn't have any at all? That is why it is up to the people to make their own decision in who they want to vote for and hopefully their vote counts. The Electorial College may be recomended to represent their state but they can never represent every individual's vote because not all people have the same candidate in mind and the Electorial College can only vote for one candidate.

Overall, I think the Electoral College should be abolished in every way. It is the people's vote that should count not the electors. Some people may disagree but I still believe the Electorial College is not good for us. It is not truely fair to have the majority of popular votes on one candidate and still that candidate does not win due the Electoral College. So I can most certainly agree with what previous people and groups have said before such as Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S Chamber of Commerance, and the AFLCIO.... To get rid of the Electoral College.",0
63feddfa,1,"Citizens of the U.S. have been voting for their presidents ever since George Washington was elected. They vote because they want their voices and opinions to be heard. So they can provide ways to make their lives better. But the truth of the matter is, we don't make the decisions. The Electoral College does. They should change the election to go by popular vote of the United States. Reason being is because what's the point of voting if they won't listen and they only hand pick a few people out of the millions of others. But keeping the College would make it easier to have votes counted.

Initially, the point of voting is to be heard and to have things your way for once, but if it's falling on deaf ears, then why bother? For example, in the Indefensible Electoral college writer Bradford Plumer states that, ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the president."" Okay lets say someone wanted to vote for the Republican, and they vote for one of the electors who pledge themselves to the Republican. We can't rely on a person's word. What if they change their mind and vote for the other? How can natural citizens know to put their faith into a random stanger. Clearly, the voter does not get a say in the matter.

Furthermore, the millions of people who vote are reduced to a small amount of people. ""The Electoral College consists of five hundred thirty eight electors,"" and ""Two hundred seventy is needed to decide who's president."" The Office of the Federal Register. So states like New York and Nebraska only have three to six people voting since they are small. While on the other hand, California, Texas, and Florida have about thirty to sixty. And with the civilians living there, it's still not enough. Honestly, it wouldn't even matter if they voted.

On the other hand, the smaller amount of people, the quicker the U.S can get a president. In paragraph 4 of in defense of the electoral college' it's replied that, ""A tie is possible... but it is highly unlikely."" The presidential vote in 2012 may have not been a landslide ,but at least it wasn't a tie. The small amount made it a lot easier to count the votes. And the majority of voters still got who they wanted ,so it wasn't all terrible. The electoral college hasn't all been bad.

The Electoral College has more cons than it has pros. A citizen's voice must be heard and that won't happen if only few people are heard. But votes can be counted faster if there's only a tiny amount.",0
6400a32c,1,"When you think of the USA the first word that you think of is freedom or a word along those terms. I would have to agree with you we are a very free and fair country for...most things like voting I would have to say that the Electoral Collage is the one unfair thing we have and their are many reasons why we should replace the Electoral Collage with popular vote.

The Electoral Collage is when voting for the president, instead of directly voting you have electors represent your state during elections. The Electoral Collage is made up of 538 electors, you have one elector for every member of the Congressional delegation and House of representatives plus two for the Sentors this is per state then they all come together to represent during the election of the president. This is how the Electoral Collage is set up it all seems fair but you, yourself arent having a fair chance to vote for who you want as the president, its like having someone make your sessions for you its just unfair. The Electoral Collage is set up so the electors vote for who they want to win surely one of your electors will vote for who you want but its not enough you basically have no voice during elections. Bradford Plumers The Indefsible Electoral Collage he says ""At the most basic level, the electoral collage is unfair to voters, because of the winner take all system in each state"" he then says "" The candidates only spend time in the swing states where they know they have a chance of winning"" he is pointing out that those who are running for president spend a majority of their time in the states where they can get the most amount of votes for example they might campaign to Florida or Washington DC but not even go to a state like Wyoming or Idoh.

I think we should have the popular vote because it goves everyone a chance to vote for the president, they can voice their opions out loud and have a chance at seeing who they want in office. Another reason the Electoral Collage is unfair is because the electors might all be Republican or all Democrat but we as voters dont get a chance to pick what party we stand for, with popular vote you have a chance to say who you want and what party you represent weather its Republican, Democrat or Induvial you at least get the chance and even though its only a 25 percent chance who you vote for is going to win at least its still a chance. Popular vote has its many advantages but one of the best is you can ""get to know"" who your voting for the candidates can come to your state and make speechs, have posters something to tell you what they are planning on doing if they get elected, this gives every state a fair chance to see who they are voting for. And yes they might spend a longer time in New york then Ohio but at least their spending time and educating the people on what they want to do and why the people should vote for them. Know I know theres alot of arguments on why we should have the Electoral Collage so let me get to that.

In Richard A Posners In Defense of the Electoral Collage he states that the Electoral Collage is good because of the "" swing states"" wich he then says "" The voters in tossup states are more likely to be the most thoughtful voters because they know they are going to decide the election"" in saying this he means that people who live in swing states will be more careful and more thought out on who they want to vote for. Yes this might be true but what about all the non swing states like for example Texas they could have been careful while voting but Florida was not, then you have Ohio and New Mexico who could have been careful to but compared to Florida their votes get lost even though they were more careful and thoughtout.

So as you can see popular vote is more fair and also a smarter method of things it gives the peoplle a fair chance to vote for who they want while also allowing them to voice thier thoughts.",0
64259c94,0,"""Carfree"" Many drivers around the world are deciding to take a break from driving and have now decided to ""think green."" Although some may disagree that this could be helpful toward the environment there is evidence that says it is helpful. Some may not see the point and think that this new epidemic is inconvenient but maybe they just are not educated about these new ideas.

Throughout the globe multiple cities have found ways to use some forms of public transportation, riding bicycles, and even walking to get themselves where they need to go. For example, Bogota, Colombia has a ""carfree"" day every year where only public transportation is available. Like Enrique rivera said in paragraph 26 the people of this city in Colombia are a part of this great change that encourages others to join in. The author also states in paragraph 28 that there is new parks and sidewalks which would have a positive affect on the attractiveness of their city.

Imagine having a ""carfree"" day everyday of the year. That is exactly what a new city in German has done. Vauban, German was built in 2006 as a suburb with no real streets or parking spaces. Citizen of this new city only have to places to park their cars, in a large garages outside of town with a space costing 40,000 or in their home. As said in paragraph 3 most of the families in Vauban do not own a car and more than half sold their cars to move into the ""carfree"" city. Most of the citizens feel less stressed and more relaxed about no longer having a car also.

Surely you're thinking ""What about the U.S.? They're one of the most powerful countries in the world they must have some insite on this new trend."" As a matter of fact they do. The U.S. has slowly started to take a break from the automobile. More and more of the new generations have decided to not get their driver's licenses. In most big cities in the U.S. such as New York most of their citizens do not own a car and rather just walk or use other transportation due to traffic. It can be easier just to walk somewhere rather than to sit in a car thats bascially parked due to such bad traffic. In other parts of the U.S., there is a new trend of carpooling which can not only have a positive impact on the environment but can also save you money. In paragraph 43, even Bill Ford, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, agrees that less use of a car can have a positive impact.

Overall, the reduction of private vehicle transportation can help reduce the negative affects on the environment and on other aspects of life such as stress level. Multiple countries have started to join in this new worldwide idea of how to make this world a better environment for the future and most all of them have contrirbuted having others try it out. If we all are willing to give up a little for one thing it can make a big difference for everyone in the world's future.",0
6462cba9,1,"Dear me. Senator, Today I am asking for your favor of keeping the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. This process now consists of the selection of the electors and meeting where they vote for the president and vice president, and the counting of votes by the congress. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, but only 270 of those votes are required to elect the president. I think that we should change the way that our citizens vote. I also think that we should update how the elections are run.

First of all, we should change the way that our citizens vote. When we vote for a president we are actually just voting for that Elector. So there is a possibility that the Elector could vote for the opposite president and your vote basically not be put in. I think that our citizens should have enough rights that they dont have to have Elector to do the voting for them and we can all just vote for who we want. For instance, it could be just all politics and the Electors get paid to vote for a certain person and thats why most of the presidents who get elected get elected today.

Secondly, We should update how the voting system works. Instead of it being 270 people out of 538, we should just have everyone one vote without Electors. Then everyone would have there say in the voting system and then they could just average it out or figure out the math of who won by percentage. For instance, take the number of all the people who voted for both presidents and take the number of one of the presidents and divide them by eachother and multiply it times 100. Then all the political stuff wouldnt happen because everyones vote counted. Maybe a change in the system would be a good idea.

Last but not least, In The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong, Bradford said that in 1960 segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. So that vote would not have actually gone to Kennedy. So the Electors are not as reliable as everyone thought. Some Electors have also refused to to vote for there parties canidate. My honest opinion is to just change the Electoral College.

In conclusion, I am writting to you me. Senator in hopes that you can fix the Electoral College and change the election to a popular vote. If this were to happen, it could make our citizens have a little more rights. We may also update our system a little bit so that the election voting is a little more accurate so that everyone gets to get there vote in. Maybe this could be what solves most of the political problems in the world.",0
6479d145,1,"The Electoral College has been around since the Constitution was established by the founding fathers. The question is, Is it time for it to go? I believe that the Electoral College should be kept, because changing the election by popular vote would not be wiser, and the Electoral College is fair for the people.

Changing the election by popular vote would not be smarter. Source 3 states, ""In 2012's election... Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3% of the popular votes cast for him and rodney."" This source is arguing against the Electoral collegee, meaning they're trying to make a point on why it's not fair that Obama won with his 61.7 percent. The people vote for their electoral collegee, for their state. If the electoral collegee's votes are higher than the popular votes that means that the collegee is doing their job correctly. Source 3 also states, ""... Because almost all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis, even slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoral vote victory in that state."" This statement means that even if the popular and electoral votes are both high, the electoral vote wins, because majority rules. Just because the person running for office is popular, doesnt mean they should necessarily win. Electoral votes basically come from the people, and if the ""people"" choose a certain candidate, then that's who should win.

The Electoral College is fair to everyone. Source 2 states, ""Under the Electoral College system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" This method of choosing the president is completely and totally fair to the people. No, they're not directly choosing who the president is, but they have people to do it for them. As long as they cast in the right vote for the party that that candidate represents, then the Electoral collegee board should be filled with all the right people. Yes there is a possibility that the candidate someone votes for may not make it on the Electoral collegee board, but if the majority of the people are represented, then that's all that matters. Source 3 states, ""...each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that truth is barely betrayed... however it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote."" For instance, if the people vote for candidates for the electoral collegee, and the majority of them are not what the majority of the people wanted, or they lied about being pledged to a candidate for president, then there is still a chance that the candidate that the people did want could be elected, by the national popular vote. Also, the people that are against the electoral collegee shouldn't be, because the electoral collegee is not definite. Just because the electoral college votes for a certain candidate, does not guarantee that the overall national vote will be that person.

Eventhough some people think that the electoral collegee, should be no more, I strongly disagree, because the collegee is fair to the people because they represent the people and the collegee is a smart idea. The collegee works in everyone's favor. For those that disagree, there is always a strong chance that the candidate represented by the electoral collegee will not win presidency.

In conclusion, the Electoral collegee is beneficial to the people and a wise idea. The people in the entire country are never going to unanimously agree on anything. Keeping the Electoral collegee is not only wise, but a safe way to ensure that voting doesn't go wrong, and that the people always get a fair say in government matters.",0
648e4235,1,"For the vote for the president of the United States, the election should not depend on popular vote, but for the Electoral College. The citizens of the United States should understand that when they vote, they are voting for the Electoral College, and that their vote will not necessarily determine who the president is. The Electoral College should be picked more carefully to avoid ""the disaster factor"", but not completely abolished.

As stated in paragraph 1, the electoral college is a compromise between the congress and popular vote. This can serve as a check that determines the president. Just like children are taught in elementary school about science projects, multiple tests can determine the best result. Relying on one voting could put the wrong president in place, and our country is at stake in this situation. If the president presents his campaign to multiple groups of people, it can show what people want in many scenarios. This can determine what the best choice really is.

In paragraph 9 of source 2, it states how many presidents have wanted to abolish the electoral college. It seems that they all could have one thing in common: they recieve the popular vote, but not the Electoral College vote. I could frankly say that this makes them sound like sore losers, and because one of two parties didn't vote in their favor, they want to get rid of it. I'm sure they might have some legitimate reasons as to why they want to abolish the Electoral College, but I wouldn't doubt that being a sore loser is one of them.

In paragraph 11, the author talks about the 2000 fiasco. Although he makes some good points about the legitimacy of the Electoral College, some points can be made about the popular vote as well. Many people in the popular vote can choose their vote based on things that don't relate to the campaign, and some people running for president depend on it. They will spend their time trashing the opposing candidate which will cause the voter to think ""This president says that the other is bad and I believe them, so i will vote on the person that told me so"". This is just one example of how just like the Electoral College, the popular vote can be illegitimate as well.

Although there are many reasonable reasons to abolish the Electoral College, it should not be abolished so that the vote is based on many trials, rather than just 1. We should carefully select our Electoral College, but getting rid of it could put the wrong president in place for the wrong reasons. This is why the Electoral College should continue to be a part in the vote for the president of the United States.",0
6495771f,0,"Limiting the usage of cars will bring a lot of advantages for everyone. Cars are creating massive amounts of smog, which is not good for our planet Earth. It has also been said by many people that they feel better without cars. People now a days are even losing interest in cars. Although cars do get us to places faster and they are very useful, there are more advantages for us as human beings and for our planet Earth. Without our planet Earth, we won't have anywhere to live in so let's get rid of cars.

According to source two, ""Congestion went down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."". This all happened because paris banned driving and everyone was ordered to leave their cars at home or would have to pay a 22euro fine, better understood as 31 in the United States. The air of the city had ""147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London"" source 2. By banning driving for five days, the air in this city was cleared out tremendously. This is good for us because we need clean air to breath, we can't breath air that is not healthy for us. If we do, we're all going to die sooner or later and it's all going to be our fault.

It is also an advantage that by limiting cars, people feel better. According to source 3, in Bogota, Colombia, they have an event in which driving is banned for a whole day. Violators, of course, would get fined if they don't follow this event. A resident from here, Carlos Arturo Plaza, said that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" Source 3. This means that cars have been having people stressed out and I know it's true. Imagine coming out of work at three in the afternoon and you have to sit through traffic for an hour. By the time you get home, all you want to do is sleep, rest and relax. Source three also tells us that ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city"". It's so much better seeing everyone having fun and getting more involved in their community and not having to sit through rush hour after work. Because many people have been seeing that not being allowed to drive helps us in so many ways, ""the Environmenta Protection Agency is promoting 'car reduced' communities"" source 1. This will help everyone and they are hoping that public transport will play a larger role in the next upcoming years.

Since people all over the world have been noticing the differents advantages that banning driving has for us, they are actually losing interest in cars. According to source four, ""a study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009..."". Instead of making this be seen as a bad thing, it's actually a good thing. As I said before, less cars in the streets means less polluted air. And in this case since young people aren't that interested in getting their driver's license, there will be less accidents and less people dying. For example, source 3 gives us an example of how two adults of the age of 19 and 21 have not bothered to get their driver's license. They just don't make it their priority because they know that they can always just get on the publlic transit, walk, or carpool with their friends.

In Conclusion, banning driving will make people feel better, they will enjoy life more. The air will be less polluted because the streets will not have cars polluting it. Also, there will be less accidents and people will live longer because of this. We will all receive advantages by banning cars. Some peolple might complain at first but they will soon notice, it's all for their good.",0
650843b9,0,"Cars nowadays are a big part of our lifes, they take us to where we need to go and help us go to far away places. Even though cars are important in our lifes, there are lot of advantages to limited car usage. Some places such as VAUBAN, Germany have given up their cars. ""Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to parklarge garages at the edge of the development, where carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home."" This results in less people owning or having cars and reducing green house gas emissions from tailpipe. ""passengers cars are responsible for 12 percent of green house gases emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" source 1. Private ownership of cars are slowly choking our cities, if we limit our car usage little by little it may have a huge effect in our ecosystem.

In continuation, there have been situations where the air pollution got so bad that they had to ban driving so they could clear the air. For example in Paris, ""after days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of global city""source 2. The drivers were fined a 22euro fine if they did not leave their cars at home. In the end the smog cleared and the French party recinded the ban for oddnumbered plates. This is one of the many examples that proves that just by having less cars driving around it eventually changes the way the atmosphere looks and cleans the atmosphere a little.

Smog is a sign of high air pollution, it indicates that the air is not healthy and this can be harmful to our environment. ""It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog."" As indicated in the passagesource 3, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", just one day without cars can reduce smog imagine if we go weeks without a huge number of cars driving around. This idea might sound crazy to some people but it has surprisingly helped the environment. This however is not the only advantage of reducing car usage. Some other advantages are that if we go to our jobs in a bike everyday or just go for a walk instead of a drive we are also being more productive and active, hence making us healthier.

Although some people might find leaving their cars behind is a bad idea, studies have shown that people who do so gets used to the idea and find less reason to resume the habit of car commuting. For example instead of driving to the beach we should ride our bikes or take public busses to get there. Without cars we learn to appreciate the beauty of nature more and notice things about the place were we live that we have never seen before. I have came to notice that when you are driving you really dont notice things because you are to busy focusing on the road, but when u have a walk around your neighborhood or anywhere for that matter you see things you have never noticed before and you leaarn to appreciate nature more. The idea of leaving our cars behind is hard for some people, but if you think about the effect it will have on the environment it is worth it.

In conclusion, carfree cities might sound like a joke to some people but it is helping out in clensing our environment increasingly. As indicated in the passage, ""The End Of Car Culture"", ""If the pattern persistsand many sociologists believe it willit will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of Americas emissions, just behind power plants."" We are responsible for how our environment is going to look like in the future years, wouldnt it be better for it to look like a beautiful clear sunny day or a foggy grey fuss? Quiting a habit like driving is very hard but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.",0
650b3daa,0,"The automobile is one of mankind greatest innovations. Since its invention in the 20th century, it has made tasks such as commuting to work or visiting your friends simpler than ever. Just hop in your car and your gaspowered vehicle will have you there within minutes. Although they are handy, could too much of a good thing be a bad thing? In this case, I believe that this is true. Limiting car usage could have benefits such as easier and cheaper transportation and fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Imagine a world where public transportation subways, trains, buses could be accessed easier. Now look past the ways of modern life and cars we've become so dependent on. The growth of public transportation in places other than large cities could have huge benefits to the communities. Cars would not be relied upon and not as much money would have to be spent on gas. Of course people would still use cars to get from point A to point B but they would see public transportation as more of a goto option. Source 4 ""Bill Ford proposed a plan of partering with telecommunications industries to create cities in which pedestrian, bicycles, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety."" I believe limiting car usage would therefore raise public transportation usage and allow us to commute safer and cheaper than before.

Pollution has become an increasingly important problem in recent years. With all the craze over whether ""global warming"" is imminent or not, many have been trying to find ways to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. The United States holds claim to the invention of the automobile and also stands as one of the most car reliant countries averaging at least one per household. According to the text, passenger cars are responsible for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in some carintensive areas in the United States Source 1. Reducing that number by ways of carpooling, public transport, and hybrid cars, would benefit our society and help to protect the world we live in for future generations. For example, Source 2after days of intensifying smog, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city one Monday. Motorists with evennumbered plates were told to leave their cars at home or face a 31 fine. In just one day, car traffic was down 60 percent with less people driving and the smog cleared enough to lift the ban for oddnumbered plates the next day. In Bogota, Cali, and Valledupar, Colombia a similar experiment was put to test where there was a full Day Without cars. This plan promoted alternative transportation bicycles, walking, taxis, buses and helped to reduce smog. A local businessman from Bogota saw the day as beneficial and states that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Source 3 Although modern lifestyles have become overly dependent on cars, usage can be reduced and have many benefits to our society. While this would be a process that would no doubt take years to accomplish globally, I believe that it is very possible and likely that limiting car usage would lead to easier and cheaper transportation, and fewer greenhouse gas emissions or pollution.",0
650bdcc3,1,"Being in control of your country is exactly what everyone wants. Many wars were fought and lives were lost so the people could have rights and be independent. Keep the Electoral College would be in injustice to the United States. By changing the election to popular vote, it would keep the people in power and satisfy the needs for a hardworking loyal presedent.

Each and every individual deserves the right to vote and have their vote count. With the Electoral College do you even really know what your voting for? The confusing process of Electoral College is causing certain state to have more power over others which is unfair. The quote by the Office of the Federal Register states, ""...when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors. "" shows how citizens may not understand the already active system and be using it incorrectly. Although the Electoral Process is less likely to cause a tie, there are still concerns for this risky process.

Think about this, you live in a small state like rhode island. Due to this, the presedent thinks your unimportant and finds no need to campaign to your state because there are Electoral Colleges. Is this what you want? Popular voting ensures the presedent to get to know each and every state with hard work and individuality. Not only does this create charator but the presedent tobe is now more respected by the people. Much chaos is avoided through the popular vote possess just as Plumer said, ""The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe."". Many times questions are asked regarding if the election was fair or not, these abundant and overwhelming questions wouldn't be asked is the Popular vote process was in play.

Electoral college is outdated, unfair and unneeded. Keeping the people updated and inpower has kept this country running. Also voting in loyal and trusted presedents has had a major impact on our country. By using the Popular Vote process the voting time of year would be less stressful and more trusted. By changing the election to popular vote,it would keep the people in power and satisfy the needs for a hardworking loyal presedent.",0
654fd2b7,1,"The United States of America has come a long with in regards to its legal system. For example, the new laws that are currently being added to allow gay couples to marry. That shows true progress, however there are other laws that we have, which simply are not needed anymore and are quite outdated. An example of this would be the Electoral College. The system that it abides by is horrendous and unjust. In the eyes of many the Electoral College should be removed from the law and will make Democratic decisions within this country much better.

Now there are quite a few well known people who believe that the Electoral College should be abolished. These people include Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter,and Bob Dole just to name a few. One of the biggest controversial events that had to do with a failure of the Electoral College was the election of 2000. In this situation Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency due to the methods of the Electoral College. It all seems to just be an irrational method as well as a waste of time. This is to be believed because you have citizen voters who add up to the popular vote, yet afterwards it is then turned over to the electors who may be unfair and corrupted. The votes would be much simpler and much more fair if it was a direct popular vote. Not to mention that over sixty percent of voters whould prefer a direct election as opposed to the method of voting we have now.

Source 2, Brad Plumer The way that the Electoral College works is selection of electors, then a meeting of electors where they vote for the President and Vice President, and finally the electoral votes are counted by Congress. All thats done is adding a middleman who makes a decision for the people who spent their time to vote for the candidates they elected. Also with this ""winnertakeall system Source 1, The Office of Federal Register it leaves those who ""chose wrong"" left with nothing, however let it be noted that in Maine and Nebraska there is a variation of ""proportional representation"". Finally, after the election the governer of your state prepares a ""Certificate of Ascertainment"" which lists all the candidates who had run for President in your state as well as a list of the representing electors.

Along the lines of voting not only do voters practically have no say in who they are voting for due to basically voting for representing electors thus its up to the electors to vote for a President and Vice President, not the people of this nation. For example, if you lived in Texas and wanted to vote for John Kerry, you would end up voting for a slate of thirty four Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. With the very small chance that the electors won the statewide election kept in mind, they would then have to go to Congress and as a result Kerry would have thirty four more electoral votes. To be honest this whole system seems to be rediculously unnecessary and tedious. As said beofre a direct method of voting from the citizens would be more beneficial to the whole nation. In the end, that is one of the most important things to keep in mind because that is what will end up being affected the most which is the entireiety of the U.S.A.

Lets not forget that in this whle voting via the Electoral College, there is a very apparent disaster factor looming above their heads. When you put it into context that a candidate that a majority of the population of voters appealed to and voted for did not end up being elected because of the choices of the electors theres going to be a huge problem as a result. Not to mention the fact that many are afriad of the chance that there will eventually be a situtaion where there is a tie. Furthermore, this can also be taken into account in a vice versa manner because if there is a candidate that lost the popular vote but won the votes of the electors there will be ridiculous amounts of uproar to follow. In the close there are just too many comlexities and problems that follow the Electoral College and it would be for the benefit of all if it was abolished.",0
657fa970,0,"From a sunday drive to a cross country road trip, automobiles play an important role in how we get around. However in recent years more studies have been developed showing the negative about cars: how they affect the environment. Some people believe automobiles are almost singlehandedly destroying the Earth we so desperately cherish. Perhaps we should all take into consideration how our car usage is affecting the environment around us. I believe that automobiles are a detriment to our society and we should pay attention to how much we use them.

Smog has become a huge problem especially in highly populated areas where there are lots of cars running at the same time. An interesting solution arised to reduce the amount of pollution from cars in Bogota, Colombia as talked about in Source 3. The article tells of a government made holiday that bans car usage in order to reduce the amount of pollution the government even took it so far as to fine the people not participating in their ""Day Without Cars."" I think this is a marvelous idea because people need a little encouragement to do the right thing and it helps reduce the issue we are facing. Another example of an idea to reduce car pollution is shown in Source 2, this time being in France. It talks about how Paris typically has a higher pollution rate than most cities and the government felt a need to change this. They were willing to ban all gas operated cars for as long as it took to clean up the air. There were exceptions to this rule though in the case of carpooling more than 3 people, driving a hybrid or electric car, or public transportation vehicles in order to still have everyone get where they were going. It is refreshing to see that some places in the world are taking a stand in resolving the issue we find ourselves right in the middle of.

For a while now cars have been the king of transportation, it seems about time to change things up a little. In source 1 it talks about an experimental german community that forbids the use of cars. By making everything more accessible to the public in nullifies the use for cars. It seems that the main problem with our settlements is we built them around cars rather than building them for people. Another part in source 1 tells about the effort put out by the United States to promote ""car reduced"" communities. They are planning on doing this by making a bigger portion of the federal transportation bill focus on public transportation than on highways. I believe we are heading in the right direction to reduce our usage of cars and focus on alternate forms of transportation.

In the end it can be said that limited car use is a matter we need to pay very close attention to.",0
659d526b,0,"The advantages of limiting car usage can be a great way to be protected from the dangers that are found within the driving experience, and support the amount and less usage of greenhouse gas that can destroy our atmosphere.

The advantage that can be found with limiting car usage can help to be protected from the dangers found within driving. Source 1 explains how Heidrun Walter feels ""When i had a car I was always tense. Im much happier this way."" Walking and other ways of getting around, other than cars can help people go to places and have that advantage, as source 3 implies ""leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" our technology has been growing at a quick pace and as source 4 mentions "" Likewise the rise in cellphones and carpooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements, including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work."" All of these new ideas has led to the conclusion that cars are not needed since all these second choices are present.

The Advantage of limiting car usage can help and support the amount and less usage of greenhouse gas that can destroy or atmosphere. Source 1 concludes "" Experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe... Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in europe."" Cars are the main reason why our earth can be in danger from all these gases. People need to follow what businessman Carlos Arturo said ""it's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Some countries such as Paris has all ready taken this advantage, source 2 mentions, ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" If people have tryied this change in their lives, others such as one self can too.

The advantages of limiting car usage can be a great way to be protected from the dangers of driving, and support the amount and less usage of greenhouse gas that can destroy our atmosphere. Taking a break off of the car can help our lives be much more safe than sorry. Our lives could be much more easier and not only will we be safe but our planet earth as well.",0
65a07574,0,"When people hear the word transportation, the first most likely thing that comes to ones mind is car. It is typical to think of a car as just a way to get from one place to another faster, but what about the effects of driving. Cars are one of many things that cause pollution, releasing gases that harms our Earth we live on, the very planet that keeps us alive. Limiting car usage could benefit the earth and give you advantages.

""Paris bans driving due to smog,"" by Robert Duffer, the title it self says all, paris has a pollution issue due to the cars that they drive and stated in the article because of ""nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" Because of the actions Paris had to make it reduce the congestion in the capital of France by 60 percent, those who didn't follow to what was told ""suffer a 22euro fine,"" about ""4,000 drivers were fined"" according to Reuters. We shouldn't only resort to cars as transportation, inventions such as the bicycle are still around to this day and the percentage rate of bicycles causing pollution is, zero.

Author Andrew Selsky states in his article, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota,"" that millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during the carfree day."" This day was done so it can encourage people of alternative transportation and reduction of smog, and according to the article some may say it works. ""It is a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" Stated by business man, Carlos Arturo Plaza.

The advantages and possibility people could have if they limited the usage of vehicles, in Duffers article it is proclaim that ""parks and sport centers also bloomed through out the city."" The once beated up side walk, is now restored with ""broad, smooth sidewalks,"" and coming back to the congestion, ""rush hour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic."" There possibilities bloom with the upscale of shopping districts and new restraints increasing.

It is understandable for one to not like the idea of reducing the usage of ones car, but if you sit back and realize it, cars are ""responsible for 12 percent of green house gas emission"" and thats just in Europe. In the United State, there percentage increases to 50 percent. All according to Elisabeth Rosenthal's article, In ""German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars."" Beijing, Chine is guilty of being the ""most poplluted cities in the whole world."" Everyone is a culpret when it comes to poplution and that is why everyone should take time to look at the facts and change, help the earth that helps you. Instead of driving your car to work thats just down the street, take a bike, If not take a shuttle. Don't relie on one source of transportation.

The opportunitys that could accore if one just limit the usage of his or hers motor vechile are endless, but it all starts with a choice. Rethink the way you see cars, think about the effect and possibilities that could offend mothernature. The advantages such as building cardio and decreasing of stress and pollution. The time to change the amount of times we use our car is now because limiting the usage of cars is right, and when you give to the planet the planet gives back.",0
65a78e87,1,"""America for the people, by the people"". Dear senators in which who favor keeping the Electoral College of the United States. Ask yourself this question ""if this country was made for the people, by the people, why aren't we allowed to vote for our own president""?

The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. It's time for change.

To begin with, the principles of America were made under the intention to create a country of equality. This electoral college has created a boundary between the people and it's government. Under the electoral college system, voters vote for not the president, but for a slate elector, who in turn elects the president. By this doing are voice aren't being heard. It's like giving a homeless person fivedollars, we don't know where are money is going. This system needs to be replaced by the popular vote, so that are voice could be heard.

To continue, this system is extremely outdated. The fact that our founding fathers established it in the Constitution, as a comprise between election of the president, is living proof how outdated this system is. This system runs like zombie after the crash of a 5 hours energy drink. Heck, this system is so old, my grandma remembers the day it was established, like it was yesterday. Although this rustbucket is old, the worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, and still not by the hands of ""the people"". We demand change!

Although some may say, this systems prevents a bunch of yahoos from voting. Everyone desevere their take on the subject of matter. There's an adge saying "" the one's you don't expects to learn from, can teach you the most"". After all it is our right to vote, as it is promise in the Constitution. The electoral system is an irrational system. It's basically like a slap in the face. A way of the government saying we're a bunch of dodo birds, that are incapable of voting.

In conclusion, It's official, the electoral college is unfair, extremely outdated, and irrational. The world is changing around us and it's time to adapt. Instead of ""pointing guns at eachother"", we need to assemble. ""Give me freedom or give me death"".",0
65d7951c,0,"Limiting car usage can be beneficial in many ways. For example, the air would be a lot less poluted if we reduced the amount of cars being used. In a German suburb that rarely ever uses cars, people report that it is less stressful to not own a car.

The advantages of limiting car usage is not only beneficial to people but also to the planet. If people were to limit their car usage, the amount of pollution and smog in the air would be reduced and not be such an issue Paris bans driving due to smog, P19.

Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of intensifying smog Paris bans driving due to smog, P14.

""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" Paris bans driving due to smog, P10. Regardless of the partial driving ban, almost 4,000 drivers were fined. This shows that some people do not really care about all the pollution they are bringing the Earth. Which gives people more reason not to limit car usage. If people are not going to try limiting down the usage, other poeple will follow that and not do so either. So limiting car usage is really important for the planet and for us.

The less cars we use the less smog there will be in the air.

Trying to limit car usage is not a new thing, the day without car is part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota, Colombia in the mid 1990s Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota, P27. In Colombia, the rain did not stop the people from participating in the carfree day, and it had an effect in two other cities, Cali and Valledupar, which joined in the carfree day for the first time Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota, P25. So the car free day is rapidly making its way into cities, so that it can help limit the amount of cars being used.

Limiting car usage is very benefitial because it will also help keeping young people safe.

Researcher have found that driving between young people has decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009 The end of car culture, P41. ""What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person started to come down two to three years before the downturn"" The end of car culture, P33. ""If the pattern persisits... it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportaion is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants."" The end of culture, P34. If the usage of cars is reduced, people could be a lot happier than the are now. Since 2001, resarchers believe that young people do not make getting their licenses a priority anymore, which does improve the fact that people are getting a step closer to helping reduce the amount carbon in the air. If people could organize their schedual around being able to walk or take public transportation to the location they need to be at, there would be no need to use cars, to an extent of course. Not everyone can there their schedual to do that, but the more people that contribute to it the better.

""When i had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" says Heidrun Walter Car free cities, P3. Limiting the amount of car usage will not only help to reduce the amount of carbon in the air, but it could also help the people live a happier life like Heidrun Walter. Although not everyone feels that way, whether people like it or not, it is better for them to reduce car usage not only for their sake but also for the worlds sake.

If car usage was to be limited, not only would the world be rid of more carbon, but it could also have a great impact on peoples lives.

""He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commertial and public transporation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety"""" The end of car culture, P43.

Even though at the moment it is not the easiest task to get around, it would improve many things dealing with the environment, the economy, and the people.",0
6620223c,1,"The Electoral College has made everything easier on people. They keep votes fair, clear and concise and make them uncomplicated. Although there are some against the idea, the benefits outweigh the detriments immensely.

Bradford Plumer author of "" "" insists that ""the electoral college is unfair to voters""source 2 paragraph 13. This is surely an opinion as he is just trying to deride the Electoral College. However majority of states vote in favor of the Electoral College anyway. It gives a simple vote to people and produces a clear winner. Also he states that ""the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people.""p.12 He thinks that one representative cant speak for his region, but thats why they vote right? He represents the majority supplementing a clear representation of his stateregion.

Also columnist Richard Posner implies that the Electoral College has ""a presidential candidate that has transregional appeal"" Source 3 paragraph 19. So the presidential candidate can be based off a full region or more, not just a few states. This makes the vote obvious and is a more fair vote. Also the Office of Federal Register tells us there are 538 electors with a 270 majority int the Electoral CollegeSource 1 paragraph 3. Not only is there great variety present but with many votes they make the result concise.

Not only is the Electoral College making votes concise and fair, also it is currently working. Bradford Plumer states ""The electoral college is...outdated""Source 2 paragraph 14. How can it be so obsolete if it is presently working out. The Electoral College is giving the vote meaning and depth in that it gives voters the choice of president and his electors. The Office of the Fedral Register informs us ""You help choose you state's electors when you vote for your president""Source 1 paragraph 6. This gives the voters more voting power as the get to help choose other things in goverment.

Even though there are many counterclaims, the benefits surely outweigh the detriments. Its nearly a perfect system. The fair, multifarious choices, and clear voting of the Electoral college proves it deserves it's stay in the goverment.",0
666737e7,1,"Voting, one of the most American things I can thing of. This is a democracy, and we have the right to vote for our leader, but not really. There is a thing called the Electoral College, and the electors that you vote for actually vote for the president. Although this does not seem fair, it is a great system. Almost every time your state votes for an Elector, he picks the President that your state wants. So it really is a great deal.

My opponents belive that the president should be voted by popular vote, but i disagree. Richard Posner, writer for slate magazine writes that this method is nondemocratic, and should be overruledsource 3, paragraph 15. Although you are not actually voting for president, you are voting for who votes for president. This method equals out the playing field for states. Insted of all the power going to states like California or Texas. Presidents have to fight for every state. Posner also writes, sometimes the person with the popular vote will not win the election, like in 2000source 3, paragraph 16. Although this was a huge disaster, it was the first time something like this has happened since 1888. Also, 4 years later George Bush won the election again, but for real.

Some may say that America is not filled with the smartest, or brightest people. So you belive that we should hold the fate of who will be president in the hands of an adult who cant spell his own name. Someone ike that has as much power as a guy who has watched every debate, and has done research. So by voting for a democrate elector, your state will vote for a democratic president, if your state votes in a republican elector, then your state will vote for a republican president. It is as simple as that.

The Electoral college provides a point system for every state. the biggest are California with 55, and Texas with 38. The smallest are the dakota, and they each are worth 3 points. The point system is based on population, and how many representatives you have. One of the best parts of this is that every state get attention. Without this system, the candidates would only go to campien at the highest populated states. Then this would cause the smaller states to think that their votes don't matter, and then one day we are going to have a bad guy as our leader.

In conclusion, I belive the Electoral College is a great system, and I hope it lives on. Although it is not really Democratic, it still is a better system than what my oppents belive we should do. This gives us a certantity of oucome, a president that everyone supports, swing states, big states, and helps to avoid runoff elections. So Senator, if you back the Ellectoral College, maybe we will vote you as our next President.",0
669e6f61,0,"How could we get the reduction of Greenhouse Gas? We can simply do this by reducing the number of cars on the road. In the city of Vauban, Germany, they gave up cars completely. If you still own a car in this city you have to buy a large garage that runs to about 40,000. This expense doesn't include your house. Up to 70% of the cities population of 5,500 have given up their motor vehicle. The passenger cars in the city are responsible for 12% of the Greenhouse gas. I believe that if we, in the state of Florida, give up our cars that we can literally save the world.

First, Today in the sunshine state, we love to sit in our air conditioned motor vehicles. We love to take a joy ride by the beach, but do you know the real damage you're doing to our world? In the United States alone we produce about 50% of the greenhouse gas. With how many citizens we have, what would that number be if we cut out all motor vehicles? We would be saving the Earth. How does that make you feel? Like a hero? That's what you would be.

Secondly, We all own houses that cost so much! To be able to park your car you could have to buy a large enough garage, that would be at the end of your country that could cost up to 40,000. Why pay this outrageous amount to be the only one driving around your carfree city? If we do take this commitment on reducing our driving, how would you get to work? This is a common question asked. We would be forced to put work establishments within walking distances.

Lastly, we as americans are one of the most obese countries. We sit in cars and drive around daily. Our government has actually made it even more easy to access fast food, they put in drive threws. Some thought that this awesome, new, cool invention could help us save time, but in reality it just make it more simple to get these bad habits. If we really want to eat these bad foods, we would have to walk there. Thus we would be getting more exercise. Getting rid of cars would be the best thing that has happened to us in a long time.

In conclusion, We need to take a stand and stop all motor vehicles. With these powered automobiles we are damaging the earth with Greenhouse gas, Saving money, and giving us what we need. I believe that this change needs to be made soon, or who knows where we could end up. Lets get all states to get rid of all motor vehicles.",0
66b2c283,1,"Dear state senator, Election day is held every four years on the frist Tuesday in the month of November. When you elect for president would you prefer voting yourself and having your vote count or voting for someone who will then vote for your state and elect for the president of choice. For example, lets use the election of Obama versus MittRomeny. imagine if you voted for a man who said ""If you vote for me to represent your state I will elect Obama!"" He might be tricking you and vote for MittRomeny when it is time for them to vote. That means your vote for them and that promise he made to your state dosn't matter because he wanted to voted for MittRomney and he knew majority of the state would go for Obama.

I believe that the Electoral College is wrong for the simple fact is that you do not know the intentions of the reperesentors. For example, in article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" it states in section ""What's wrong with the electoral college"" that ""Back in 1960, segregation in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to kennedy. In the same vein, faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please.... Oh, and what state sends two electors to Congress? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice President Richard Nixon, who was presiding over the Senate, validated only his opponent's electors, but he made sure to do so without establishing a precedent'"" This statement shows that whoever is running can overthrow the other by chaning the mind of their electors.

Also it state in the the same article and same section that ""ATt the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" That means the states who did not get to see campaign ads blindly vote for an elector who will then blindly vote for a president.

I believe that popular voting will be a lot better because so that everyone can vote and not just one person picking for an entier state. Also in popular voting campaign ads will be seen in every state and everybody can make their own choices so noone is blindly voting. At the end after each state is done voting, all the votes will be added together, and a president will be chosen by majority rules.",0
66e2c504,1,"For years I've heard that voting time is the choice of the people. But with Electoral College, it's not about the people it's about the slate electors. When voting for what president the people want, they aren't voting for the president, they are voting for a slate of electors. But if two people are going for president, and one wins the national popular vote but the other has more electors votes the one with more electors votes will be president. I think changing the election to popular voting for the president would be better than Electoral College, I'm not the only one that agrees.

When voting time comes around you see a lot of publicity about each person running for office months before the actually voting time. And between that time of the publicity starts and to the voting date you are picking which person you want in office. You may do some research, listen to all the radio or TV interviews, andor watch all the speeches each person does. The whole time you are set on one person to be president. But yet you can't vote for them, because of Electoral College. You vote for the slate electors, the electors vote for the president. Maybe your slate elector doens't want that person, they can vote for the other runner. Voters can't always control whom their electors votes for. Sometimes voters get confused on the electors and vote for the wrong candidate.

To pick a electors to depends on the state. Maybe it's a state convention, state party's central committee who chooses, maybe the presidential candidates themselves even. It's not always the people's choice on who is president. It has happened before, two people gone for president, one gets more national votes while the other has more electors votes. And of course, the one with more electors votes goes into office. Even though the people decided they wanted the other runner.

During elections the runner for president tend to only pay attention to the more populated state such as California, New York, Florida, and Texas rather than the smaller states that have less number of electoral votes like Hawaii, Alaska, North and South Dakota, or New Hampshire.

According to Bradford Plumer in ""The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, and AFLCIO all agreed on getting rid of electoral college. Over 60% of votes would rather have a direct election to having Electoral College. They rather have a president win by popular vote than having slate electors vote on a president for them.

Voting for a leader of your country should be the people's choice. Not slate electors. It should be by popular vote, not Electoral College's vote. I say listen to the people, vote on popular vote.",0
66f909e9,1,"The Electoral college is a process in which the electors from the state pick the candidate they want according to who has the popular vote. Which can also be a very biased process. The Electoral College is not registered or monitored enough because if an elector from the state wanted to pick who they want to win they could and there isn't really anything to stop them from doing so.

We the people should do away with the Electoral College and instead switch to a more regulated system like majority voting. whichever candidate that gets the most votes from the U.S. takes the win. that way we wouldnt have to worry about our electors for the states being sneaky because there wont be any electors. State legislature is responsible for picking the electors and the electors sometimes defy the will of the people and cast the vote for who they want to win just like when Richard Nixon only validated his opponents electors in 1960. The Electoral College would be a more just way of voting if the electors were well monitored and if every state shared the same weight in the vote but unfortunately, it's not like that so it needs to be done away with.

The Electoral College is a unrestricted and very poorly regulated process, and it is a very unfair process. Because of the winnertakeall system. In 1968, if 41,971 voters voted a different way the election would have been deadlocked. In 1976, if roughly 5,500 voters in Ohio and about 3,600 voters in Hawaii had voted for a different person the election would have been a tie. And usually the bigger states are the only ones to actually see their candidates because the candidates dont neccesarily visit states with very few electoral votes because they wont help them as much instead, they visit the ""swing states"", the states that have a bigger weight in the presidential election.

However, on the other side the people that want to keep it are the ones that look at the few good things not the bad things. Of those helpful things that comes with the electoral collegee is it majorly decreases the chance of a runoff election in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. The Electoral collegee also puts out a certainty of outcome because there is less likely to be a dispute over the outcome in a popular vote then a dispute over an Electoral College vote.

Of course, in life there is always at least some good in things like the Electoral College but in this situation is does more harm then good. It is an overall unfair process because some states are less noticed because of how few electoral votes they hold and also because of the electors not being monitored on the vote they cast for their state. The Electoral College should be doen away with and as a united country we shall adopt a more fair, equal , and all together well monitored system of voting.",0
66fad041,0,"Since the industrial revolution the demand for cars has grown. Cars have been needed for transport to go to work, school, or just plain traveling. But recently the demand has decreasing. All around the world ""no car suburbs"" popped up and people are dying to move. In source one a German city named Vauban only have 70 percent of families owning cars while 57 percent sold their cars to move to Vauban. This new trend of no automobiles is said to lessen stress, reduce smog greenhouse emissions, and make cities more accessible. ""America's love affair with its vehicles seem to be cooling"" says source four.

Greenhouse emissions wither away with the less cars that ride up and down streets. In Paris, the typical smog reaches to about ""147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter"" stated by source two. This makes it harder for traffic to see and causes an unsafe environment for walking. Paris was said to have banned half of cars one day and another half the other and the smog was cleared enough to rescind the no car rule. Greenhouse emissions, like carbon, can cause acid rain, raises the temperature, and can clog up breathing pathways making it unsafe to go outside when the smog is strong. Carbon can be admitted through the fuel of cars. In France, over 50 percent of cars use diesel fuel which causes a greater amount of greenhouse gas emission. If society can walk or ride bikes to work or school then the amount of automobiles needed will decrease. The lessening number of automobiles can help create a safer and healthier environment.

Not only is the 'no car' trend happening in Europe and developed countries but it is happening all around the world. Source three talks about Bogota, Colombia using a no car program. Once a year Colombia participates in a no car day. ""Million of Colombians hiked, bikes, skates, or took busses to work"". The ones that did not were given a 25 dollar fine. This day in Bogota has gotten so popular that people from other countries have traveled just to witness. The idea of no cars can improve city dynamics. Bogota alone has built 118 miles of bycicle paths. The open area away from cars has created room to build parks and sport areas, restaurants, and shopping centers. While the revenue of cars are decreasing these new areas are increasing in revenue. If using no cars for a day can have this large of an impact in a developing country than it must create a big impact for developed countries.

Even though a no car program can be a huge benefit there are still people disagreeing. A growing crime rate can make it not be safe enough to walk or ride a bycicle to work. For some, work may be to far away to create a short enough walk or ride. Some places, like here in Florida, does not have a transit station close by. But even the idea of carpooling can lessen the the use of cars. Picking up just a couple of friends on the way to work or school can lessen the amount of cars on the road. This can create less traffic and carbon emissions and is safer than walking or riding a bike alone. While some argue that the demand for cars has shrunk due the recession it can also be said that cars may not be the top priority. Source four states that between 2001 and 2009 the amount of young adults driving had decreased by 23 percent.

Wether your on your way to work, school, or practice it would be smart to find another way of transportation. If your new years resolution was to get fit and go to the gym, ride your bike or run to work. Bicycling and walking can create a healthier you. Cars have done more harm that good to the environment but it is not too late to change that. We can use places like France, Germany, and Colombia as a great example of a new way to change life. Lets do ourselves a favor and maybe pick up a buddy on the way to work, or ride a bike, take the train, or walk. Lets take part in the new trend of no automobiles.",0
6749bc36,0,"Mustangs, Mercedes, Hummers , and the ""Punch buggy "" are just a few brands of vehicles well known in America. vehicles today are big factor in life for the reason that cars are used every single day all around the world as transportation and although we have the bus or other ways to get to places , driving is the most selected choice to get to a location. With that being said , vehicles being used everyday has it positives and negatives. Positives could be how it takes you to a location quicker than riding a bike or taking a walk , but have you ever thought all the negatives there is when a car being used has ?Could you only imagine a world without car? It may seem like a crazy idea to think a world without cars but a life without cars could be a well functional world for the reason that cars could have contribution to pollution in our air or could make the world a so called different place.

In Addition, driving could have a contribution to pollution. Many may not think about it but cars emissions pollute the air we breath. In a article called ""Paris bans driving due to smogs"" it states how "" after days of near record pollution in the air ,Paris enforced partial driving to clear their pollution. Also how cold nights and warm days caused a warmer layer of air that trapped cars emission when used in Paris."" Pollution in our air may seem a bit scary but the movement of less driving has already began without us noticing.In another article named "" The End of Car Culture"" it speaks on the subject "" there has been a decrease in America in buying cars and driving."" Which is a great start to a better future in our world.

Furthermore , We can make the world a so called different place for the better. In a article called ""In German Suburb, Life goes on Without Cars"" it states how ""their world with any cars has been successful by making where they live more compact and accessible to public transportation. This new approach now stores can be placed a walkway from main street than malls along a distant hallways."" Many places around the world have made a step to a better world for example in a article named "" Carfree day is spinning into big hit in Bogota"" it states "" they had a day free of cars aka driving free to reduced thier pollution and have a more clean better world. Results from this event turned out successful , for that other countries have joined this event."" In Conclusion , A world without cars may seem crazy however just think of all the damages it does to the world than the positives because pollution is not something easy to get rid of and by stepping up to make change as it already began will help us live in a better clean world.",0
6753ce21,1,"As stated in the article, the Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors, where they vote for president and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. The Electoral college consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. A state's entitled number of electors is equal to the number of members in its Congressional Delegation. There is one for each member in the House of Representatives, and two for every Senator. There are many reasons why the voting process should be changed to popular vote instead of the Electoral College. The two biggest reasons are as follows: Unfair elections and the freedom of the people.

As stated in the third source, the Electoral College is often considered an anachonism and is unliked across the nation. The reasons for which vary greatly from certainty of outcome to big states to swing states. Certainty of outcome means that one of the Presidential Candidates has to be chosen to become President. There are no recounts in Electoral College, whoever they like the most becomes President, and that ins't fair to the people. Bigger states tend to have more members in the electoral college. This can greatly influence an election if a big state like Texas favors one candidate over the other. Swing states are the states that receive more attention than other states due to bias, greatly influencing votes. In my opinion, this is something that needs to be changed.

Citizens of the United States of America are the ones who are supposed to decide who should be the President of the United States of America. It isn't right to select a few people from each state to decide who the President will be. That power lies with the people, and nobody should be able to take that away. The votes of millions and millions of people are outweighed by the votes of a few hundred men and women. This is unjust and unfair in every way. If all the people in the United States wanted somebody as President, but the Electoral College disagreed, the Electoral College would win. Why should the Electoral College have more power than all of the people of the United States they shouldn't. The power to decide who is President of the United States of America should always lie with the good citizens that live here.

I hope that the voting process will change. I hope that it will finally become fair. That it will become what the people want it to be. It should be what the people want it to be. We the people of the United States have the power to change this, and we should work to change it. The voting process should no longer be the Electoral College but should be dicided by the people and only the people. The voting process needs to be fair and needs to be what the people want it to be.",0
6762fd3a,1,"Dear, Senator I think the president should be elected by popular vote not electors. Heres some reasons why i think the president should be voted by popular vote and not electors.

One reason is when you vote for your president your actually voting for the presidents elector. So basically your not voting fot a president your voting for a elector that votes for you. After the election the government prepares a ""certificate of ascertainment"" a certificate of ascertainment is a listing of all the candidates who ran for president along with the names of there electors. The certificate of ascertainment also declares the winning president and which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the elector in december of election year.

Another reason is more people would rather abolish electoral college. Electoral college is dumb because there was a gallop poll in 2000 taken shortly afte Al Gore. In the poll Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency because of the electoral college. In the 2000 U.S. presidential race, Al Gore received more individual votes than George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election, Bush received 271 electoral votes and Gore received 266. Under the electoral college system voters vote not for the president but for slate electors. Who can be electors? It can be anyone not holding public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state, sometimes state conventions, sometimes state partys central committee, and sometimes the presidential candidates.

Last but not least the disaster factor. Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people. In 1960 segregationnists in the louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. In the same vein, ""faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their partys candidate and cast a deciding vote for whoever they please. What happens if a state sends two slates of electors to congress? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily Vice President Richard Nixon, who was presiding over the senate, validated only his opponents electors. The most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote in that case the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president and The Senate would choose the vicepresident. Each state only casts one vote that means the single representatives from Wyoming representing 500,000 voters would have as much say as California who represents 35 million voters. An electoral tie seems unlikely think of this: In 1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election In 1976 a tie would have occurred if 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted differently. The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe.

What im trying to say is the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning. During 2000 campaign, seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all including Rhode island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didnt get to see a single campaigh ad. The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrartional. The best arguements in favor of it are mostly assertions. Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college.",0
678b3a6b,0,"All around the world, people are using gasgusling vehicles of mass destruction. Recently, Germany came up with the revolutionary idea to limit the use cars by forbidding street parking, driveways, and home garages in the new, experimental district of Vauban. Others have joined the bandwagon as well, instituting new laws, such as the ""CarFree Day"" in Bogota, Colombia, and the partialdriving ban in Paris, France. France, Germany, and Colombia are the predeccessing countries to the innovational car usage limitations. These limitations have many advantages, such as a decrease in pollution, traffic, and a longterm positive culture shift.

Pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases is one of the common issues troubling countries worldwide. A limit of the use of cars and other various vehicles that run of fossil fuels has been proven to help counter the depletion of Earth's Ozone layer. According to Source 2: Paris Bans Driving Due to Smog, ""The Smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world... Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals... Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London, Reuters found."" The city of Paris had legislate, ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home... The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day"" . Resulting from their legislation, ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday"" . Paris, originally one of the worlds' mostpolluted cities, decreased their pollution so much in one day that it was deemed unnecessary to continue the ban for the oddnumbered license plates the next day. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" Article 1: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars . A decrease in these emissions could have significant effects, as witnessed in Paris. Also, a Local Colombian businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza claimed that the CarFree Day was ""a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" Source 3: CarFree Day is Spinning into a Big Hit in Bogota . The government and their factions are in agreement that the ban on cars is only positive. Whether it is Colombia, Germany, or Paris, the restriction on drving was a major success. Imagine if more countries around the world opted to institute this ban there would be no energycrisis nor would there be as much of a pollution issue.

Along with the decrease in pollution, there would be a massive decrease in traffic. The vehicular limitations in the betacountries France, Colombia, and Germany have shown that the restrictions imposed decrease the amount of traffic significantly. Based on Source 3 , in Bogota, ""... a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" Rather than having a holierthanthou complex, these Colombians supported the greater good of their country and ceased use of all cars on the carfree day. A positive domino affect occured in Colombia as well. According to Source 3 , ""Parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" These beta countries have improved the standard of living by meerely putting some restrictions on driving for brief periods of time. The United States has seen various changes as well. While there are no current driving restrictions, new priorities are being discovered, such as the bikesharing program in one of America's most heavily trafficed cities, New York. According to Source 4: The End of Car Culture , ""New York's new bikesharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect those new priorities, as do a poliferation of carsharinf programs across the nation."" Nations are beginning to catch on to the contagious cold of revolutionary alternatives to driving and traffic crises.

France, Germany, Colombia, and the United States are already seeing positive changes. The longterm culture shift is proving to be an aspiration for many countries. According to Source 4 , ""The internet makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends. The renewal of city centers has made the suburbs less appealing and has crawn empty nesters back in. Likewise the rise in cellphones and carpooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements, including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work."" People are becoming more connected through digital devices as societies become more technologically advanced, therefore the need for a large amount of privately owned cars has become moot. In Vauban, Germany, Heidran Walter, a media trainer and mother, claims, ""When I had a car, I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" . Commoners, such as Mrs. Walter, are respoding positively to the laws of the experimental district of Vauban, which has very few areas and opportunities for cars. In fact, ""70 percent of Vauban's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here"" . This modernday industrial revolution is drawing vast numbers of people into the areas inwhich cars have become a rarity.

Source 1 also states that ""Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to seperate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called ""smart planning""."" The beta countries have had much success and have not seen failure yet. Although in France, ""Almost 4,000 dricers were fined... Twentyseven people had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine"" , it should not be considered a failed experiment. Of the millions of people who live in France, they only saw a small fraction of driving infractions on the day they limited driving. The longterm culture shift that the world is beginning to see is certainly moving in a positive direction.

Between ISIS and the iPhone, the world has come across a variety of both positive and negative circumstances. Considering all of the positive effects of limitations of cars, including but not limited to less traffic, a decrease in pollution, and longterm culture shifts, there have been many advantages to the switch to a carfree enviornment. Even though transportation may take longer, it will be safer and better for the enviornment. Not everyone country can guarantee that all of their citizens will abide by the new laws, as shown in France, but a small fraction of the trouble is better than the mass population of millions, and in some places billions, wrecking havoc on the planet.",0
67905506,0,"Over the years the amount of cars that have been manufactured have increased immensely. Cars help us get to place quicker by making less effort to get there. We no longer need to walk to go to the park or the mall which can take a long time. Although cars are very useful and fun to drive, it also has its risk like anything else on Earth. Which is why i think limiting car usage would be a great idea.

Most cars use gasoline or diesel as there fuel to get them going. This causes problems because the fuel that is burned pollutes the atmosphere and creates smog. Paris had this problem before. In the article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", Robert Duffer says that Paris had ""days of nearrecord pollution"" and they attempted to reduce it by applying a 22euro fine 31. As a result congestion in Paris was down 60 percent and the smog, as stated in the article, ""cleared enough for the French party to rescind the ban of oddnumbered plates"" Getting rid of the smog and having less air pollution would help not only the environment but i can also help us breathe oxygen easier. Limiting car usage can help us decrease pollution and increase breathable oxygen.

Limiting car usage can benefit us in many ways. It can reduce air pollution which not only helps us breathe better but it also helps the environment. It can also relieve stress. Everyone that drives a car knows how stressful it can be sometimes. Any traffic jam can turn a regular day to a stressful day. Hearing someone honking their horn, yelling ""Come on! Move already!"" and adding some unnecessary profanity can be very irritating. In the article ""Carfree day is spinning into big hit in Bogota"" Andrew Selsky says that for the third straight year the city of Bogota have a carfree day called Day Without Cars. ""The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog"" states the article. A lot of people actually participated in this event even thought it rained that day. The Mayor of Bogota Antanas Mockus said that even though it is raining it ""hasn't stopped people from participating"". It was a great idea to have a day like this to relax and not be stuck in traffic which is one reason why one businessman was happy. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" said Carlos Arturo Plaza. It's a great event that should spread to the world. It will be very helpful to us and the environment.

In conclusion, limiting car usage is very beneficial. It can relieve stress and reduce air pollution. It can also reduce car accidents which can decrease the number of deaths that occur in a car accident. If you're on a budget, limiting the the amount of time you use your car can help you save gas money. It can also help you excercise a little. Since you aren't using a car you have to use a different form of transportation like walking or riding a bike. These are just a few advantages that limiting car usage have. Limit your car usage, it can help you and the environment.",0
67b15bec,0,"Driving a car has its ups and downs to life. It provides transportation, but it can also be very dangerous. Another issue with cars today is the amount of pollution that cars give off. Smog is caused by cars and is not good to the environment and certainly not good for people to be breathing in. Both ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" and ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" discuss the affects cars can have on the environment. ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" and ""The End of Car Culture"" talk about the decrease of the amount of cars used today. Many communities today are turning into carfree places to clear up the smog and dangers of driving.

Smog in Paris, France and Bogota, Columbia have reached record pollution and both cities do not want to deal with it any longer. Robert Duffer writes about how the Paris government enforced a new rule which allowed both even and odd numbered license plates to drive on a certain day and would alternate everyday. This was very beneficial, however some people needed transportation but would be fined 31 if their car was used on the wrong day. Being that Paris is one of the most famous capitals of the world, one would expect to see more smog than usual. Andrew Selsky also writes that in Bogota, Columbia, a day without cars was put into place in the 1990's and still continues today. Once a year, buses and taxis are the only transportation allowed in the whole city. If not obeyed, there would be a 25 fine. This day was put into place as an improvement campaign which also benefitted the city. Bike paths and smooth sidewalks were put in and during rush hour has cut the traffic in half. It also opened up restaurants and shopping malls which were widely used by the public. Both Paris and bogota saw improvements in their environments without having so many cars on the road.

Life without cars can also be beneficial to ones community because few people will be buying gas or diesel fuel for their cars. Elisabeth Rosenthal tells her audience that Vauban, Germany has an upscale community where nearly everyone has given up their cars. Here, people sold their cars just so that they could buy a house in peace without having to hear traffic jams and honking horns all the time. Many say that this environment makes them happier because it is so peaceful. 70% of the community do nott own cars and the ones that do must leave it in a large parking garage outside the developement that is purchased with the home. In another article, also written by Elisabeth Rosenthal, discusses America and the recent decrease of the amount of driven by a single person. Research shows that the amount driven in 1995 is about the same as the amount driven in 2013. This is due to environmental protectionists who walk evrywhere they go and due to the dangers of driving. There are fewer young adults driving today as well in eight years, the amount has decreased 23%. Many are giving up their cars today to make a better, happier living.

There are cities all across the world that are limiting the amount of cars being used. Smog is a very pollutive that many don't even realize. Many say that walking and biking around provides them with a more peaceful lifestyle. Limiting car usage will provide less smog in the air and will save you money from having to buy gas or diesel fuel.",0
67c593c8,0,"In retrospect, people use to be able to live a happy carefree life before cars were invented. Cars were just something people used to be able to get to places quicker, and to be able to leave when ever we wanted to. A car used to be a luxury item, and now a car is a nessecity for most humans. Some countries are helping""But America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling,""Source 4 the cause. The benefits of limiting car usage are it will help the environment, it will reduce most citizens stress levels, and it will regulate money in different way.

The benefits of limiting car usage is that the environment will be a lot healthier. According to experts ""Automobiles are a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tail pipes,""Source 1. The environment is very important to keep healthy. Cars are very polutefull ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city,"" Source 2 towards the environment.

Also connecting to the benefits of limiting car usage helps relieve stress. According to Heirun Walter, a media trainer ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,""Source 1. Without cars more Colombians ""In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carefree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams,""Source 3 were more active. When you exercise it helps you to relive stress.

To most people money is very important. Now without having cars our money get regulated thru a public bus or subways. Losing revenue is not a bad thing ""Delivery companies complained of lost of revenue, while expectations were made for plugin cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers,""Source 2 for everyone. Overviewing it ""It was the thrid straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the day without cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced 25 fines,""Source 3 we could make more money off of violators.

Cars are very umbigitious in most countries. Cars are not a neccesity of life. Acccording to recent studies ""Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by,""Source 4. Citzens who used their car less were saving money, less stresed out and were more evironmentaly considerate. The benefits of limiting car usage are it will help the environment, it will reduce most citizens stress levels, and it will regulate money in different way.",0
67f84ada,0,"For most people it is more common to get from place to place by hopping in a car. But, what if we never used cars, or at least limited them? Lives would be impacted in a very positive way. In In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars , by Elisabeth Rosenthal, Paris bans driving due to smog , by Robert Duffer, Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in bogota , by Andrew Selsky, and The End of Car Culture , by Elisabeth Rosenthal the authors show how cars are not a necessity to life and how our communities can even be better off without them. Because of the positive impact on our environment and the increase of a community, limiting car usage is a serious idea worth of a second look.

Cars, especially in America, are a major source of transportation. Without them many people would not have an easy way to commute to where they need to be. But, convince is causing more pain than pleasure and starting to harm our environment. Cars just by themselves cause around fifty percent of the greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere. Similarly they cause twelve percent in Europe par. 5 Logically it would make sense to find the root of a problem and change it to make the problem go away, but in the case of cars, cars are a root in the pollution problem, but many people need them to ge to get where they need to be. The easiest solution to this is to limit our car use and add more busses and easier, more accessible areas for bikes and walking. Pollution will lower and people will still get to where they need to be. Pollution is a major topic regarding the safety of our environment and cars have been a proven source of much of the pollution in the air. Using less cars coensides with less pollution in our surroundings. Paris, France was suffering from very high pollution in the air. To combat this, for five days certain people, based on their lisecense plate number, were not allowed to use their cars. Though not everyone complied, after the five days the smog went from the levels found in the worst city for pollution, Beijing China, down by sixty percent par.14. In just under a week Paris went from being the most polluted it had ever been to a better, safer level. If a city just by limiting the car usage by half was able to make such a drastic difference in that time, imagine it being limited more over a wider area. There is a possibility of totally correcting the pollution problem worldwide, or at least making it better and more easily handled. Although the environment is important, cars are also affecting the way we interact as people in a community.

Because we have cars, we never really see the senery around us. We exit our houses, jump in our cars, drive, and walk ito our destination. There is no contact with nature or other people passing by. Limiting cars can lead to the increase of interaction and better looking cities. In Bogota, there is a day once a year called ""carfree day"", in which no one is allowed any use of their personal cars and fined if they do not comply. Because of this there has been an increase in new highend resturants and places to shop. The community has also added more city parks and places for sports. There is no traffic rush hour and due to the increased walking the old broken sidewalks have been replaced with larger new ones par.28. No one wants to not only have to walk, but have to walk on a surface that is hard to walk on and unappealing. Due to this, people started to create parks and sports centers for a nice place to be as well as a nice place to look at. And because of the increased foot traffic, there have been more people opening shops and resturants, as no one speeding by in a car will notice a small corner store, but someone strolling by, taking in the scenery will. In response to the increased foot traffic, it is important that there is somewhere to actually put your foot, and old cracked pavement won't cut it. If there are less cars, less road pavement is needed and more sidewalk pavement is. So, the old pavement is replaced with more pavement that is in better shape. All the walking and passing people causes people to be more social and to interact more often. The members of a community are more together. Mr. Sivak, a researcher, had noticed both of his children are not interested in getting a driver's licence. Everything they do is centered around walking, public transport, and carpooling. They don't find it necissary to have a car and licence par. 39. The children of the researcher don't have or need a car because what they do doesn't require them to have one. They get a more full experience not being in a car all the time. In a carpool they get to socialize with friends and while walking they get an outdoor and community experience.

In short, cars are an easy way to get from area to area, but they are very harful to the environment and our community. They add pollution to the air and cut off our everyday contact. If we limited the use of cars we would lower pollution, casuse our cities to be more attractive, have better ways of transport, and be closer as people in an area. So, is a car still going to be your most common way of transport? Think of the good you would do to the world if it wasn't.",0
67fe0236,1,"They should change to election by popular vote. The people have a right to decide so shouldn't they. We elect electors and not the president that's not right. They electors have changed the votes around. The electoral college should go. Athough there is a positive look to it.

Letting the people vote is the right thing. ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president.""Bradford Plumer. So the poeple dont truely decide who becomes president. At least not if we choose the electors and the electors choose the president. The voting system needs to change.

Who's to say that the electors dont change the votes around. ""The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse. Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people.""Bradford Plumer. So is that possible. The people of the United States don't have control over the electors except the fact that they choose them. The electors could totally go against the people even though, say one person may have had more votes against this other person. Then the electors liked the person who was losing so the choose that person anyway. Who's to say that they havent done it before. ""It happened in 2000, when Gore had more votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the first time since 1888."" So this did accure twice.

""The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.""Ofiice of the Federal Register. So it does have a positive side to it. It's a good thing to have to keep the power balanced through out the voting process. So having the Electoral College may not truely be a bad idea. Although there will always be that inbetween group known as the electors.

So they should still change the Electoral College over to elections by the people. The voting system needs fixing. The elceltors have chance the vote twice who's to say they won't do it again. The Electoral College can be good at some aspects. Still the power should always remain with the people and that's how it should be.",0
68147c20,1,"The electoral college is a process that supposedly helps keep this nation's voting under control, while infact the process of the electoral college is unfair to the states with a lower population because they have less of an input into the voting of the president with a lower number of electors available to vote for them. Also it is unfair to the people who want to be presidents because they mostly have a tie on the electoral votes and are elected on who wins the popular vote.

First off, having an electoral college in unfair to those states of lower population, take Minnesota for example, because they are only allowed 36 electors while bigger states, like California, are allowed up to 55 electors, In defense of the Electoral College: Map . Since most of the big states already have their votes planned out on who is going to win them over, presidenttobe's don't try to persuade them because they know they have those votes. Mostly they try to change the swing states, or the smaller states because they could change from Democratic to Republican during anytime in the election. If everyone had a say in the election, more people would be inclined to vote and there would be more input into who became the next 4 year leader of this nation.

Second of all, electoral colleges should change because for the last two elections, popular vote has been the deciding vote because the electoral vote has been a tie, In defense of the Electoral College: 2 Everyone's President.If we no longer polled electoral votes, citizens wouldn't have to take two votes, one on presidency and one on who they liked better. Presidents should be chosen on their stamina to change the nation for the people. Although some people still won't get what they want, the majority of the nation would be proud to support eachother in any of the changes the president makes.

In the world that is known, electoral colleges do make voting for the president a lot more controlled. But in the event that the elector is chosen and does not vote for whom he or she was elected by the people to vote for. What happens then? The wrong president is chosen because there was a fault in the system. This is called the disaster factor and it happened in the election in the year 1960 when Louisiana elected Democrats to vote against John F. Kennedy, who voted as Republicans against their state and voted forPresident Kennedy, The Indefensible Electoral College: What's wrong with the Electoral College.

After all, electoral colleges should be changed because it is better for the people so there is more of an input from smaller populated states, they will want to vote and there would be less of an ability to tie the election. Having a popular vote lets the citizens in big states that are metaphorically already ""chosen"" allows the minority vote to maybe have a chance in the office. Last but not least, it is understood that having the electoral college decreases wrongdoings, but if the elector chosen by the state changes his intentions just for himself, that gives the state no word about it.",0
6842dc76,1,"December 18, 2014 Dear State Senator, Changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States is more beneficial to the people than an Electoral College. The Electoral College is such a hassle and a process. It's outdated. And it's even irrational. It's not precise to what the people want. The popular vote directly represents who the people want. ""over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" Source 2.

The Electoral College is outdated. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution. Back then that was relevant because there weren't as many people in the United States as there are now, which means there are more voters today. In Source 3 it says that the Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism. It's not even a democratic method in modern sense...

The people trust the electors to vote for their nominee. And that trust can even be broken, so they're not 100% reliable. ""state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are...."" Source 1. There's a chance that your vote might not even count. The Electoral College method may turn off voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state. So even if that candidate got a lot of votes in one state the Electoral College can still eliminate that candidate regardless of the people's votes. ""Most states have a winnertakeall system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate."" Source 1. The winnertakeall system is unfair because candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, so they focus only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. Which makes smaller states feel so irrelevant. They know their vote will have no effect because they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign.

Plus the Electoral College is such an inconvenient thing. It is a process that consists of the selection of electors, the meeting of electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. And a majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Why do that when people can just have an overall majority vote on the President? Voters can even expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could lose the presidency. Voters don't even vote for the president, their votes are for the slate of electors, who then elect the president. There could even be confusion that the voters vote for the wrong candidate because they are confused about the electors.

Some people may not like the popular vote for the election of the president because they're afraid of a tie. But in the Electoral College if there was a tie it would lead into a whole new process with the House of Representatives. Most worry about a tie in the electoral votes. The House of Representatives hardly refelects the will of the people.

By changing to the election of popular vote for the president it is way more beneficial to the people because it is a direct way of them having a say in the election. They choose. They don't have to worry about a trust being broken. It's straight forward to the point. The Electoral College is unfair, not 100% trustworthy, and outdated. Take time to think about converting to the popular vote election.",0
684b8b22,0,"To get from point A to point B, whether it be from home to the park or from school to the movies, the logical answer that pops up in everyone's mind seems to be a car. automobiles such as cars and motorcycles are widely used and are integrated into every part of society. But do automobiles really need to be so rooted into everything people do as a society? Cars and motorcycles create a myriad of problems such as congestion and smog. Some societies even legally limit their community's automobile usage to attempt to correct some essential problems. Limiting automobile usage is important, because not only is it practiced globally with tremendous success, but it also largely reduces pollution caused by diesel fuel and brings to light issues within communities and accounts for their resolution.

Automobiles are thought of as a daily commodity in most urban countries, but there are some societies in which usage has been reduced or even eliminated entirely and the positive results may be shocking. In the suburban city Vauban, Germany, residents have given up automobiles for a chance at a life free of traffic sounds and stress. This experimental journey within the town has achieved these and so much more. Their streets are essentially carfree and the lack of garages and parking space allows for up to 5,500 people to live in a single rectangular square mile with any necessary stores within walking distance Source 1 Par 6. similarlyyet on a much smaller scale, Bogota, Columbia has initiated a carfree day in an attempt to eliminate the area's pollution as well as reduce stress. The day is on its third year and has done as hoped. Additionally, Bogota's once pitted and uneven sidewalks have been since replaced and made much smoother, and the city has introduced parks and sports centers, new restaurants, and new shopping centers which are blossoming and thriving Source 4 Par 28. these changes have created a society both happy and strongly bonded. As wonderful as these positive shifts in society are, limiting automobile usage can do even more.

A limit in automobile usage can also benefit communities by reducing pollutionseeing as a large majority of air pollution is created through the release of diesel fuels into the air. Paris, France legally banned personally automobile use throughout the city in order to rid the city's air of harsh pollutants Source 2 Par 10. France experiences a combination of cold nights and warm days that trap the emmisions from cars, scooters, and motorcycles Source 2 Par 15. By significantly reducing the amount of diesel fuels rising to the air to be trapped, the smog had cleared enough within mere weeks that the city was able to entirely lifted the ban. This is a major example of the advantages limiting car usage entails.

Altogether, limiting automobile usage is key to improving society and has myriad advantages such as creating a more bonded and pleasant community and reduces environmental hazards like pollution. Creating vehicular limits is a promising way to change the world as we know it for the better.",0
685e03b9,1,"Dear Senator, I believe that is is time to get rid of the electoral college. The electoral college is outdated and irrational, the best arguments are only assertions that dont have much basis in reality.

There are too many faults and risks in the electoral college such as the coming of a tie in the voting and that even though one candidate may win the popular vote they can still lose the election. As Bradford Plumer says ""over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now"" paragraph 9. It would be better in elections for it to go by popular vote instead of representatives deciding for you. A solution for this could be to simply go by popular vote. There is also the fact that the electors could defy the will of the people.

The electors are not trust worthy. ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy"" Bradford paragraph 11. They did this so the popular vote would not actually go to Kennedy. In the past electors have refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a vote on whomever they want. People are thinking we have ""faithless"" electors because of this. We need to select electors that we can trust will go by the states overall decision instead of their own personal preference.

It is hard to vote for the president not knowing if your vote is actually going to mean anything. Us as voters cannot control what the electors do and who they vote for, we just have to hope that our candidate wins. Us as voters also sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate. The voters need to know that their vote is going to mean something for the candidates running and that their decision will be taken into consideration.

To conclude the electoral college is not a safe and trust worthy system. I believe that the arguments against electoral colleges are much stronger tyhan the ones saying to keep it around, give the people what they want.",0
68b02f46,1,"To whom this may concern, The ""winner takes all"" system we've been using doesn't work. Less power is essentially being given to the people, and, some are even being ignored.

In cases such as Al Gore's, the people said yes, and the College said no. And, voters didn't like this. According to a gallop poll in 2000, after Al Gore lost the race, ""over 60% of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now"", meaning, or. Senator, it's time for change. In addition, this system easily allows for a tie. In this event, the results of the race would be decided by the House of Representatives, which we all know would swiftly put in a vote for the Republican candidate. And, since the Senate has also been recently dominated by Republicans, they too would choose one of their own, resulting in two branches of the government dominated by one political party.

Moreover, with this faulty system, many people are being ignored. As you may recall or not, ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad.""Source 2, Paragraph 13 Although not seeing the ads might not have been a bad thing. I'm just kidding. Why is this important? Because the people need to see and meet their candidates, but due to the electoral collage, people are being ignored. If the majority of the votes are known to be going to one candidate or the other, they will most likely not be visited by either side, because whom that state's electoral votes are going to are essentially locked in. The only states that recieve any attention are the ""Swing states"" Source 2, Paragraph 13 that are pretty equal on both sides and can be easily swayed to pick one candidate or the other.

The only evidence to refute my claim would be that ""Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of proportional representation"" Source 1, Paragraph 7, which actually might work however, this would require all the states to change their policies, which we all know won't happen very easily.

So, in summary, or. Senator, the way things work is going to need to change, we are being ignored and elections are being thrown. If you don't help us change this, the power of electing the president is going to remain with our, faulty, college.",0
68f437e1,0,"Limiting car uses will change the environment in a dramatic way.

, Germany residents don't use cars, they dont even have room for cars. The only way to get a parking space is at your house which you have to buy for 40,000, along with a home or large garages at the the edge of the development. Streets are completely ""carfree"" besides a few streets on the edge of the community. 70% doesn't even own cars. Heidrun Wlater, former car owner says ""When I had a car was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" They are healthier and less tense because they walk, and bicycle keeping their self fit and active.

, France banned driving due to smog. Evennumbered plates one day then the next day oddnumber plates, the ones who did use there cars they got a fine of 22euro 31. They did that for five days. 4,000 people were fined and 27 people had their cars impounded due to there reaction to the fine. A car being droven every other day helps out with the polution. it cuts back on the polution if it's not running putting it in the environment. It's like if you drive once a week then you are only putting a little bit of polution in the environment. You aren't putting as much as you would be if you drove everyday a week.

, Colombia They walk, bike, hike, skate, and take buses to work during the carfree days. It's been the third year in a row that they have had this day. The goal is to reduce smog and it works. Violaters are fined 25. More cities like, Cali, and Valledupar joined the event. They are taking a stand against polution and cleaning up the smog. The bicyclers made 118 miles of bike paths. Just for this day. ""This is a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said business man Carlos Arturo Plaza.

United States of America , President Obama's goal is to curb the green house gas emissions. Everyone is asking ""Has America passed peak driving?"" In 2013 Americans drove 9% per person below the peak which in January 1995 that's where we were. Cars per house hold has came down. There are cellphone apps now a days thet help out with car pooling. Instead of driving yourself to work ask your coworkers to switch days with you. Some days you drive them to work and other days, they drive you to work. You both would be saving on gas and putting less polutuion in the air. People from the ages 16 to 39 yearsolds are just getting thier license, while older people maintain their license was the research Mr. Sivak's has found. Many people just get jobs where they can walk to work, use public transportation or car pool with friends.

Walking, riding a bicycle, hiking, and skating are all ways to get somewhere without creating polution. If there is a way to cut back on polution then you should take that oppertunity. Carpooling with a friend, or coworker is also a way to cut back on polution. Instead of two cars coming from an area to go to the same area they should just use one car to go to that area instead of taking to cars for it. My point is save the environment and create less polution like Paris, Bogota, and Vauban. They created way to help out the environment, you take a stand and you make a change.",0
690cc108,0,"In todays society driving or riding in a car is a completely normal activity. You drive to school, work, extracurricular activities, social gatherings, and everything else that doesnt happen in your own home. Cars are a part of everyday life.

What if I told you that there a cities that are banning car usage? Vauban in Germany is a suburb that has given up cars. Paris banned driving for a few days to reduce smog. bogota, Columbia initiated an annual ""carfree day."" Cities all over the world are giving up cars and looking to other forms of transportation. So why limit car usage? Well, the usage of cars produces Ozone harming greenhousee gas emissions, smog, traffic jams, and addsstress to the our everyday lives.

A large amount of the harmful greenhousee gas emissions that surroundthe earth come directly from cars. Accordingto source 1 ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhousee gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" By ending the use of even a fraction of our car usage we would drastically improve the amount of gas emissions produced. This improvement would mean healthier air and a healthier Ozone.

In Paris, France pollution and smog is a big problem. Source 2 states that Paris has much more smog than other European capital cities. ""Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in london."" Because of this intense smog Paris created a partial driving ban policy to help clear and clean the city air. The policy stated that on Monday vehicles with an evenmumbered lincense plate would have to leave their cars at their home or be issued a 22euro fine. The next day this rule would apply to oddnumbered licence plates. As a result to this partial ban the city smog and congestion levels decreased by 60 percent. Even this partial change benefited the city greatly by reducing smog and poor air quality.

One growing trend in some cities in South America is ""carfree day."" Source 3describes how ""cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted."" The objective of this day is to anchorage the usage of public transportation. This day was ""a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" according to one businessman by the name of Carlos Arturo Plaza. He is right. Cars are an added stress to a busy day. While driving there is a constant fear of being involved in an accident, getting lost, popping a tire, or having your car break down. There is also the nuisance of heavy stopandgo traffic, bad drivers, and uncooperative lights. When the amount of cars on the road is reduced there are less bad drivers, less traffic jams, and less stress. That also means that safety is improved so there are less accidents.

By limiting their car usage many cities have improved their environments and their lives. In all these cities greenhouse gas levels are reduced, the smog levels in Paris have fallen, safety in these cities has improved, and the stress of transportation has become less of an issue. With all of these advantages is there really a question why these cities have been limiting car usage? When you think aboutthe advantages of reducingprivate transportation these vehicle bans make perfect sense.",0
691128da,0,"""All of our development since world war II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change"" Said David Goldberg. Nowadays Cars are our main Source when it comes to transportation.

Limiting your car usage should absolutely be more important in todays society. It's plenty of things going on around us that most are unaware about, And limiting your car usage can be one thing to start helping to prevent these issues. Most cars give off alot of Pollution in the cities you live in an that effects animals. For example: The oil spill was a major problem in the ocean and that killed alot of animals an Demolished most of the sea life environmental foodchains. The capital of France had an intensifying amount of smog, but car traffic tended to decreased 60% after 5 days. Beijing China was known as the most polluted cities in the world. Diesel Fuel was the blame. You could even try those cars that dont require gas so the cities could be less polluted, But theres disadvantages to those cars as well.

At one point of time gas prices were sky high and people weren't really satisfied with it. Now Gas prices have decreased an people are even more satisfied an happy to get gas. Saving up on gas would help out alot to in todays world as well. How? Because Everything in life has a Big Fat Price tag on it so to help save up to get better things or things you need you can probably go for not paying for Gas as much. Everyday around 5:00 or 5:30 there's something called 5:00 traffic. When everyone is just about getting off work, headed to night school, going to the store, or whatever the case may be. This is the craziest time of the day to drive an your just ready to get home an dont feel like dealing with traffic.... you can take the City bus, Subway, or maybe even walk if its not far. Some people may call you crazy but it reduces the amount of money being spent on gas. its only maybe like 10cents to ride the city bus i believe...But the point is your saving money. Then by the time you finally decide ""Oh i would like to drive my car"" your tank would be full cause you havent been driving it so you wouldnt have to stop for gas. The Environmental Protection Agency is promoting "" Car Reduced"" Communities, and Legislators are starting to act. Many Experts expect public transportation to play a Larger Role in a new 6 year federal transportation bill approved this year, Said Mr. Goldberg. Walking isnt always quite bad. Look on the bright side your Burning Calories, shedding pounds, and if you run your building you Endurance. Instead of having to drive to a gym far away walk to a nearest one an have a pre workout by jogging or running there. Same thing applies to Bicycling.

Nowadays since majority of the United States own cars Traffic is horrible at certain hours of the day. Most people are too impatient for the wait or become aggressive drivers which is most likely to cause accidents. Maybe your ready to get home after a horrible day or your really tired from work an you realize your about to run into 5:00 Traffic an it'll be forever until you finally get home. If taking the City Buses or subways you won't have to deal with all that pressure. On a City bus you can just have a seat chit chat with other people as they hop on or just relax until you get to your destination. If your really tired you could just tell someone to wake you up when its time to. At least it'll be better then you being behind the wheel. If your workplace is Walking or Bicycling distance then you should feel even better to just scroll past all the people having to deal with the traffic. ""Its a Good opportunity to take away stress and Lower Air pollution"" Said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat Bicycle with his wife.

Fellow Citizens should understand the Advantages of limiting their car usage because of the Pollution, To Save up on gas, and Less stress to deal with Traffic. Maybe one day cities would take more action an save up on gas for these reasons.",0
694a48f5,0,"Innocent and young, children grow accuitomed to the utilization of cari in iociety. Hot Wheelz, batterypowered Barbie SUVi, Heii Semitrucki, and other deviationi of playfriendly cari introduce the car culture to Americani from nearly the firit day out of the womb. Motheri, fatheri, aunti, unclei, neighbori, and grandparenti depend on their cari daily. Thii reliance on cari coniequently impacted America'i environment. However, limiting car uiage reducei iociety'i carbon footprint, ilowly eliminating the encompaiiing pollution and itreii of the developed car culture.

All vehiclei alike releaie carbon emiiiioni into the atmoiphere, polluting the air and imogging our citiei. Suburbi, eipecially, rely on automobilei to provide needed traniportion. Experti itate that car traniportation in iuburbi ""ii a huge impediment"" Source 1 when diicuiiing ""efforti to draitically reduce greenhouie gai emiiiioni from tailpipe"" Source 1. In the carinteniive areai of the United Statei, paiienger cari hold reiponiibility for ""up to 50 percent"" Source 1 of greenhouie emiiiioni. Thii conitant car uiage pollutei American ikiei. Eliiabeth Roienthal itatei that car uiage reduction ""will have beneficial implicationi for carbon emiiiioni and the environment"" Source 4, eipecially in America ""iince traniportation ii the iecond larget iource of emiiiioni"" Source 4. Cutting down on cari for alternative, public, or group traniportation providei a iolution to the car epidemic of iuburban America.

In other iocietiei where limitationi of car uiage occurred, the majority of iti denizeni replied poiitively. In the cardepleted iuburb of Vauban, Germany, ""57 percent iold a car to move to Vauban"" Source 1. The influential idea of a iuburb without traffic jami and long drivei to itorei attracted 5,500 current reiidenti of Vauban. furthermore, car bani in Parii reduced emiiiioni and cleanied the air ""after dayi of nearrecord pollution"" Source 2 and ""fivedayi of inteniifying imog"" Source 2. During thii ban, ""congeition wai down 60 percent"" Source 2, relieving traffic and pollution. In Bogota, Colombia, a ""carfree day"" Source 3 promotei ""alternative traniportation and reducei imog"" Source 3. One Colombian buiineiiman commented cheerfuly, ""It'i a good opportunity to take away itreii and lower air pollution."" Source 3. The relief of traffic reiulti in the relief of itreii, which citydriveri appreciate.

In America'i evolving iociety, and the evolving global economy, limiting car uiage itandi benefically. Reducing imog, eliminating the itreii of traffic, and preierving the environment, low caruiage iocietiei appeal in all current circumitancei. Progreiiively, the world may iee a day where car uiage ii antiquated.",0
694e6c72,1,"Dear State Senator, The Electoral College is an anachronism. It belongs in the past and should not decide who are president is going to be anymore because its not who the majority of people really want to be leading,it could cause a tie,and its unfair to voters.

Abolishing the electoral college has been a thing people have wanted gone for some time. Because of the electoral college the popular vote has not effected who becomes president. According to the article,The Indivisible Electoral College,over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election tha the one we have now. this means many people would rather switch out the electoral college with a direct vote. With the electoral college still up voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could lose again.

Perhaps the most worrying is the prospect of a tie in an election. According to the article,The Indivisible Electoral College,if the election was a tie it will be thrown to the House of Representatives,where state delegations vote on the president.This mean that people would still have no say in the matter of choosing a president.

At the most basic level the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner take system in each state candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning in. According to the article,during the 2000 campaign,seventeen states didnt see candidates at all. This means voters didnt even have a chance to vote.

The electoral college should be ruled out in the future because its not who people really want to lead,it could result in a tie, andits unfair to voters. If its removed then there would be better leaders in the future.",0
695d8e0f,0,"There are many advantages to limiting car usage aroung the world. When it comes to our economic problems cars are producing more and more pollution and destroying our OZone layer. Many different countries are making differences by having car free cities where you only have few cars or none and creating a safer street for the people and cleaning up and repairing the sidewalks. Paris has a lot of Diesel fueled cars and the pollution got so bad they had to ban cars for a couple days to be able to clear the air because how bad the smog was getting and anyone who didn listen to this rule was fined and if were caught driving had the opportunity to get their car impounded and towed away. The United States also have the same problems when you look at the statistics car usage is dropping in the U.S even though the population is growing. Even though this is benefitting the economy there is still a lot of pollution occurring.

Source A shows us that in this experimental area ""Vauban"" almost everyone has given up their cars to live in this suburban location. ""vaughn's streets are completely car free"" according to author Elisabeth Rosenthal. She claims to have become a lot less stressful when she gave up her car to live in this area. She says that in Vabuan there is a lot less cramp and not much traffic at all because of the car free streets. Now everyone rides bikes around to get to places or even just walk, because of this the sidewalks were all repaired when the experiment was started and made everything presentable. Also when this experiment was completed in 2006 Businesses were opened just walking distances away from residents, so that people would be comfortable living in this town. Source A shows that private owned cars are choking cities because of all the fumes that are being created by cars and trucks and all motored vehicles. Passenger cars are responsible for more than half of all Greenhouse emissions in the united states, and since there is a lot of Greenhouse fumes being created the environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. is promoting car reduced communities. Yes, it is only one small way to change how the future of our world is going to be but it will make a change.

In Paris, France there was a temporary car ban because of how bad the situation was getting. A smog was created and covering all the skies and was a frightening view to see. So the government went on and created a ban with specific rules. On one day the Cars with even numbered license plates would not be allowed to be driven and on the next day it would be odd numbered license plates were the ones that weren't allowed to be driven. If any person were to disobey this law and take the car out of their homes and caught by an official they would be fined and have the vehicle towed and impounded. Causing the person to have to spend more money and get the car back. This ban was eventually lifted as the skies cleared and everything went back to normal. Bogota has a car free day every year which is set to be a day where everyone walks aroung or ride bikes, skate, or hiked around everywhere all for the ecosystem to be able to recover at least for 24 hours. Because of this one day, bycicle lanes have been created and sidewalks have also been repaired. Making it a safe place for people to be able to get around. This is a very effective way of recovering the damage that was once done by the cars that our own people use.

In the United States studies show that all though the population is increasing car usage is dropping and not as many cars are being bought and used like before. studies also show that as every year passes less and less americans are getting licenses and buying cars. Some may say that it is because of the economic problems a lot of the Americans are going through with the money limitations or if it is just a personal choice. Either way car reduction means less pollution and it is all benefitting our planet. According to source 4 as of 2013 the number of miles driven per person is 9 percent below the peak which almost ties the amount of miles driven per person in 1995 when a lot less people were even alive.

All in all Car reduction programs and bans on cars on certain days all benefit the OZone layer and should be done annually to be able to help our ecosystem. This is a very effective method to use and I feel as if all of the world should adopt this ideology and use it as it has statistically shown effectiveness.",0
69af39ca,1,"Dear Senator, We the people of the United States of America, desire a president who will not only care for the wellbeing of the citizens, but know what to do during times of crisis. The Electoral College is but one method of deciding this. There are many reasons as to why we need the Electoral College, and there are many reasons one can list of why we do not need it. If we were to get rid of the Electoral College completely and determine the win on the vote of the American citizens, chaos would ensue. Let's be honest, there are plenty of voters who have no idea what they are doing. If America were to base who would lead and call the shots of the country on the votes of everybody, then one person would end up being in office who is no better a ruler than a goldfish.

The Electoral College is noted as a process, not a place. This is correct. You don't just walk up to the Electoral College and say ""hey, this is who you should put into office"". Each state in the U.S. has a certain number of representativeselectors. For example, D.C.is treated like a state has 3 electors. People may say that the Electoral College is unfair and outdated. While in some aspects this can be true, but if the electors know what they are doing and are willing to stay true to their country, then maybe the correct person would be elected in. The EC is known to require a Presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. A transregional appeal is when one area of the U.S. is known to be in favor of the presidential candidate.

Among the other things the Electoral College is known as being, it has been widely regarded as an anachronism. An anachronism is a person or thing that seems to belong in the past and not fit into the present time. While yes, the Electoral College is very old, it does have its uses. It is perhaps one of the final things that will determine what direction this great country gets set into, be it forwards or backwards. The larger the population of a state, the larger number of electors it has. Most of the states in the U.S. have what is called a ""winner takes all"" system. This system will award all of the electors to the presidential candidate that wins the election.

Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, what is known as the AFLCIO, and the U.S Chamber of Commerce all agreed on just one thing. That thing that they all agreed on was to abolish the Electoral College. Over sixty percent of the U.S. population would rather have a direct election over what we currently use. Out of all the arguments against the Electoral College, one of the ""best"" is the Disaster Factor. One of the other worrying views on the Electoral College is what would occur if there were to be a tie in the vote. If a tie were to occur, the election would thus be thrown in the hands of the House of Representatives.

While there are many reasons to like, and dislike the Electoral College, one of the most reassuring should be that it most of the time will keep idiots out of the Oval Office. Among the reasons to dislike the Electoral College is that it is unfair, and keeps the majority of American people from using their voice. The Electoral College is the fine line between a country going backwards and causing the rest of the world to hate it, and a country going forwards, causing the rest of the world to hold it to a higher degree. If theres anything that the American people should want, it is a powerful and respectable leader who will do anything and everything they can for the citizens. Sincerely, An American.",0
69bed3b2,0,"Cars have been used as the main means of transportation for a long time now, but just because we have counted on it for such a long time doesnt mean there are not better ways. There are a ton of advantages for limiting car usage. Lower emissions, conserving resources, and it make us more healthier are just some of the reaons ways that limiting car usage will improve our daily lifestyles.

To begin with, one of the advantages of limting car usage is improved emissions. Today cities all around are poisoning people with toxic air, cars being the main contributers. But it doesnt have to be this way, some cities are doing things to change. In Paris, after days of nearrecord pollution, the city enforced a partial driving ban to clear up the global city. Also in Bogota, Columbia has made a difference by incorporating a yearly Day Without Cars. One day out of the entire year is not going to clear up the global air quality but it does opens peoples eyes up to alternative ways of getting around without the use of cars. A businessman even reported that it is a good opportunity to take aways stresses. For the first time, two other Columbian cities have joined in on the event. All of this just proves that cars arent the only way.

In addition to lowering emissions, another advantage of limiting car usage is it would conserve resources. Think about how many cars are in the world. THERE ARE ALOT! So every car in the world uses resources to keep it running, even electric and hybrid cars eventhough they are a great alternative. But most use fossil fuels. The world doesnt have a unlimited supply of fossil fuels. It took millions of years t make the gas we put in our cars. So eventually we will run out and when we do it will take a very long time to get it back. Also think about the generation of people after us. What will we leave behind for them?

Lastly, limiting the use of cars will improve our heath. Before the invention of cars most of the population who walk. Eventhough it would take longer to get from place to place it will benefit use also. American, sadly, is probably the laziest county in the world. You rarely see people walking or riding a bike to and form work on a daily basis eventhough in real busy cities you probably would get to and from work faster cause you wouldnt have to wait in the morning or evening rush hour. Its also ceeper than using your cars, you are going to spend a rediculous amount of money on gas in a year, so think it will help the environment and your wallet.

A study last year has showed that driving by young people has decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. Maybe we are the generation to make the change to other ways of getting around, advantages being lower emissions, conservation of resources, and a healthier you. So just remember the next time you have ot go to the store, just take a bike.",0
69d0846b,0,"Many people now a days use cars, trucks, buses or other ways of transportation on a daily baises. Most do not even think twice about all of the pollution they are creating in our world, or even the traffic that they are helping create. Fellow citizens should start becoming aware of this problem and finding different ways to travel.

Many people who work in larger cities tend to face many traffic problems when on their way to work, sometimes causing them to be late for their job. If we were to begin doing things like carpooling, walking, biking, or even just taking a bus to work or school we could immediately see changes in the amount of traffic. In Paris, after reaching several days of nearrecord pollution, they ordered a partial driving ban in attempt to clear up the city. According to source 2: Paris bans driving due to smog, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France..."" in just five short days. Other places, such as Bogota, Columbia are also taking part in carfree days. These places are also seeing a drastic decline in the amount of traffic seen in the city. The author of source 3: Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota, Andrew Selsky, millions of Columbians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during a carfree day, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams.

Another advantage to limiting car usage will be that there will be a noticeable decline in the amount of smog and pollution. ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals"" as stated in source 2:Paris bans driving due to smog. After being ordered a carfree day, smog was cleared enough by the following Monday for them to call off the ban on cars the next day. One simple step such as a weeklong carban can reduce the amount of pollution drastically. Elisabeth Rosenthal states in paragraph 8 that ""an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle class are choking cities."" If we begin to limit our car use, we will notice great changes in our environment.

In conclusion, if we do just a few simple things in our society, we will be able to notice the great advantages to limiting car usage. The amounts of traffic in cities will decrease, as well as the amount of pollution in our city, all because of just a few simple things that we can change.",0
69e81017,0,"There are plenty of advantages fellow citizens get for having limited car usage. Fewer people are getting there license and using cars each year anyways.

in addition, it is true that people without cars would have to go through the rain or the cold weather every time the weather looks ominous and people would have to worry about getting to school or work on time. But, Limiting or taking away cars would clear the air of smog and less people would have stress.

First, by limiting car usage you can reduce smog. ""After says of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city""Duffer, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"". If all cars or vehicles were to stop being used the air would clear easily and we can all live in clear air. ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday""Duffer, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"". If they made like a schedule for which days cars will be banned and what days aren't, then the air we breathe will be better than ever and everyone will still be able to use there cars how they feel like.

Last, People will become less stressful when not using a car to get to places. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution, ""said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife""Selsky, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"". Without cars theres people walking along the side walks talking, people not having to worry about safety on the road as much, people riding bicycles and skateboarding, and just a great way to exercise just by walking outside. ""The rain hasn't stopped people from participating,' said bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus""Selsky, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"". The fact that people dont care about the rain makes me think that people are enjoying this carfree day and there's no reason to stop it.

In conclusion, A few days or even weeks without cars is a great idea for reducing stress and air pollution. There are even more reasons why we should have a carfree day like time conservation, emission lowerage, safety improvement, and resource conservation.",0
69f4121b,0,"It is becoming increasingly evident that one part of life many older people took for granted may be going away soon. The invention of the car was revolutionary, but in modern times it seems that many wish to build communities that do not revolve around them. The reason for doing this vary somewhat across the different movements, but one main reason is that recuding car usage will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and pollution. In fact, many places where this movement has gained traction are cities where pollution was a major issue, such as Paris and Bogota. Another factor is that many people simply are not as interested in cars as they were a few years ago, and have licenses only as a backup. The various movements are spreading all over the world, slowly but surely.

""In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams,"" said Andrew Selsky of the Seattle times. Bogota, Colombia is notable for being one of the earlier players in this movement, and has shown that it can be effective. Not even rain convinced people that cars would be a better option. ""These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders,"" said Enrique rivera. Not only have other Colombian cities joined in the movement, but is has inspired similar actions in other countries. It would only be a matter of time before some people would take it to the next level.

""Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up their cars,"" said Elisabeth Rosenthal of the New York Times. While not outright banned, cars are looked down upon in this square mile rectangle, where it is much easier to simply walk or bike. The only places to park are a 40,000 parking garage and inside one's house. ""...Some new suburbs may well look more Vaubanlike, not only in developed countries but also in the developing world..."" said Rosenthal. This approach is gainging ground, as not only does the model inherently reduce carbon emissions, but also is a sharp contrast to 1950sstyle suburbs that previously dominated the land. Another probable reason, however, might be due to shifting interests. You might soon be seeing less cars in general.

""...America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling,"" said Rosenthal. America may be the home of the classic muscle car, but many people today would rather have something less flashy and more utilitarian. 2005 was the year where the most people were driving in recent times, and ever since then it has been dropping. ""I think that it means something fundamental it going on,"" said Prof. Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan. Many people are simply losing interest in driving cars, while some people simply cannot afford them due to socioeconomic factors. Also, the advent of the Internet and social netowrking has made many people ""feel more conncected"" without the need to drive around in oder to meet someone in real life. If this trend continues, which it is predicted to do, then situations like what recently occured in Paris would be more readily accepted.

""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial ban to clear the air of the global city,"" said Robert Differ of the Chicago Tribune. It seems almost surreal for a major city to outright ban driving, but that is exactly what Paris did. Cars are occasionally banned based on their license plate, so as to still let some traffic flow while reducing smog, which had become a major problem for the city. ""...The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world,"" said Differ. Of all the European capitals, Paris is by far the most polluted, mostly due to a combination of warm weather and the abundance of diesel fuel. The simple act of banning driving has been a major help in reducing smog, with the skies clearing up enough for it to be considered safe for oddnumbered cars to return to the streets. It still might take some time for other cities to go to measures as extreme as Paris did, but it very well might happen eventually.

The world has seen many communities test the idea of modern carless commuting for us, and we should be taking notes. While copying Paris seems like a risky way to start, communities like Vauban are excellent baby steps, and major cities like Bogota participating in these activities only once a year can get people used to the idea elsewhere. Decreasing carbon emissions is an important goal for urban areas, and for a while it seemed like cars were a neccesary evil. Now, however, it has been shown that life can go on without them. Perhaps further experiments will occur in the future that will introduce the idea to more people, letting others consider various options. Now is the perfect time to prepare for the future.",0
6a285480,1,"How does the Electoral College affect the selection of the presidency and is it a positive force? Many may answer ""No."" or ""I don't know."" to these questions, only doing such because that's what they've been or what they've heard others say. While many have negative feelings, or no feelings at all, towards the Electoral College, it is a very useful force in electing the President because of its certainty, its transregionality, and it lets ""the most thoughtful voters"" Posner Source 3 decide the election.

Swings states let candidates to campaign where it really matters. Being a voter in a swing state means you have to have extra close attention to the campaigns and the candidates, leaving you to be more thoughtful than voters in states that aren't swing states. And in turn voters in these states will definitely receive ""the most information and attention from the candidates"" Posner Source 2. Voters from these states at the end of the campaigns will no doubt be the most informed voters in the nation, giving them the right to decide the fate of the election for the future.

A successful president must be voted for across the regions of the United States to fulfill the wants and needs of its diverse people. While popular voting can be skewed naturally to one region or another due to their preferences and populations, the Electoral College ensures that one region can't win a campaign alone. If the President was to win due to popular vote and only because of regional appeal, ""residents of other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised..."" Posner Source 3 and that their president will not best represent everyone's interests.

The use of the Electoral College allows for a more certain winner over popular vote, therefore avoiding election crisis. Although there was one ""fiasco"" in 2000, as Bradford Plumer calls it in Source 2, the chance of this happening is very small since ""even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state."" Posner Source 3 For example, in 2012, Obama recieved 61.7 percent of electoral vote while he recieved only 51.3 percent of the popular vote.Posner Source 3. A 1.3 percent from a tie is much, much more close than the 11.7 percent that that the Electoral College gives us.

While some may still believe that the Electoral College is outdated and unneccesary, the usefulness of the swing states, its transregional approval system, and its certainty over popular voting proves it to be the best method of selecting our presidents for now and for the future.",0
6a359a1b,1,"Dear State Senator, Everyone has their very own opinions on whether or not the Electoral College should be abolished. Well, with evidence from past elections, it is pretty clear that the Electoral College rule should be abandoned. Let alone is the Electoral College unfair in many ways, but also, it is unneeded.

First and foremost, the Electoral College should left in the wind because it is unfair. Our society and todays people have different opinions and different standards in life, then the people in 1776. For example, in those times, the states we have now were not all how they were then: 1. there was a much smaller population, 2. not all the states we have now were America's states then, and 3. peoples beliefs were different. In ""Source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" states ""under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the president."" Pgph. 10 This is saying that the citizens votes are not being counted for, voting directly to the presidential election, but to the states Electoral College. Obviously, the people want their votes to mean something, and not to just let the others vote for them. ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didnt even see the candidates at all,"" This clearly shows that getting rid of the Electoral College would be best.

Secondly, the Electoral College is unneeded for voting. The citizens cast a vote in the poll, so that the president they want will when. So, how does having an Electoral College make the peoples votes needed. Let alone, the citizens make their own decisions. If this country is a democracy, it means the people are apart of the choices of the government to, but with the Electoral College, the state casts in only a small vote from each state. ""Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters."" Pgph. 12 The Electoral College is simply unneed.

Lastly, everyone has their own opinions on whether or not we should get rid of the electoral college. It is very simple, the Electoral College should be demolished, due to being unfair, and unneeded.",0
6ad38694,1,"Electoral College?

Dear state senator, i been reading all these arguments on whether we should keep the Electoral College or not. My opinion is, that we should most definitely keep it. We can avoid run off elections, there could be a great outcome, although we dont pick who gets to be president, we're still picking so people can elect that one president. But that's just my opinion. So please read on and just look into it.

Mr. Senator sir, did you know that in ""1968 the election of nixon and in 1992 the election of Clinton both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College 301 and 370 electoral votes, respectively. That's pressure for a run off elections... when no candidate wins a majority of that votes cast that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, which on the other hand if they had gone with the Electoral College that would have invariably produced a clear winner"" I read that off of an article. Now that sounds pretty reasonable to me Senator sir. You wouldn't want to complicate an election just because of something little would you now? American population did vote in 2012's election but voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference than the people who think that a single vote of theirs might decide an election. Think about that sir.

Don't you ever think to compare what the outcomes would be if we voted a certain way? Well if you went with the Electoral College you would have a certainty of an outcome senator, like for example in 2012's election, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes. Almost all the states award the electoral votes on a winner takes all. The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have a trans regional appeal. Whoever wins the election its going to be everyone's president so why not pick the best guy for the job. The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance in that large states by population.

Although we might not particularly be voting for the presidents but for the people who vote for him we are techanically still voting for him thats just one of the cons about this. That's why people are arguing in the first place, some people know that we don't vote for the president himself just the people he chose to elect him. Other people think that yeah we do vote for him that they want other people to know that they're a republican and what not , but that isnt the point. The point is that we need someone good enough to run our country! Not just to show that theyre republicans or democrats.

That is my opinion on which process to go on for electing president. you might get other people's opinion but I think its better if we just use the Electoral College process. It wont complicate things for you or anyone else. It is a clearer way of showing who has one the election and who hasn't. This process would make life way easier , and it won't waste more time that shouldnt be wasted! So Mr. Senator sir, look into that process.",0
6aeed61c,1,"The Electoral College is not a fair system for voting and shouldn't be continued because of a few major flaws. There is no guarantee that the president with the highest votes will be elected. Also, the system isn't balanced among all of the states. Because some people know these things, potential voters have decided it isn't worth it if who they elected isn't guaranteed to win.

People vote because they want to be able to choose who will be their president, however the Electoral College doesn't allow the elective with the highest votes to become the president. ""Voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" Also, just because the people vote for electors for a certain president, the elector can still vote for whoever they want to. ""faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please."" The system also is not fair to different states. ""The popular vote was very close in Florida in 2012 nevertheless Obama, who won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the winner only 3 electoral votes."" The larger states give more votes so they are usually given more attention by presidential candidates.

Lastly, the people who know that their votes are just suggestions have been turned off from voting. Maybe they know they have a candidate ""who has no hope of carrying their state."" I have noticed that some citizens are not qualified to vote because there are some who vote carelessly and do not carefully construct all of the things the electives are saying and how it could benefit or harm our country. However, there are some people, like the one's in the ""tossup states"", who, in turn, ""are more likely to pay close attention to the campaignto really listen to the competing candidatesknowing that they are going to decide the election."" Just because some people choose not to take it seriously does not mean you should take the right away from everyone.

These three reasons are key points as to why I think we should take out the Electoral College and begin letting the people decide who will be the president. It's not a fair, balanced system. There's no guarantee that the person with the highest number of votes will be elected, and, because of that, it can turn off potential voters from having their say on who the president should be.",0
6b0120b3,0,"Bustling traffic fills every available lane on the highway on your drive home from work. It's rush hour again, and it's more of a slow, steady crawl rather than a drive. You can't roll the windows down to relax and get a breath of fresh air, because the air simply isn't appealing It's all emissions from the other cars, and the smell of burning gasoline is simply nauseating. It's moments like this when you recall the stories in the news about cities all over the world limiting car usage, and wondering how useful or effective it really is. Banning the use of cars has advantages such as helping to reduce pollution, reducing stress, and conserving resources.

Pollution is a prominent problem in every society today, and often times you witness ""Go Green"" campaigns on the television, with celebrities trying to persuade you, and call you to action on trying to save the Earth. A great way to actually help reduce pollution, is through a ""No Driving"" campaign. In the document written by Robert Duffer, he discusses how Paris partially bans driving in order to ""clear the air of the global city."" A system was put in place that allowed drivers who only had odd numbered license plates to drive on Monday, and only even numbered plates the following day. This helped to reduce congestion on the streets, and reduce the smog polluting the air to a safer amount. Before this was put in place, it was said that ""The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" In ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, the author also discusses how ""If the pattern persistsand many sociologists believe it willit will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment..."" This is expressing how a lower percentage of car usage compares statistically to a lower percentage of carbon emissions in the air, which stresses a healthier environment. Maybe now we can roll down some windows while on the highway.

Stress is a major factor in everyone's life It makes things difficult, wavers a person's focus, and isn't beneficial to your health in the slightest. These ""No Driving"" campaigns are actually helping to reduce the amount of stress in people, by giving them a chance to do some stress relieving activities, such as bike riding or rollerblading. In the first source, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" which is also by Elisabeth Rosenthal, a mother of two and media trainer named Heidrun Walter stated ""When I had a car, I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Walter was able to stroll on sidewalks and smell the fresh air, all while listen to the sounds of nature and children playing, free of the sound of cars. In Andrew Selsky's article, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota,"" Selsky informs the reader that Bogota makes renovations in the district on parks and sidewalks, so that during the time of ""No Cars,"" people have enjoyable options as to how to get around the city. With such dedication to a project, it would be surprising to not be satisfied with those results.

Nonrenewable resources are what power our daily lives, from gasoline to coal, once it's gone, it's gone for good. With these campaigns to ban driving, we are helping to hold on to what we have, and in a way, realizing what we have before it becomes something we had. In the second article, Paris banned driving to reduce smog, which they blamed on the use of diesel fuel rather than gasoline. The use of diesel fuel may be helping to conserve gasoline, but it's used in Paris because of a tax on gasoline, and is simply a prefferable price. By not driving at all, the citizen reduced smog, and conserved their resources for another day. In Rosenthal's second article, she discusses how Bill Ford put forward a proposal on partnership, hoping to ""create cities in which 'pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety."" With the conservation of nonrenewable resources, we are helping to ensure a future for those who success our generations.

There are so many advantages to driving, like being able to travel long distances faster, and being able to carry things with you wherever you go, but they are advantages of circumstance, and ultimately the use of cars is a price we pay with our health. The advantages of using other forms of transportation outnumber the advantages of car usage, both in the health of the people, and the health of the planet.",0
6b070869,0,"Here, in the United States, birthplace of the Model T,driving has proven to be part of our history and culture. However, with recently uncovered developments in our environment such as global warming and pollution, it is time for us to reevaluate our ""car culture"". Overusage has proven harmful and limiting alternatives that reduce stress, are just as effective in getting us from point 'A' to 'B' and are more ecofriendly.

Our excessive car usage is dramatically hurting our environment. In fact, ""...Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" 5. What people use for our short term convenience is actually proving inconvenient for us in the long run. In Paris, there was ""147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.9 in London"" 17. The culprit? Diesel fuel emissions from transportation cars. To underscore the severity, the smog in Paris is so bad that French Officials had to limit car usage in a smog cloaked city that ""rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world""14.

This issue is mirrored in Bogota, Columbia, where the government has also stepped in and established a car free day in which perpetrators get fined in order to "" promote alternative transportation and reduce smog"" 21. Efforts such as these can be effective in aiding our environmental crisis. After France also instate a limit on car usage ""the smog cleared"" 19. By limiting our car usage we can actually make a difference in reducing pollution and make our living environment more pleasant and healthier.

The switch is facilitated further not only by the inclination toward a better worldy environment but a less stressful social one as well. In the city of Vauban in Germany, residents have "" given up their cars""1. Here although car ownership is allowed, ""70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars and 57 percent sold a car to move there."" 3. Do the residents regret their decision? According to Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two: ""When I had a car I was always tense, I am much happier this way""3. In Bogota, a business man, Carlos Arturo Plaza who participates in Bogota's movement to reduce car usage says that the absence of cars is an ""...opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" 24. These are two individuals on different continents with families and busy lives who find the lack of cars to be not a handicap but actually a source of stress relief. In France, after the restrictions of car usage the streets also became less stressful for people who have to drive like taxi drivers or public transporters because of a ""60 percent reduction in traffic congestion"" 14.

For those who do decide to make a move to help the environment and themselves by reducing their car usage, their are more and more alternatives that are making their switch worthwhile. In Vauban, you can hear the sounds of viable alternatives in use. The ""swish of bicycles"" and the ""chatter""3 of walking children is audible in the streets. Carlos Arturo Plaza rides the carfree streets of Bogota on "" atwo seat bicycle with his wife""24. For those who don't feel comfortable with walking or cycling other options such as carpool exist and governments are now making more of an effort to make other alternatives such easier and more available i. e. public transportation. In Bogota, in order to support the movement toward less automobile driving wide sidewalks have been made. In Vauban the whole city has been constructed with the goal to make everything compact and easier to access by foot or bike. This is good news for those who make the early morning busness commute as their job is closer to where they live and more convenient to walk or bike to than other suburbs in which commuters are forced to take the high way because of the distance. Also, the more people who take advantage of whatever public transportation available to them will make the demand higher and cause more funding to be placed on public transportation. Before ""80 percent of appropriations have by law gone to high ways and only 20 percent to other transport""9, but with more usage, this can change.

Essentially, the sacrifice of some of our car usage is far outweighed by the positive affects on our environment and attitudes.",0
6b1801f6,1,"I think that we should change from the Electoral College, to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Yes, the electoral College in good in some ways, but I believe the flaws it has out numbers the good things. When you vote you really aren't voting for the president but for a slate of electors, there was the 2000 fiasco, and there really isn't that many reasons to keep the current method of choosing our president.

According to the article ""What is Electoral College?"" The electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for the President and Vice President, and the counting of electoral votes by congress. So you really are'nt voting for the president but for a slate of electors. electors can be anyone isn't holding a public office. Who is picked as the electors depends on the state. Sometimes there's state conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, and sometimes the presidential candidates themselves. Voters can't control who the electors vote for and sometimes voters get confused about electors and vote for the wrong candidate.

There was also the 2000 fiasco that was the biggest election crisis in a century, and the system allows for much worse, according to ""The Indefensible Electoral College:Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong."" There have been a few occasions where ""faithless"" electors have refused to vote for their party's candidate and casted the deciding vote for whomever they pleased. Oh, and what happens if a state sends two state electors to Congress? According to ""The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" it happened it hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice President Richar Nixon, validated only his opponent's electors, but he made sure to do so ""without establishing a precedent."" But who's to say it won't happen again?

The Electoral College does have some goods things about it as well. It states those things in the article ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President."" 1. There is always a Certainty of Outcome ""A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible, but its less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. 2. It makes it Everyone's President.""The electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal."" Which means no regions has enogh elecotrol votes to elect a president. 3. Swing states, ""the winnertakeall method of awarding elecotral votes includes the candidates to focus their campaigns efforts on the tossup states."" 4. Big States, ""The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the senate decreed in the Constitution"" 5. It avoids runoff Elections, ""Electoral College avoids the problem of electionsin which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast."" Now, you can see why I think we should change from the College Electoral to election by Popular Vote. The Electoral Vote does have it's advantages but I think the many disadvantages that come with it outweigh those advantages.

When you vote you really aren't voting for the president but for a slate of electors, there was the 2000 fiasco, and there really isn't that many reasons to keep the current method of choosing our president.",0
6b2e1c08,1,"Dear Senator, I'd like to take some of your time to shed some light on the matter of having popular vote for the president of the United states.""We the people "" ,That stands strong in our society and I'd like it to stay that way.Majority of the people,Thats what its about.Over 60% have voted to have popular vote to elect our president.Thats over half,and numbers speak.Yes,The electoral college has its good but over all bad,There is so much trust put into each states electors and some voters dont even know it.

The number one fault in the electoral college is the electors themself.Most voters get confused and have no idea how the electoral college works,better yet that we vote for our electors.The electors we do vote for by choosing the candidate by popular vote,sometimes dont vote for their party.The majority of the states residents ,That means who the people wanted they arent even promised the vote for.

I understand the good in the electoral college though.It helps keep states from tieing ,and causing chaos.But,We the people do not have our justice in that manner.If the winning vote is casted by state the legislatures are technically responsible for picking the electors in favor of the vote.Then when it comes time to fairly make their votes for us,the people who voted ,They can change their minds if they like an vote for the least liked candidate running for office by Florida is they wanted too! Thats ridiculous and has no justice.The winner takes all system is very faulty and unfair.

I'm sorry if I have wasted any of your time but I felt this matter is important to the USA.""We the people"",Anyone past middle school can tell you where the beginning of that sentence came from.If we want to keep America fair and keep our pride in our country we should most defiantly start electing our presidents by popular vote,instead of relying on an out dated system that has many faults and injustice as I have pointed out.Thank you for your time.",0
6b3d3d11,0,"The advantages of limiting car usage would be less pollution, less traffic, and less money involved. For example, in the German suburbs, large garages that are at the end of development where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home. So cut down cost on that Germany people have given up their cars.

Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. That doesn't mean that car ownership is not aloud but there is only two places to park, large garages and homes. This cuts down on money costs for Germany by a long shot because with no cars then people don't have to spend money on gas, and Germany's streets will be safe without the cars messing up the roads and less car accidents will occur. Although critics may say that it will be difficult for people to get around, it stands that people are just happier this way. For example, Heidrum Walter is a media trainer and a mother of two says, ""when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" In Paris, they enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city, after days of nearrecord pollution. Motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. Same for the oddnumbered plates the following day. Almost 4,000 drivers were fined. Which is an effective way to lessen pollution in Paris since it is so polluted in the first place. They also said it was easier to imagine than a carfree ChampsElysees. Doing this got them great results as well, congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France after five days of intensifying smog, which is rivaled by Beijing, China for being known as one fo the most polluted cities in the world. The smog was cleared enough on Monday for the ruling French party to recind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday.

In Bogota, Colombia millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day. Which left the Colombian streets devoid of traffic jams. Traffic jams are pretty annoying and no one wants to go through them so making up a day like this is extremely good for the environment and for your phyci as well. If people would violate this day they would get charged 25 fines. Carlos Arturo Plaza, a businessman said, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" so doing this day it would make people more relaxed and happy but also be good to the enviroment just like in Germany.

In the end of the day, it is important to know that all of these things these countries are doing are for the good of the world. It is good that it is more of a mandatory participation then a optional objective so that people won't take global warming seriously even though it is.",0
6b46534d,1,"Dear state senator, I think that we should change to start voting by popular vote because it will be easier for the voters and is a more realistic way of voting.

When voting and following the rules of the electoral college, many voters get confused. As is says in source 2, many voters vote for the wrong person. They also don't always get control over who they vote for. Say they voted for one candidate to be their state senator, well with that one person comes many people that have ""pledged"" themselves to that candidate. They would be voting for the candidate and these many people that have pledged themselves to him and they don't even know it.

Also as they say in source 2, the election of 2000 was a huge mishap in presidential election history. In states like Louisiana, they had people replace democratic electors so that the popular vote that would've went to one of the candidates, didn't actually go through. Although the electoral college is good for getting exact numbers and helps solve disputes source 3it is an uruly and untrustworthy way of voting and should not be used anymore. Voters are easily confused when voting and many do not follow up on what is happening during election time. I think that a better way to vote would be to vote more often and give the electors another chance to be relected so that after a few months if voters changed their mind then they could reelect someone else.

Popular vote is a much better idea not only becuase it is more realistic, but because it is easier to understand. Even some of our presidents like Richard Nixon and Bob Dole have thought that this was the way to go. Not only do they believe this, but they lost their presidency votes becuase of the electoral college. I think that they are just trying to scam voters and pick someone that would be best for them, not for our country. I think that by using the electoral college method, they are cheating into picking the winners, but if we used popular vote, this wouldnt happen.

Thank you for your time.",0
6bf6c6bb,0,"Automobiles are the key essential to people's everyday life. It allows them to get from point A to point B. But the outcome from the rise of these machines, are the amount of pollution they had cause. Limiting there usage seems the right action to do. Our specimen has been living for thousands of year without automobiles. What's the point of using them if their risking the life of our environment.

An advantage of limiting cars could be that it lowers the amount of air pollution, which causes global warming. From Beijing to France, being as the most polluted cities in the world. Imagine the amount of smog and intensity that the people have to face, having gasoline being spewed on you. On the contrary, the city of Vauban being built in 2006. It has been a prime example of a glorious city without the needs of automobiles. Kids to adults living an prosperic life, riding bicycles or just taking a stroll down the sidewalk. The store is only a few blocks away, basically all you need is a pair of legs. The whole fault in our system is due to our lack of judgement. Having our malls or stores being built nearly miles away from homes, on paved roadways or highways. Obviously an automobile is needed, but this will only cause the major destruction of our environment. Limited transportation is when we really can tell if were able to stop this rapid growth of pollution.

Our generation of kids and adults, thinks that a car is mandatory. But in reality, not every individual should own a car. From 2001 to 2009, the decrease of teens from the age sixteen to twenty one obtaining driver's license. Has dramatically declined, due to the realization of the amount of money they could save. From taking public transportation or carpooling with friends. It could help them save money, rather than spending money on gas. Which could range from 1.50 to 4.20, depending on the circumstances. These kids or adults could use that amount of money saved for future plans. Their are more pros than cons when limiting the usage of cars. The people of Bogota, Colombia celebrate a day without any vehicles. All you can see, is the broad smiles of the people's faces and utterly shocking the most, is that the streets are busy with people rather than automobiles. Imagine if were able to do such a thing, the amount of stress that would vanish. Dealing with traffic or pondering your mind to the amount of gas you need. It would simply just vanish in a blink of an eye.

If we were able to create vast systems of high tech highways to subways. Then we can manage to build programs or new forms of transportation. Without the hassle of using a vehicle, to spawning industrial factories where they are made from. An prime example is New York's recent bikesharing programs and its skyrocketing tunnel tolls. The main priority of this creation is to lower the usage of cars. Being one of the America's highly populated and dense cities. The scale or outcome of this program of limiting cars, could decide the factor if changes are possible. Then if so, then this new system can be an advantage or an example of what we can do to lower our usage of cars. That creates the majority of air pollution across the entire face of this planet.

In the end, the advantages of limiting cars or any form of transportation. Could lower the amount of air pollution, and the oncoming production of resources that affects our environment. But mainly create an atmosphere that will all humans alike to every single organism, to be able to live a prosperic life. Without the haze of dense smog, and stress of traffic jams. Thus, we can make or generate of new era of internal happiness.",0
6c809c78,0,"Limiting car usage is great for people and the environment. There is less air pollution, less traffic jams, alot less stress, and people going out on the sidewalks enjoying the scenery and having fun! Limiting car usage can be very good in many ways!

If people limit car usage there will be less air pollution. Because cars use a nonreusable gas, Gasoline and diesel they must be burned in order for the cars engine to power the car. After it burns and gets used up the exhaust pipe from the car leaks out the Carbon Monoxide that resides in the car after the gas is burned. When realised into the atmosphere, the gas damages it. Not allowing enough sun to get in, creating smog which is harmful for the human to breathe, and blocks vision for many people! SO if we stop using cars or at least limit them, then we won't have these problems that often or even AT ALL! If there were half the amount of cars driving around everyday then we would have a much more beautiful sky than we do now, also we would not have as much fog as some people do. Like Paris. They banned driving for a few days because of smog! ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"" Duffer Paragraph 1. So if we limit car usage we wouldn't have this problem!

If we limit or eliminate car usage in a certain area for a certain time, then people can go outside, enjoy the scenery and get some fresh air. Because of cars existing you don't really see much people walking on the street unless they don't have a car. People with cars just drive past everything and don't really look around, but people who don't have cars enjoy the scenery, get fresh air, and get excessive. It is proven that people who rather ride a bike or walk to a destination opposed to people who drive a car are more phisicaly fit than those who normally drive a car to their destination.",0
6c98ff7e,0,"I think people should stop relying on their cars so much for three reasons. I hope this can change peoples minds about using the vehicles for everything. Even going to the corner of their block just for a bite they use their cars.

The opening reason why I think people should really limit their car usage is that it causes less pollution in the atmosphere. If drives don't give a limit to their uses of their cars we might end up having global warming. That's not gonna be great. For example before when cars were rarely seen we had no global warming problem, but now that cars are seen all over the places, global warming is near of arrival.

The following reason why I think people should put a limit to their car usage is that it would benefit everyone because there will be less traffic. Having no traffic at all is a common dream for many drivers that drive to work using the expressway every morning. unfortunately people have to be stuck in traffic everyday because they don't want to let go of their cars. They should experiment other ways to get to work or to even the corner of their block. They should try bike riding to their destations. That's double the benefit. They get to exercise their bodies and not damage the environment with deadly gases that can cause global warming. In the second source by Robert Duffer he states that ""congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France"".

My next reason why I think drivers should limit their car uses is because they are basically killing themselves with fatal accidents almost everyday. There's a lot of causes for fatal accidents, one of them is texting and driving. That's the main cause of fatal car accidents. Drunk driving is at close second. None the less, if people would just pay attention while they are driving there would be less car accidents, or even better they stop using their cars as often to avoid car accidents. Even when knowone is distracted while driving there are still a few car accidents. Most of the time that's just a regular accident with knowone losing their lives, but it happens many tims because the streets are so compacted with drivers eager to move. That's why I think people should stop relying on their cars so heavily. To decrease the death rate to a normal level.

In conclusion, all these three reasons why I think people should limit the usage of their vehicles are the reasons why the world isn't at it's normal levels of natural events in traffic. If citizens would rely less on their vehicles, we would see a change in the air we breathe and less chances of having global warming, less traffic in city streets, and less fatal car accidents with less people being killed.",0
6cad8297,0,"Congestion, the amount of car traffic in a specific area, is significantly decreasing due to a new idea that has sprung:limiting car usage. Places such as Vauban, Paris, Bogota, Cali and Valledupar are participating in a program that's made to decrease car usage. Some of these cities enjoy Day Without Cars, a holiday that ""promotes alternative transportation and reduces smog"". Selsky 1 Businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza says that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Limiting car usage promotes a healthier, cleaner environment for all. By using alternative transportation, such as buses, taxis, biking or even walking, the amount of greenhouse emission is drastically reduced. Rosenthal 1 The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States are encouraging ""car reduced"" communities, causing legislators to act. This will cut the amount of money spent yearly by U.S. citizens and the government as a whole, reducing the federal transportation bill. Rosenthal 1 Paris, too, momentarily banned driving due to smog. Paris enforced a driving ban that lasted a few days to clear the city's air after a close call to record pollution. Although some people were upset, congestion was down 60 percent, and the smog cleared a few days later. Duffer 1 All in all, diesel usage decreased, leaving a ""greener"" environment in its place.

President Obama has also wanted ""to curb the United states greenhouse gas emissions,"" Rosenthal 1, he revealed last week. Although the United states rate of car ownership per person and per household has started to decrease, there are still more things that could be done to create a longterm cultural shift. Rosenthal 1 New York has recently created a bikesharing program that has done remarkably well. Many cities have proposed plans to make personal vehicle ownership impractical or undesirable. Rosenthal 1 Even Bill Ford, the owner of the Ford Car Company, suggested an idea to creat cities in which ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety,"" at the Mobile World Congress last year. Rosenthal 1 Bogota, Colombia specifically enjoys a yearly carfree day in which the only exception of vehicle transportation are buses and taxis. This prevents traffic jams, reduces air pollution, and cuts the many costs to cars. Even in rain, the event continued on ""The rain hasn't stopped people from participating,"" said Antanas Mockus, the Bogota Mayor. Selsky 1 Enrique Riera, the mayor of Asucnion, Paraguay, said that ""these people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders."" Smog reduction, costcutting, stressrelieving and trafficjamfree, participating in this global change is an opportunity you won't want to miss.",0
6cc3ab1c,0,"Do you know the advantages and the disadvantages of having of not having a car? Yes, actually not having a car. Most people would freak out of the thought of not having a car some are just use to it. But could it actually save more money or would it cost more?

Vauban, Germany people have actually given up their cars, they call it ""carfree."" Not everyone has given up their cars. ""The main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park large garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home"" Source 1 by:Elizabeth Rosenthal. The vaughn's started getting involved and getting informed on not using a car. Soon 70 percent of vaughn's family does not own a car, and 57 percent sold a car to move to Germany. Some even liked the idea of not using a car ""When I had a care I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" says Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two. She nows walks verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor. in 2006 Vauban completed, this is an example of growing trend in Europe, the united States and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, this is a movement of ""smart planning."" The advantage is you will have more access to public transportation, a disadvantage is if you live far from public places then you might have to walk or take a bus.

In Paris they have enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. On Monday motorists with even numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine31. Nearly 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters. Twenty seven people had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine. Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesels engines int he rest of Western Europe, according to Reuters. The advantage of not having a car is that you wouldn't be spending money on gas, the disadvanteage is that you will be fined. Delivery companies complained of lost revenue, while exceptions were made fro plugin cars, hybirds, and cars carrying three or more passengers. Public transit was free of charge from Friday to Monday. After the smog ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday. There is alot of disadvantages because would you have a work day on Tuesday and you have an odd numbered plate. Also soem people are not familar with the public transportation and some people may not think it's the best way to get around in town. You also have to get up eary to catch the bus, train, etc.

BOGOTA,Colombia In a program that sets to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or tooked buses to work during a carffree day yesterda, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams. This was their third staright year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal was to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced 25 fines. In Bogota there were occasional rain showers. Some thought it was a good idea some not so much. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress in lower air pollution,"" said a businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife. Many countries have tried having a carfree day, and many succeeded. For the Unoted States President Obama ambitious goal was to curb the U.S greenhouse gas emissions, unveiled last week, will get a fortutious assit from incipient shift in American behavior. The studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by. In 2005 the United Stes peaked and dropped steadily thereafter, according to an analysis by Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment research company. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995.

So driving with a car or not it either good or bad because not driving could give you the excerise and driving just means you like your personal things. I think that when the government says it's a fine then follow the rules. Either way not having a car does has it advantages every country should have a carfree day.",0
6ce5f8fb,1,"Dear my. senator The Electoral college process consists of 538 electorss. Each electors represents a state and they vote according to what the majority of the people favor. The Electoral college is a fair and honest way of electing the president because each individual has a voice in who is elected by voting for the state electorss.""You help choose your state's electorss when you vote for president because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electorss""Does the Electoral College Work?. This shows how everyone plays a key role in the government and in electing the main person in charge.

Many people may argue that the Electoral college is corrupt because it is a ""nondemocratic"" way of electing a president and that the electorss may not vote in favor of the people's majority. This is true, however,""that trust is rarely betrayed""Does the Electoral College Work?."" It is entirely possible that the winner of the electorsal vote will not win the national poular vote""Does the Electoral College Work?, but this too has rarely happened. We need to continue with the Electoral college process despite a couple rarely occurring cons because all of the reasons to retain this fair system heavily outways the negative. There are five main arguments to continue the use of this justified system.

The first reason is ""certainty of outcome."" A conflict over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is rare and less likely to occur than a dispute over the popular vote. "" The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote""Does the Electoral College Work?. A tie in the nationwide electorsal vote is also highly unlikely to occur.

This second argument is ""Everyone's president."" ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal""Does the Electoral College Work?. This is so the residents of other regions don't feel deserted and that their votes don't count. Every president should have this desirable result so that heshe can be a successful president.

The third main argument is ""Swing States."" ""The winnertakeall mathod of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates to focus their campaign efforts on the tossup states....voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign""Does the Electoral College Work?. These electorsal voters are likely to be the most thoughtful voters and should be able to decide the election.

The fourth reason to retain the Electoral College system is that ""The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large statesby population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution""Does the Electoral College Work?. A large state would get more attention than a small state and I think that this is fair because the larger states by population should get more votes because they contain more people.

The fifth and final reason that we as a nation should favor the Electoral College is because it ""avoids runoff elections.""The Electoral College avoids the problems of elections in which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast""Does the Electoral College Work?. The Electoral College takes the huge pressure off of runoff elections and clearly produces a winner.

I hope that you take into consideration what I said and help the Electoral College continue to thrive over the years because without this system the nation will be in a big dispute. I know that this is the best system for our country and state and I strongly hope that you see that too.",0
6cff7fd5,0,"Many European countries have been making a move towards limiting car usage in efforts of halting pollution, adding exercise to everyday life, conserve resources, and improve safety for others. An example of this phenomenon is Vauban, Germany, where suburbs are not allowed to drive vehicles. Doing this has helped improve society by bringing people closer to each other and removing the stress of traffic. Other people create a holiday for this, Carfree day, where people can only get around by public transportation and walking. As countries become more organized, there is a lesser need for cars to get around as the city is closing in on us.

Various countries have been making cities more dense and bring stores and businesses closer to neighborhoods, with the idea of Smart Planning. This idea is making communities more compact, like vaughn's 5,500 residents living within a square mile. With this, the need of cars is drastically reduced, creating a stress free environment that is less polluted and clean. Also, to discourage the use of cars, there are only parking garages on the edge of town and barely any parking spots, leaving more room for sidewalks and housing development. People began to walk socialize along the way, allowing exercise and social benefits.

Car pollution has been a major problem ever since the first cars were made. In the Paris, the smog became so thick, they had to partially ban driving. Even license plates one day, the next odd license plates. Congestion was down 60% after 5 days of intense smog. This pollution was due to the French government subsidizing and favoring Diesel fuels. In this time, all public transit were free of charge and people walked to get to where they needed to be. However, delivery companies lost revenue, but exceptions such as plug in cars, hybrids, and cars carrying 3 or more people.

In America, the recession has had a devastating effect on some people, many couldn't afford to drive due to gas prices, and sold their cars. ""A study last year has found that driving by young people decreased 23% between 2001 and 2009"". This means that Public Transportation, carpooling, and pedestrian are becoming a more commonly used way of getting from A to B, and are more affordable.

Companies like Ford got together at the Mobile World Congress and laid out a business plan for a world in which vehicle ownership is impractical and undesirable. Their chairman, Bill Ford, proposed partnerships with telecommunication companies. They want to make cities that are more based on pedestrain, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportion. Doing this, they think it will save time, conserve resources, lower emissions, and improve safety.

The world changes slowly, and these ideas might never catch on. Today, there is a lesser need of cars as cities become more organized and as we start facing an environmental problem. Better city layouts are being made to reduce the need for vehicles by bring businesses closer to neighborhoods. People are sponsoring no car days, smog reduces, and people find that they don't need cars to get around.",0
6d193869,1,"The electoral college should be thrown out and the popular vote for the president should take its place because the electoral college is unfair and the people don't really have a voice.

The electoral college should go away because it unfair. electoral votes are unfair because the candidates only focus on the bigger states, ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" Votes dont even get to vote for the president, they vote for state electors. ""Under the electoral system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" This is why we should despose of the electoral system and just go off popular votes.

Another reason why we should replace the electoral college for popular vote is because the people don't really have a voice in the electoral system. Voters do not directly vote for the president but they vote for the slate electors who then vote for the president. We the people should have a direct vote for the president. ""Consider that the state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" so in other words we have put our trust in people to have a voice for us when we could just do it ourselves. ""voters sometimes get confused about electors and vote for the wrong candidate."" Even though the electoral system is all kinds of messed up there is an upside to it, ""perhaps most of the worrying is the prospect of a tie in the election vote. In that cases, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president."" They use the Representatives to break a tie so there wouldnt have to be a runoff election. With popular vote you wouldn't have to have a run off because there is not an even number of people registered to vote in America. So i urge the popular vote to take the place of the electoral college system.

In conclusion, the electoral college system should be exicuted and popular votes should be subsituted because the electoral college system is unfair and the people don't really have a voice in the election.",0
6d2d794b,1,"The electoral college must go down! The electoral college is unfair to voters across the United States and the amounts of electoral votes doesn't compare to the actual population. The electoral college have messed up the voting system causing horrific crisis in the United States. This system of electoral colleges voting for the president and not actually counting the votes that the people in the United States vote for, which makes it a very outdated system. Using popular vote is more precise and accurate than the electoral college. Popular vote is voted by citizens in which many people not including me should change the electoral system for the popular vote system. Therefore, the electoral college must go down and replaced by a system called the popular vote to determine the president of this great country.

Having electoral voters instead of having the popular vote system is unfair to all. Basically the electoral college process consists of only a selection of the senators. The founding father have established this messed up system in which it compromise between the election of the president by a vote in congress. It is highly unfair because of the winnertakeall system in each state. This means candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning. For example, they only focus on the ""swing states"" like California. Using the winnertakeall system, smaller states don't get the same opportunity as bigger states as in the year of the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see any candidates at all including, Rhode Island and South Carolina which holds the largest media markets. Yet these states didn't get to see a single campaign ad in the designated area.

Not only that using this system is unfair to all, but this system of electoral votes don't compare to the population. Meaning the 500,000 voters in a state of Wyoming who wants the other president to win, only have one representative to cast that vote in that whole state of that immense population. While California in the other hand have 55 representatives to cast the votes, in which the represent 35 million voters in that state. Using popular vote, is much more of a precise method or sytem to use. Instead of having one representative from one small state of 500,000 people, the popular votes turned in by qualified citizens will count than just 55 representatives. Imagine having each and everyone's vote count instead of having someone to do it for you. Now that is when people should start voting.

Using the popular vote will indeed avoid many crisis that happened using the electoral system. For example, the election that almost turned into complete disaster in the year of 1960 when Vice President Richard Nixon, who was presiding over the senate, validated only his opponent electors, but he made sure to do so ""without establishing a precedent"". This couldv'e been easily fixed if the government at this time would take off the electoral system college and instead use a precise system that many people want, named the popular vote. Popular vote is basically when the people have ""the voice"" and speak for themselves and not to another person. Another example would be in the year 2000 when U.S. presidential race, Al Gorereceived more individual votes that George W. Bush nation wide, but Bush wonthe election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266. With popular vote, Al Gore wouldv'e won the presidency and the citezens of the United States would've gotten what they wanted instead of having people vote for them. This is why population vote should be in effect as soon as possible.

Using popular vote would be a great and ideal way to decide who is the president during the nationwide election. It should be important to many people as we the people of the United States decide who will take over the countries' responsibility and economy. Yes, the popular votes is a great and ideal way to vote but having electoral colleges will avoid runoff elections. Runoff elections are when no canidate receives a majority of the votes cast. However, they can fix this problem by eliminating the electoral votes process. Therefore, it makes it clear that having a popular vote to deide who is the winner would be better when it is election time.

Having popular votes system will be arguably the best system to use for the election and towards the voting process. Using electoral votes will be unfair to voters when they are voting because of the simply winnertakeall basis of each and every one of the fifty states. Not only that it's unfair, it also causes many crisis in the United States dealing with this system alone and then eventually lead to dramatic chaos across the nation. Also, having the amount of electoral votes doesn't compare to the population of the actual state. Remember it is still one representative for the 500,000 people in Wyoming. Popular votes should be used in every political system no matter what situation it is. As the passage says, the argument against direct elections are spuriors at the best.",0
6e0a24d2,1,"Dear State Senator, I am writing you a letter in regards of the electoral college. I believe we should abolish it completely. I believe that we should change our voting system to election by popular vote for the president of the United states. While it is a good system, it is not reliable and does not let the people truly decide who their representative will be. It does bring some certainty of outcome but not as much as it should.

The electoral college must be abolished because it does not let the people truly decide who their president will be. While it does allow them to vote for a slate of electors who then elect the president usually based off of the popular vote, they do not always vote for who they are supposed to. The slate of electors that the people vote for are supposed to be trusted to vote for what the popular vote says, they do not always do so. A good example of that is in 2000, when Al Gore ran against George W Bush. Al Gore won the popular vote nationwide over Bush, he still didnt win the presidency because the electoral college did not stay true to their word and voted for Bush. That is because, as shown in Source 3, paragraph 15, "" When you vote for a presidential candidate you're actually voting for a slate of electors. So while you might think your individual vote makes a difference, it doesn at all, for you are not choosing which presidential candidate to vote for, you are voting for someone else to vote for the president who might not always stay true to their word and vote for a different candidate.

Although the electoral college does bring better certainty of outcome than a popular vote, it does not have the certainty it claims to have. In Source 2, paragraph 12 it states, ""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote."" This is a big worry because the electoral college holds a total of 538 votes which is definetely possible to cause a tie. If this were to happen, then the vote would be thrown to the House of Representatives where state delegations would vote on the president. Then the concept of the presidential campaigns would become pointless because the point of campaigning is to try to win over large, swing states to ensure more votes. Because the bigger the states population, the more votes they hold in the electoral college. But that would only work if it was in the Senates hands because the amount of representatives in the Senate for each state is based off of population, whereas the amount of representatives in the House of Representatives is always two for each state. So if the vote was thrown into the House of Representatives hands, then whichever candidate who holds claim over the most states, regardless of size, would almost automatically win the election because each state holds equal say in their vote.

So because the electoral college is obviously unfair, it should be abolished. Because the voters are told they decide who reopresents them, yet they do not. There is a possibility, while slim that a president could win the popular votes, yet lose the election because of the way the electoral college is set up. So because it unfair to the presidential candidates, it should be abolished and we should have elections controlled by popular votes.",0
6e163f76,1,"As you may know, the Electoral College consists of 538 electors, which is a even number. As said in ""The defenseof the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing President,"" that even number can be a result of a tie in electoral votes, but is highly unlikely. But even then it is unfair to those who ""like"" the system, where as I oppose the voting system. Like everyone, I have my reasons1 electoral college is a disaster factor' 2 Voters don't vote for the President, but the electors instead.

To begin with my first reason, that electoral college is disaster factor as said in ' The indefensible of the electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong' the system had a fiasco, as you may call it, back in the 2000 election was the biggest crisis in a century. Also in 1960, segregationist in Louisiana legislatures almost succeeded in replacing Democratic Electors which electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy, so that the popular vote wouldn't have gone to Kennedy. What else has hepened in the 1960s? As you may or may not know, Vice President Richard Nixon, validated only his opponent's electors. With this, the Electoral College has flaws or loopholes making it a disaster factor.

As for my second reason, that the electoral collge is unfair to voters. Electors may not always be faithful to their party, as said in ' The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defense of the system are wrong' electors could vote for another candidate if they refused to vote for their party's candidate. Meaning that if a voter votes for a certain elector to vote for a certain President, then their votes probably wouldn't count. Also, because of the winnertakesall system, candidates do not spend time in states that the are aware that they have no chance of winning them over, but focusing on the 'swing' states. For example, in the 2000 campaign, 17 states didn't see candidates at all and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't see a single campaign ad. Candidates shouldn't just avoid states that they have no chance in, but take that chance.

Even though the Electoral College is unfair and a disaster factor, it also fair in the state department. Smaller states votes area as equal as a bigger states votes, and the electoral college requires a presidential candidate to have a transreagional appeal which makes sure that a candidate doesn't just go to a ragion that he knows he will get votes from, but to others that will allow him to gain more voters.

So in conclusion to my knowledge, the Electoral College voting system should be changed for so that the system wouldn't be disfuntional and unfair to voters. Which will make electing a president functional and fair to voters.",0
6e1bbc87,1,"The Electoral College is broken, and with another election on the way, here is why the voting should be changed to popular vote for the president of the United States. Voters cannot control whom their electors are, in the chance that those electors are replaced with new electors so the votes may be rigged, as well as ""faithless"" electors may refuse to vote for their party's candidate and could cast a deciding vote for whomever they please.

Voters don't actually vote for the president, instead, they vote for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. In the case that you vote John Kerry in Texas, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. In the case those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry would get 34 electoral vote. Who are the electors? They could be anyone, even if their not holding office. Who even picks these electors in the first place? Sometimes it state conventions, other times it's the state's central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates themselves. Can we, citizens of the United States, control whom their electors vote for? Not always, and that shouldn't be.

In the 1960 election, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature almost succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy and make it seem that a popular vote would have not gone to Kennedy. What would happen if their was a tie in the electoral vote? The case would be thrown in the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. because each state counts for only one vote, a single representative from Wyoming would represent 500,000 voters, 55 representatives from California who getto represent 55 representatives would have as much say as the one from Wyoming. This cannot represent the will of the people.

Now when have you changed your mind about something? Electors can do the same. Electors can refuse to vote for their party's candidate and vote for whomever they please. That can't be right, yet it has happened plenty of times before. It's even unfair to the people, who sometimes don't even get to see their electors. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, they don't focus of states they know they cannot win, aiming towards ""swing states."" In the 2000 campaign, 17 states didn't see their candidates at all, as well as 25 of the largest media markets who didn't get to see not one campaign ad.

The Electoral College dosen't hear the voice of the people, hardly plays by the rules, is something that should be erased. Even people like Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dale, the U.S.",0
6e5e4f34,1,"Forida senator, I argue to remove the Electoral College and replace it by changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Voting is not fair to the people because they can't vote for the President, only for the state electors, and even if the candidate that won the most popular votes, may not be elected. Also, the winnertakesall system is not fair to voters because the candidates don't spend time in states they cannot win in or small states and mostly in swing states.

""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the president."" The passage stated in paragraph 10. Voting has changed over many years, but I think that people should be able to vote for the President and have that candidate win the election if they get the majority of popular votes. If the people want to have that candidate as the President, so be it. Although the Electoral College may help by not having a tied election and have a ""Certainty of Outcome"", but it should be what the people want and vote for. In my opinion, it would be better to not feel like you're putting in a vote that isn't what you wanted. The vote from the people go to state electors for them to choose and that is not truly fair to the people.

The candidates should spend time in all states to try to get their vote instead of the winnertakesall system therefore, it should be removed. There are people in the state that have voted for that candidate but they don't go to the state because they only focus on the swing states. I understand that they do go there to try to win the election and become president, but they should at least spend some amount of time in other states. ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" As stated in the passage in paragraph 13.

So overall, the electoral college should be replaced by having the popular vote be the decider of who gets to be president. It's fair to the people and to the country.",0
6e5ea84e,1,"The Electoral College, its something that can change the amount of votes someone has rapidly depending on how many he or she has received. For some it is something that can help you, and for others its a nightmare. Most people would say it is something to be aware about and the rest dont care about it.

To start off, The Electoral College is not a physical building or place, its a process that the founding fathers established in the Constitution as a compromise between elections of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. Most people believe that this process should be eliminated, some of those protesters are or were very important people, for example Bob Dole, he once said "" The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational.

"" Secondly, If someone is in the Electoral College and vote for who they want for President, really they dont vote for them, according to ""The Indefensible Electoral College"" by Bradford Plumer, the people on the Electoral College actually ""vote not for the President, but for a slate of electors, who in return elect the president."" Thats messed up! They barley have any control on who they vote for. What if the electors dont vote for who the voters expect to win? Actually, this incident has happend before in Hawaii in 1960 with two electors, ""faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please.

Next, The electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism. According to ""In Defense of The Electoral College"" by Richard A. Posner, "" the advocates of this position are correct in arguing that the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense...

"". It is the electors who elect the president, not the people. When people are voting for a presidential candidate, they're actually voting for a slate of electors. Its is truley unfair for that to happen because the electors can betray the presidential nominee and cast their vote for the opposing nominee.

Finally, It is entirely possible for the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. It is very rare for something like that to occur. According to ""In Defense of The Electoral College"" by Richard A. Posner, "" It happend in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush, yet fewer electoral votes..."" .A tie in the nationwide electoral votes is possible because the total number of votes, which is 538, is an even number, but it is highly unlikely.

Overall, The Electoral College should be removed, because when the electors cast their vote, they dont really take part in the vote, it really is the slate. Sure, it can add more votes than the nominee actually has, but it is an unfair, outdated, and irrational procces that should no longer be in the Constisution.",0
6e88a706,0,"The effects of greenhouse gas emission began to take their toll on the earth's atmosphere simply by its own natural output. As time has gone on though, and humans and their ways of transportation have evolved, greenhouse gas emission is becoming more of a problem. Automobiles, mainly cars, play a huge role in the production of nasty fumes and gases that become trapped in the atmosphere. For example, in Europe passenger cars make up twelve percent of total greenhouse gas emission, and in heavily congested areas such as the United Statesit can skyrocket up to fifty percent!

Some nationscountries are beginning to take a new approach to battle the ""War of Greenhouse Gases"". As studies have shown that national driving levels and the amount of people purchasing cars and earning their licenses are dropping after their peak in 2005, people are more and more willing to put down the car keys and put on their running shoes. One of these places in particular is the city of Vauban and is located in Germany. It is a middleclass to upper class community and its citizens can be considered pioneers of suburbia. Vauban does not permit driving in it's limits, besides the main thoroughfare, and a few side streets. Car owners buy a space for their car for 40,000 alongside a home.

While some might argue about the practicality of not driving your car if you have one, it's shown to be extremely beneficial not only for the environment, but for people as well. When you go outside, whether you're headed somewhere or just on a casual stroll, you may reach Nirvana as you enjoy the true sounds of nature. In places where cars are permitted to drive, you might hear the sound of birds chirping outside your window, or the calm rustle of leaves rustling in the wind, but the rumbles, roars, and honks of a car are not far behind. In areas such as Vauban, the beautiful sounds of the world won't be drowned out by a greasy hunk of steel.

Besides feeling at peace, a life without a car is a healthier life! Now, when you want to go somewhere, you must rely on your own two feet. Those two feet, bicycle, skateboard, etc. will be all you need to get where you're going! Unlike many places though, everything is within walking distance for convenience and to encourage you to take these steps. Notice the physical and emotional changes in yourself once in a place with no carsyou'll feel more relaxed, less rushed, and your body will thank you.",0
6ef92dad,0,"As of right now, imagining an automobilefree world may sound crazy, but ambitious goals to end the use of cars has taken place. Suburban and city residents have taken quite a lot of thought into banning driving and giving up their cars, because of the great advantages that go along with these limitations. Reducing the use of cars has amazing advantages in creating a nonpolluted environment, it leads to an increase in exercise, and provides a way to save one's money.

Car reduced communities are being promoted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, swell as all around the world. Paris, France has enforced a driving ban to reduce the intensifying pollution all over the city, as explained in the article entitled, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"". If the pattern of banning the use of cars persists, the amount of pollution will be reduced, especially in major big cities, such as Paris, London and Beijing. Continuing this cultural shift ""will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment"" ""The End of Car Culture"". Limiting the use of cars would highly advantage and could possibly save our environment, if we conserve our resources correctly.

Hiking, biking, skating andor walking are all types of physical activities that are useful to get from point A to B, rather than using a car. People have began to organize their lives around how they can get to places by exercising, than commuting by car. Restaurants, shopping malls, and work offices are beginning to be located in highly populated areas and within walking range, so that the use of automobiles becomes unecessary. In Bogota, Columbia, people take a carfree day to promote alternative forms of transportation and reduce smog. Bogota ""has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths"" ""Carfree day is spnning into a big hit in Bogota"", in order to encourage citizens to get off the roads with their cars. Exercising has many advantages in limiting car usage, not only creating a nonpolluted planet, but also creating a healthier lifestlye for a person.

As gasoline prices rise, and car insurance rates fly up, less and less people are getting a license and have stopped buying cars to save money. A study done between the years 2001 and 2009 found that driving by young people decreased by twentythree percent, explained in the article, ""The End of Car Culture"". Leasing or owning a car is not a priority for many, as the use of taking public transportation or carpooling is available. Without cars, people are able to save money for important life necessecities, such as food, water, and shelter, where as a car is not something needed and may be considered a luxury in other parts of the world.

Commuting is not imposibble without owning a car. With forms of exercise and public transportation, many are able to get around without spending hundreds of dollars per week on gasoline. Less driving creates a nonpolluted and healthier environment, keeping our planet more stable. Eventhough owning a car seems convenient now, it may not be so convenient in the long run, as we may have to face difficulties that life throws at us. Wasting money on a car gives no advantages, where as a carfree environment is safer and more effective.",0
6f256fc0,0,"All around the world in places such as the United states, Paris and other european countries have all begun to realize the effects cars have on the environment as well as the community. Most of these places have actually banned cars in suburban areas to try to promote this idea that are cars becoming less of a necessity throughout communities. Cars are becoming less popular and some advantages to this are that cars cause lots of pollution from tailgate according to source number one. Some other advantages to this decline of cars is the improvement of the community as well as better quality of life with civilians.

Cars are one of the leading reasons pollution is such a big problem today. So one advantage to having less cars would be less pollution. Experts from source two state that up to fifty percent of greenhouse gases could come from the United States alone. according to source two places like Paris have already begun to face the effects of pollution. The pollution in Paris was bad enough to ban cars to reduce the amount of smog in the air. In doing so the lack of cars helped cleared the air for people to breathe easier. Banning cars would also promote an increase to public transportation. With less cars people would be obligated to use public transit or simply walk to where they needed to be. A business man from source three named Carlos Arturo Plaza states ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"". This shows that not all feedback from the loss of cars is negative.

Another advantage to the lack of cars is the overall improvement of communities. With the lack of cars workers dont have to spend all there money on construction of new roads and maintenance of highways. People can now begin to finally work on other things such as the improvements of sidewalks and building new parks. In source 3 it states that restrictions have cut traffic making less people agitated over road rage as well as the upscale of new business's and shop markets. Because of all these new markets everything is built closer now since people arent driving theres no need for the buildings to be long distances away. Urbanization is an advantage to lack of cars.

With the lack of cars some peoples quality of life have improved greatly, Enrique rivera from source three states ""These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders."" Implying that these changes are going to spread and become the new thing of today. Some people say they they enjoy this new policy. In source four it states that changes like these can make emmsions lower and improve safety, in doing so people have a better quality of life as they are safer then before.

So in all there were many advantages that had to the reduction of cars in certain areas. With the lack of pollution people were able to get around easier, with nicer places to travel shopping would become more fun then previously, and peoples lives became generally less stressful. With all of this upcoming news about reduction of pollution and new ways to change the environment maybe one day we will live in a world with no cars at all.",0
6fc1858d,1,"Dear Senator name of Florida's senator, I am write this letter to you because I know that congress is thinking about getting rid of the Electoral College. The Electoral College has help us pick a great President and VicePresident multiple times, it might not be everyone's first choice President and VicePresident but most of the time the majority of citizens that care about their country agree with the choice of President and VicePresident. We aren't just electing by the Electoral College vote but also by the popular vote. There might be some problems within the Electoral College method but getting rid of it is not the solution, there will always be some type of issue in the way the President's and VicePresident's are elected, are we just gonna get rid of those methods too?

One reason that getting rid of the Electoral College process is the wrong decision is because our founding fathers established this process in the Constitution as a type of compromise between electing our President and VicePresident by a vote of congress and electing our President and VicePresident by a popular vote of qualified citizens. Why would you want to break that compromise?

Also, if you think about it, how is it fair on some of the smaller states if we just did the popular vote. If the majority of a larger state wants some one for President and a couple of small states want another President to be win then most likely the larger state gets thee President they wanted, if we got rid of the Electoral College process and just did the popular vote. The Electoral College process also help produce a clear winner of the elections.

I know that the Electoral College process has some issues like the voters not being able to know for sure who their slate of electors are going to vote for. In some very rare cases the electors do not vote for the candidate you want them to vote for. That can be very unappealing to most people that they don't have that insurance. Another issue is that sometimes in a close election, the popular vote winner could lose the presidency. Most people don't understand why the popular President lost and imminently assume that the Electoral College process is awful and we should get rid of it right away.

Over all, the Electoral College process has been around since our founding fathers were around and we have had some of the most qualified and caring Presidents that amazed us with how they changed our country for the greatergood and wellbeing of our country and it's people. The Electoral College process is something that should stay with us for a long time, so that we can see what the next few President's will do for us in the future.",0
6ffc4437,0,"The thought of limiting car usage may sound ridiculous or even out right absurd to some, however, what if one car not driving could save your city or even country? Emissions from cars have been weathering away at the Earth's atmosphere and trapping health threatening green house gasses. governments have taken notice of this and are developing programs to curve the increasingly large amount of emissions and other air pollutants that come from cars.

In the source,""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" it tells the tale of Vauban, Germany and other places that have similar programs to limit or ban car usage in suburban homesteads. As a result of the new rule, nearly 70 percent of the families who live in Vauban, though its completely legal, do not own a car and an additional 57 percent sold theirs to move into the square mile of suburbian life. Since the completion of the suburb in 2006, this trend has grown and spread out across Europe and America. These are great things to hear considering that 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from the tailpipe of the passenger cars that occupy Europe. Additionally, the greenhouse gasses in the United States can reach as much as 50 percent in heavily automobile trodden areas like Detroit, Los Angeles and New York. These cities may have their rescue soon enough as the environmental Protection Agency has pushed for legislative action to aid their fellow Americans.

In another European landmark, Paris has joined the fight to battle the smog that glooms over the fantastic city. Although the city looks like it is a paradise, it actually has a smog predicament comparable to that of Shanghai which is notorious for its near cancerous smog problem. To combat this arising problem in Paris, city officials have instituted rules and bans against the pollutants. Motorists with even numbered license plates will alternate with odd numbered motorists every day and the city will provide free transportation Monday through Friday to those banned on that day. Not only has it help impede the incoming smog, it has also cleared traffic congestion up to 60 percent! This is also a benefit in the smog battle since motorists aren't idling and producing emissions when at a standstill. This idea has also been shared to other places around the world that are trying to battle their own emissions.

The struggle for clean air is even in our own back yard. President Obama has even addressed it himself last week as it came out that Americans are buying less cars and driving the ones they already have less. Now this may sound a bit astounding considering that Americans have a passion for cars. In Detroit,, Michigan, companies who are internationally known for their cars have their base of operations lacted in the sprawlng urban playground. The first mass produced automobile, the Ford ModelT, was even crafted right here in the United States! However, there is still a noticeable decline in the use of cars in American lives. This isn't all bad though, some of Americas cities are falling into a danger that other cities across the globe have already fallen for smog and greenhouse gas pollution.

There are numerous studies on the health risks of air pollutants that can back up the reasoning of countless goverments and cities that want to undo their own demise. In the final source titled, ""The End Of Car Culture"", the passage states that,"" Many Sociologists believe it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the enviroment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions..."" This statement comes after the news of declines in Americans driving their own cars. This atop of new drivers not wanting their licenses and prefer public transit are unknowingly an aid to fighting the global emission dilema.

The advantages of limiting car usage has both positives and its negatives. The negative only affects one person, usually, and the positives have an affect on everyone else's health and the global enviroment and make countless other minute differences in the world. The global effort to inhibit the production of smog. greenhouse gas emissions, and any other pollutant that makes the quality of air unfavorable has really come along way in the past few decades since its realization. So why not hang up the keys once in a while and take a bus to the store or walk to work.",0
7014633b,1,"Dear Governor, I believe we need to keep the Electoral College. It seems to provide a more efficient way of deciding who will be the president.

There may seem to be many problems with the electoral college, but there are just as many things that are good about it.

In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President, it lists several good points of how the electoral college helps us choose our president. The first point is Certainty of Outcome. In the passage, it states that the Electoral College usually exceeds the amount of popular votes they have because most states use a winnertakeall basis if they so much as have a one percent higher difference than their opponent.

The next point is: with the Electoral College, you can't win by just winning over one region South, Northeast, etc.. In order to have enough Electoral College votes to win, you have to be accepted nation wide. You can't win by just being supported by the South or only the Midwest, you have to be supported by several regions. In the 2012 election, Mitt rodney was a solid regional favorite in the South. He has no chance of winning extra Electoral College votes if he only campaigns in states he knows he's going to win. This is a perk of the Electoral College because if the candidate has only regional appeal, he's less likely to be a good President.

The third point is the swing states. These are states that are not set on one certain party, such as democrats in Texas or Republicans in California. The voters in tossup states are the most studious of the campaign because they know they are the ones who will ultimately decide who will win the election. The voters in these states will pay closer attention to the debates, do further research into the claims the candidates place against each other, and they also recieve the most information and attention from the campaign. These voters are thought to be the most thoughtful and often decide the election.

The fourth point is about the big states. In the passage it states: ""The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states by population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution..."" The larger states usually end up getting more attention from the candidates than the smaller states because the larger states have more electoral votes than the smaller states. For example, in 2012, the popular vote in Florida was very close, and yet Obama still got the 29 electoral votes. A victory the same way in Wyoming would only give the winner 3 electoral votes.

The fifth, and final, point is that the Electoral College can help avoid runoff elections. It can help avoid the problem of elections in which neither of the candidates has the majority vote. For example, Richard Nixon in 1968 and Bill Clinton both had only 43% of the popular vote, while they both had a lead in the Electoral College. There would be no pressure for a tied election if none of the candidates wins a majority of the votes. That pressure, which usually complicates the election process, is cut back by the Electoral College, which will give a clear answer.

Yes, it can be said that the Electoral College method of choosing the president can turn potential voters away from a candidate that has no hope of carrying their state. Voters knowing their vote will have no effect are more likely to pay less attention to the campaign than they would be if the popular vote decided the President. Either way, no voter's vote is going to swing a national election and, with that information in mind, about half of the eligable voters in America voted in 2012's election.

It seems to me that the Electoral College helps more than it harms the election. I believe the Electoral College should remain intact as it provides a more efficient way of deciding who will become President.",0
703b70dd,1,"As a citizen of the United States, I have the right to have my poinion on the Electoral College, and my opinion is that we should not have an Electoral College because of many reasons. The reasons include the following if American citizens vote for a slate of electors that then vote for the president, we technically aren't even voting ourselves. Also, the electors that we vote for to elect our president don't always have to vote for the president we want, but it could also be in a case as if who they wanted to vote for. Lastly, the population of states affects the amount of votes casted off into the possible president's election.

In the Electoral College process, we, the U.S. citizens, vote for a group of electors who then vote for the President of the United States. According to The Indefensible Electoral College: Why Even the BestLaid Defenses of the System are Wrong , ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president Paragraph 10."" Based on what the information that the paragraph is giving us, the citizens of the U.S. technically are not even having a say in who the president is, America uses the quote ""It's a free country"", but really, you're not even letting the people have a say in who the next president is...

Based on what I stated in the second paragraph, whoever we vote to be our electors of the voting for the U.S. president, don't always have to vote for who the citizens want as president, but what they, the members of the congress want. ""Who are the electors? They can be anyanyone not holding public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates themselves. Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Paragraph 10."" It doesn't matter who is voting, what does matter is that they all have different oppinions on who would do better if president. These electors chosen to vote are basically allowed to vote on whoever they agree is right, your vote is invalid to their poinion, it' who they want. And is that fair? No.

Another reason I do not think the electoral college is right is because the population of states affects the amount of votes casted off into the possible president's election. For example, according to paragraph 12 of The Indefensible Electoral College: Why Even the BestLaid Defenses of the System are Wrong , it says ""Because each state casts only one vote, the single represenative from Whyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as 55 represenatives from California, who represent 35 million voters."" What this is trying to say, is that it doesn't even matter about how many voters there are, but about how man represenatives there are. This leads me back to my point of where we really have no say in who is president or not.

In the electoral college, In the Electoral College process, we, the U.S. citizens, vote for a group of electors who then vote for the President of the United States, but that doesn't always mean we get what we want when it comes to voting. Many reasons are listed about why the electoral college is not a helpful or meaningful process.",0
70cd1937,1,"Dear Senator Nelson, In recent years, many people have called for the change of the presidential election process. Specifically, the Electoral College. Many consider it a pointless, unfair, and archaic system that denies the people the liberty of choosing their president. However, I believe the Electoral College is a necessity in modern America. Although it is as old as the country itself, it is still relevant and useful today.

The Electoral College ensures the outcome of an election. Without the Electoral College, the election may possibly need multiple reruns as a result of a tie in the popular vote. According to ""Does the Electoral College work?"" by the Office of the Federal Register, ""The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president"". With that few of electors, it reduces the chances of a tie occurring. Although it can happen however, it's not probable. For example, if two candidates ever had a tie among the popular vote, it could be resolved within the college because of the way the slates of electors are divided up among the states. Some critics of the college say that this systems takes the control out of the peoples hands and denies them the right of choice. However, you have to remember that the people elect a slate of electors to vote for their candidate. That means that even though the College ultimately decides the president, the people still have someone to represent their candidates.

The Electoral College is also a necessity because it forces the candidates to face issues the people care about and to appeal to the masses. According to ""In Defense of the Electoral College: 5 reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president"" by Richard A. Posner, ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region South, Northeast, etc. has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So, a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his pluralarity in those states"". This means that in order to win the popular vote and get a chance to win within the Electoral College, a candidate must appeal to the country, not just a particular set of voters who may have different views on politics than the majority of voters. Some people say that a candidate may try to appeal to a set of voters but in the end just use them in order to win the presidency. To that I say this. As a candidate, your ultimate goal is to serve two full terms as the president of the world's leading superpower right? Why would a candidate want to lie and jeprodize their chances at doing what they feel is right for the country?

In Conclusion, the Electoral college must not be done away with. It is a necessary tool to maintain fairness among the candidates and the election process. We have checks and balances among the government so one branch of government may never gain more power over the others so why not supervise the most important process in government? If you take anything at all away from this letter, please let it be this. The Electoral College is a staple in American politics. Without it, we would be denying our country the right to a fair election.",0
70d7c567,0,"Can you imagine living in a place where there is no driving? It is an amazing thing to think if every person doesn't drive in one big city that it saves so much pollution going in to the air. Another thing to think about is if everyone in a city didn't drive and walked everywhere, more people would stay healthier by staying in shape. Some people think that owning a car is more stressful than just walking everywhere. If you don't own a car you don't have to pay for insurance, don't have to pay for gas, and don't have to pay for repairs when something goes wrong in a vehicle. To me it sounds like there is a lot of advantages in limiting car use.

One solid reason why not using cars as much is the pollution going in the air. In Paris, France motorists with even numbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at their house or else they would be fined. The next day odd numbered license plates motorists had to leave their vehicles at home. It was a hardship at first to get people to follow these new rules, but after about five days everything started to cool down. The pollution had dropped 60 percent in Paris which is exactly what the city was looking for. Limiting the car usage didn't just save pollution from going in the air, but also there wasn't as much traffic as there usually was. It also made Paris a safer place to be outside and not damage the citizens lungs. The capital city of France also made transportation free MondayFriday to help the cause. Soon enough people that had both license plates could drive on the same day.

In Bogota, Colombia they do a car free day that is becoming popular in that part of the world. It is awesome to think there are 7 million people in that city and none of them are using a car. People that violated this goal on this day were charged a 25 fine. People from other countries came to see how this day worked and they loved it. The mayor of Asuncion, Paraguay said ""These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders."" You can just imagine all the benefits of everyone not using a car in a city for a whole day. Restaurants and parks would be visited and used more and everyone would be getting more exercise. All in all this idea was genius.

As you can see limiting car usage can help out the area big time that it is taking place. It is better breathing air, businesses like restaurants and parks would be used more and grow steadily, and the city would be taken care of better.",0
70fd5847,1,"Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong. There must to be change, an election by popular vote for our next President of the United States is what our country needs.

First and foremost, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Candidates don't spend time, or money in states they know will have no chance of winning. In the election of the year 2000, seventeen states did not see the candidates at all. Voters in 25 of the largest media markets did not see a single campaign ad. Leaving the decision to people living in the big states candidates work hard to persuade such as Ohio. It is completely unfair knowing that not all U.S. states are receiving the same information, attention and opportunities as others during an election.

It is sad to know that there has been no change from the time our founding fathers were alive until now between the manner of electing a presidentt. The electoral college is outdated, an ""anachronism,"" says Richard A. Posner in his article, Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President Others may argue that this is how our nation should be, just as it is right now, but those who say that are those who are afraid of change, those who are blinded by the wrongdoings of the electoral college.

Last, but not least the electoral college is irrational. Plumer says it best writing: ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the presidentt, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" Anyone who disagrees that is irrational is wrong. Not only that, but there has been occasions in which electors have not voted for their party's candidate. Most importantly, electoral college method of selecting a presidentt turns off potential voters that know they have no hope of carrying their state as well.

Without a doubt should there be a change to elect a presidentt and vice presidentt by popular vote. The electoral college brings nothing but unfairness, and irrationality to our country. ""Over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" Plumer, 2 Many other well known Americans such as Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bob Dole also agree on abolishing the electoral college as well. Those who favor against the system override those against change, and that must be the manner in which our next leaders will be elected. There must be change, U.S. citizens have endured the electoral college system for far too long.",0
71168011,1,"Dear State Senator, 12315 I have a very strongly worded, persuasive letter written for you today of why our united nation, must abolish the electoral college. I am aware that the electoral college is one of the main ways president's become elected, but it's serving an injustice to our nations people. You must do something of the crisis that our country is facing with the Electoral College.I have two compelling reasons of why the electoral college should be abolished.

My first reason of why we should abolish the electoral college is because of the method it is done in. What I mean by this is, according to Source 1:What is the Electoral College?, it says, ""Most states have a ""winner take all"" system that awards electors to the winning presidential candidate."" The winner take all system is not a fair way to elect a president because of its biases. The candidates running for the presidency only visit the largly populated states in order to get their electoral points, for instance, most candidates go to california or Texas because those are the states that have for electoral points. But, by doing this all the smaller states that have less electoral points are never visited by the candidates, the voters then may have never seen an ad or campaign for a certain candidates. According to Source 2: ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best laid defenses of the system are wrong"", by Bradford Plummer, it states, ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and votes in 25 of the media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad"". On the contrary, it is stated by Source 3: In defense of the Electoral College, it states,"" No reigon has enough electoral votes to elect a president."" This is true, but candiadtes focus on larger states that will supply them with more electoral votes, and don't even visit or pay any attention the smaller states. I strongly negate the Electoral College.

My second reason of why our country must abolish the Electoral College is because it is a ""disaster factor"", as stated by Source 2. I agree with this for two reasons. First, because it does allow the people to vote for the president or candidate they prefer. Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but slate of electors, who turn elect the president, as stated by ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best laid defenses of the system are wrong"". I strongly agree with that except from the article I have stated. Another reason, why the Electoral college is a disaster factor is because most of the United States citizens prefer a direct election to the kind we have now, Electoral College. More presiciely 60 percent of voters to dont want the electoral college, that's majority of our population! If majority of our nation is against the electoral college why haven't we abolished it?

In conculsion, ""It's offical: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly aserations without much basis in reality"", according to Source 2. I would like you to consider all the problems our nation is facing due to the Electoral College. I have stated two contentions of why you should abolish the Electoral College First,the method of how its done is very bias and unfair and secondly, because the Electoral College is a ""Disaster Factor"" or causes many disruptions in our country.",0
713d21db,1,""" The Electoral College is a process, not a place."" reported by the Office of the Federal Register. The Electoral College was established by our founding fathers. The main reason it was established was because it was a compromise between electing the President by a vote in Congress and electing the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College is a timely and outdated process that consists of selecting the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for the President and Vice President, and counting of the electoral votes by Congress. Yes, the Electoral College has helped the United States of America but it has also caused us many major conflicts that no citizen can change. Many Americans are not heard and by demolishing the Electoral College and bringing our ""old friend"" popular vote back in majority of Americans will be heard. This is a free country right? Do we have the right to be heard and vote for ourselves? I strongly believe we do. I vehemently feel that the United States of America should use popular vote due to the fact Electors can turn sides, in reality voters are not even voting for the President they're voting for the electors, and there is often a major conflict also known as the ""disaster factor"".

""...electors could always defy the will of the people."" Stated by author, Bradford Plumer. Once Electors are voted for they have our trust and votes in the center of their palms. They could either listen to the people or break our trust. Majority of times more than 15% of electors turn sides and vote for the opposing party. In a survey taken in 2000 more than 60% voted for popular vote by citizens because they were unwilling to put they're vote in the electors hands. Looking at the correct statistics don't you believe it's only fair to the American people that we use popular vote? More than half of America believes it is only right to use popular vote. What about the other half? Well, thinking about the situation, in the end, they will still get what they want and what is needed. But the real question here is, what do you think?

Lets take a quick look at reality here! When voting for the President of the United States of America you are technically voting for electoral votes. Majority of America does not realize that because of the Electoral College you are voting for their votes. As an citizen of the United States we have the freedom to speak and vote for whoever we want. When voting we are basically putting our votes in the hands of the electors so if sides are turned doesn't that basically mean our freedomsrights are being violated? I advocatly believe it does and the only way we could possibly fix it is by establising popular vote. So why are we waisting time?

Last but never least, popular vote should be established because almost every four years the Electoral college runs into major problems whether sides being turned on or just the system running low. Believe it or not voting is not supposed to be such a chaotic process. Assertions are made with not much basis which causes majority of the problems we face. If we get rid of the Electoral college entirely all the conflicts will vanish. Our founding father would be proud to know that we got rid of the system that was giving America major problems even if we much appriciate our founding fathers.

In conclusion, I vehemently feel that the United states of America should use popular vote due to the fact Electors can turn sides, in reality voters are not even voting for the president they are voting for the electors, and there is often a major conflict also known as "" disaster factors"".",0
71756359,0,"Thousands of Americans use their own car or a vehicle as their main transportation in their every day lives. No one seems to look at how cars are actually destroying the environment ,rather then helping it. Mainly since the fuel that is given off from a vehicles engine is effecting the environment in a negative way. In all reality the reason why we as humans use our own vehicles is because its a faster way of transportation and carries us to our destination. This is why limiting car usage will be beneficial money wise and create a healthier environment.

Reducing the car usage is beneficial to creating a cleaner and safer environment. Not only will this effect the environment but your life as well. According to source 1 it states,"" Passengers cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emission in Europe."" Based on this fact I can acknowledge the fact of how automobiles can effect the greenhouse. The greenhouse is a cycle in which can have a huge impact on our environment. If we destroy that then that may result in even more damages that are caused now. It also states, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France , after five days of intensifying smog..."" In result, the smog then continued to places such as Bejing, China. Which I personally would consider to be a horrific thing, considering China is very congested already and is one of the most pollued cities in the world. Some may argue of the fact that car usage is their main way from going to point A to point B , but there is proof that is effecting the cities around us. Experts have concluded that there is about 50 percent car intensive areas located in the United States. This is why car usage should be reduced to have create a better environment.

The suburbs are taking action to create denser cities. The purpose of having denser cities is to have a low suburban life. In source 1 it states, "" In this new approach , stores are placed a walk away, on main street, rather than in malls along some distant highways."" This experiment will help to encourage more ways to attempt public transportation. For instance, riding your bicycle once in a blue moon. Not only are you saving money but you are preventing less traffic from occurring in your area. Some may argue having a low suburban life can be hard to adapt to but it will provide a safer environment. Especially since you are one step closer to making the world less polluted then it already is. I personally would agree on occasionally using a different way to get to my destination. It will not only benefit me in the long run but also cause less chaos on the road. It also states in the text,"" the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting car ""reduced communties"", and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously."" This means that the Environmental Agency are starting to promote reducing car in certain communities. Some may argue why is there a need to reduce the amount of cars in a community ,but on the other hand that community may be over populated or congested of cars. If this is so, then this will just have another negative impact of the environment. The purpose of the program is to benefit the area you are and to lessen then the issue of car usages. All in all, the suburbs are taking action to create denser cities.

Programs are also being created to spread the news of Car Free day. The purpose for Care Free day in Bogota , Columbia is a day you participate in to prevent traffic jams. For example, In source 3 it states, ""..millions of Colombians hiked, biked, and skated or took buses to work during a car free day."" This day isn't ment for people who live in Bogota, Colombia but they are trying to influence this tradition in several other countires. Other may agree of this day being pointless , but I can see this having a huge impact on the world. Sooner or later this day will become a tradition not only in several other countries but also in the United States. it also states in source 3,"" Its a good oppurtunity to take away stress and lower air pulltion, said a bussniessman."" Especially since it rained on the Car free day this didnt stop nor discourage anyone from participating in the event. The event turned out to be a huge success and reduced the amount of smog that day. In my perspective we are all come together as one to build our community together. It takes more thenone person to have such a huge impact on the world. The goal if to lessen the usage of car to have a positive effect on the environment. The influence of the Car free day is just one step closer to reaching that goal. This will is why programs are being creates to spread the news of Car free day.

After looking of the causes and effects of limiting car usage , it all comes down to having a big influence on the world. It takes one area such as Bogota, Columbia to have a huge impact. In our every day lives , our car is our main resource for transportation, but this should change. Not only are you capable of helping to have a postive effect on the environment but so am I. This just shows how if we are all willing to come together as a community, we are capable of creating a healthier environment. This is why the world should influence limiting car usage.",0
71f7131e,1,"Why do we keep this despised method of choosing the president when 60% of American citizens want a popular vote instead? This is an outdated method and viewed as anachronism by many. While some say that it creates a more stable outcome, it is a ""winnertakeall"" system where not everyones votes count. The election of the president should be based on popular vote because it is unfair that not everyones votes count, their is a chance of a tie breaking out, and the disaster factor because so much could go wrong. Although it seemed like a good idea at the time, it is unfair and irrational to all voters in the United States.

It is injustice that not everyones votes count under the Electoral College. The process of the Electoral College consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for president, and the counting of votes by congress. Voters are directly related to this because the popular vote of a state usually gets the electoral vote of the state. This is good for the majority but what about the minority. The Electoral College is a winnertakeall system so their voice does not get heard. If a voter is democratic in Texas it would be a waste of time voting, because most of texas is republican and the 38 votes would go twords a republican. If it was based on popular voting then the minority would get a say and could help.

One of the most worrying situations is the prospect of a tie in electoral votes. Because the Electoral College is made up of an even 538 electors, Their is the possibility of a tie. If that were to happen, then the election would be thrown into the House of representatives, where state delegations would vote on the president. This would be a problem because some states, such as Wyoming, would only get one or two votes but others, like California, would get more than thirty. Also, the House of representatives would vote for the candidate they want, not reflecting the will of the people at all. If a tie seems unrealistic, just remember in 1968, 41,971 votes would have created a complicated mess.

Moreover, their is the disaster factor, Their are many problems and kinks in the system and some of these can destroy the system. The worst one we ever experienced is the recounts in Florida in 2000. The state legislature could always pick electors that will defy the people. In 1960, the Louisiana state legislature almost changed Democratice electors with ones that would vote againts John F. Kennedy. Also in 1960, Hawaii sent two states of electors to congress. Perhaps the worst is a party's candidate casting a vote for whomever they please, ignoring the people. This is one of the biggest downsides of the Electorial College.

The Electorial college is no longer usefull or democratic. If instead we vote the president on popular vote we won't expirience the unfairness to voters, the problems of a tie, or the disaster factor. It can help in some situations but for the most part is spurious at best. The Electorial College is outdated, unfair, and non democratic and should be replaced by a popular vote.",0
720191c2,0,"There are many advantages of having limitations in car use. Some examples include less car Pollution, less stress on car users, more people starting to walk, and having a sense of community, and even less stress on car users.

Car pollution is a serious issue that the world faces. Constantly people are using cars, trucks, and commercial vehicles to get from point A to B. With a whoping 7 billion and growing people in the world you can start to get a sense of how many people are polluting our air. Fortunately there are many ways that we can limit car usage in the world and many have started to work on solutions already. In the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal she explains that in Vauban, Germany Residents are taking a stand against car use. She goes on to explain that 70 percent of the Vauban families do not even own cars and more than half of the population sold their cars so that they could move them and their families to the society. One women a mother of two said ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"", this goes to show you that communities like this could make a difference not only by not using cars but also by lowering stress on people and making them more happier.

""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer Paris recorded days of pollution soon after they decided to have a ban on driving to clear the air. The smog in the air due to the pollution in the air was in quote ""rival to Beijing, China one of the most polluted cities in the world"". Imagine if every country decided to have a national day or even a week of no cars the amount of pollution in the air would significantly decrease. In reference to that in Bogota, Colombia thats exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Based on the article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky it has become the thir straight year cars have banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the day without cars in the capital city of 7 million. Since the mid 1990's an improvement plan began in Bogota know as ""the day without cars"" the plan is to ban all cars in colombia there efforts have even ended up spreading ideas to other countries such as Paraguay. With the limitations car use in these countries pollution will continue to decrease.

In conclusion car use is something that should be limited in all countries to save the planet. By creating communties in Vauban, germany that ban car use as well as having car use free day the world will slowley but surley begin to realize what all these efforts are accomplishing. The less car use the more clean air.",0
72603751,1,"How is the election of the president of the U.S.? The election is base on two parts, the first one is the Electoral College and the second one is the popular vote or the vote of the people. Changing to the election by popular vote would be a great idea because the president of the U.S. would be loved and accepted for most of the of the people in United States and it less complicated than the Electoral vote that can create a big mess.

According to the beginning of the U.S. Constitution ,""We the people of the United States of America..."", it shows that the people have the right to change the government. When we select someone to be our leader we are selecting someone according to their values and to their actions before being the leader, but we are not selecting someone according to his political viewdemocrat or republican. In the Electoral college what they basically due is vote for the president who have the same political view as they have and if that person is going to help them in the future as president. So the Electoral College means business, while the popular vote select the president according to what is he going to do with the country. Also the 358 electors cannot represent the whole population of the United States, so basically they are not having a democratic system where everyone have a right. For example in 2000 when the election between Bush and Gore, Gore won the popular vote while Bush won the Electoral vote letting Bush won the presidency. After Bush won the presidency, he began sending soldiers to Afghanistan and Irac separating millions of U.S families, so the meaning is that people were right that Brush was not going to be a good president since the beginning, but at the end it was the fault of the Electoral College. Sometimes the Electoral College make a well political decision and could probably help more the government, while the people were just selecting someone that was going to destroy the government.

The popular vote is less complicated than the Electoral college where they have sometimes ties and controversies. their Electoral College sometimes is unfair against the popular, for example in Florida have 29 electoral votes while Wyoming have only 3 electoral votes is not fair to compare the two of them. The popular vote is easier, must of the times there are no ties so it woukld make it easy to select the president. In the other hand the popular vote would get really tie and one of the person that is running for president would ask for a recount of the vote, so it would take longer to select the president. Aslo if is there a tie in the Electoral College the election would be thrown at the House of Representative and giving the Senate the opportunity to select the president, leading to more complexity for choosing a president.

At the end the popular vote means the people's vote and a fair election. Voting for the president of the United States is not an easy way, but as you read in the eassay you would see that the popular vote get the highest point for being the easiest one. Having a country that select their own president means that the countruy would accept anything that the precident is doing.",0
7263598b,0,"The automobile has been a staple in human history ever since it was first created, they have been used by people wether it was grocery shopping or during war. These days limiting car use has more advantages than ever. Such advantages are that it helps reduce the amount of pollution to the environment, helps people save money, swell as it helps people become more sociable and less stressed.

The limiting of car usage has many advantages one would be that it helps to reduce pollution caused by fuel emissions. Using vehicles creates green house emissions which cause the Earth to become hotter and then global warming becomes a big problem. According to the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars."" by Elisabeth Rosenthal ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive area in the United States. So limiting car usage reduces the amount of emissions produced greatly. Smog is also a great threat to the environment, smog is created just like fog except polluted air gets into the mix of warm days and cold nights. Then instead of getting fog there is smog a more dense unhealthy version of fog. Paris has had a rough time when it came to smog which according to ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer resulted from the fact that ""Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France.

Saving money is a big plus to the restriction on car use. With more buildings and shopping centers being built closer to suburban area makes walking a good way to save money. Andrew Selsky author of the article ""carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" made a comment on the situation in Bogota saying ""parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"". With more shopping centers for people to be able to reach by foot, bike, carpool, or bus can greatly reduce the amount people spend on gas and car repairs.

Limiting the usage of cars also in a strange way helps people become more connected with each other. Limiting car use will alow people to hang out more in things such as carpooling, bike rides, walking, public transportation. Allowing for people to meet more people. Also it wil allow people to use things such as social media to stil feel connected to their freinds without having to drive out to meet them. In another article by Elisabeth Rosenthal ""The End of Car Culture"" Rosenthal interviewed professor Mimi Sheller Who stated ""the rise iin cellphones and carpooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arranments,includiong the evolution of shared van services for getting to work. The restriction on car usage allows for people to meet new people through the carpool service and such things.

A limitaion on car usage would have so many advntages to people and the environment. It helps reduce the amount of pollution from fuel and carbon emissions, helps people save money and not need a car to get to a store or park, and have people become more connected to each other.",0
72d6bfbb,0,"As of April 2013 the number of miles driven per person was down 9 percent. So that means people are starting not to drive as much, which is not a bad thing. Actually they're many advantages to limiting car usage. Limiting car usage can actually help the environment, help the emissions, and if we do limit car usage it can make cities denser as well as having some places that don't use cars. Which will be good for the world.

Transportation is really big in America. People drive all the time, were a moving country. So driving and using cars does effect our environment. One big thing going on is smog. One country that i can point out is Paris. Paris had so much smog that they enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of global city. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" according to the article Paris bans driving due to smog by Robert Duffer. Paris has more smog than other european capitals. Which is really bad because that can effect us as humans. In Bogota They are doing a program that involves banning cars for a day. The goal was to promote transportation and reduce smog which it did. So limiting car usage can improve safety and make the environment more clean.

Limiting car usage can also have beneficial implications for carbon emissions. If we created cities with pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, it can lower emissions and if the emissions are in good care then the environment will be to, ""since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants."" President Obama has goals to curb the United States greenhouse gas emissions. Experts say"" Is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe..."" according to the article In German suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars, by Elisabeth Rosenthal she says"" Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United states. So thats pretty bad so if we limit car usage we can help fix that and maybe even have a lower percentage on emissions.

Vauban home to 5,500 residents are really taking limitation to cars serious. They may be the most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life. But they are doing really good. Other countries around the world are adopting what they are doing in attempts to make suburbs more compact and more accessible, which is a good thing. Espescially for people that dont use cars, and especially if your trying to make the air more cleaner. According to In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars, ""Vauban, copleted in 2006 is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to seperate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called "" Smart planing""."" This is a advantage for the world because we need to have someplaces that actually dont use cars. Also Vauban can inspire other countries to do the same. Which will be a advantage.

So they're are many advantages for limiting car usage. A lot has to do with the environment like it reduces smog and helps emissions which will be better for the world. The biggest advantage for limitation on car usage is pretty much a better world and who wouldnt want to live in a better world. It can also help other places be like Vauban. They don't use cars as much and it works for them, and a lot of people should start doing that. These advantages will really help the world if we do decide to ever limit car usage.",0
72de1467,1,"The electoral College is something in the United States that needs to be replaced. It is an irrational system that takes the people's power to vote away from them. The system has flaws that leave the possibility of disaster open to happen. It takes the power to choose the government officials from the people, and gives it to a group of people who can vote either way. Why would we keep this?

The electoral College is a way to choose the Presidential candidate who wins the election. It involves a slate of electors according to Source 2 who cast their votes in. The people in each state vote for the winning electors of that state. The electors pledge to a candidate and thats what people vote for. Once the people choose a winning elector group they go to Congress and cast their votes in for who they want, and that person then gets so many votes. The problem is that the electors aren't required to vote for who they said they would, so if the elector suddenly decided to change his mind after he or she won, the people's votes are basically invalidated and a different elector gets the votes. This effectively removes the people from the equation in who gets elected. All an elector would have to do is win over the people, then he or she could just change their minds and cast a different vote than what they said they were going to do. The people who vote don't even vote for the Presidential candidate in this system, they vote for a bunch of electors that they hope will vote for what they said.

This is not an irrational, unrealized fear. It has actually happened before. According to Source 3, in the 2000 election, Al Gore had a majority of popular votes, but less electoral votes, so he lost to Bush. This isn't even the first time it has happened, it has happened previous times throughout U.S. history. This is a clear example of how flawed the electoral College system. Between the possibility of the people's votes not counting for anything, and that they don't even actually vote for their preffered candidate, this system needs to be replaced.

Some may argue that the chance of an elector not casting his or her vote that he pledged to is very slim. Why would you even be ok with taking such a chance? It's better to be onehundred percent sure of what will happen instead of ninetyfive percent. Also, since most states in the U.S. award electoral votes by a winnertakesall basis according to Source 3, if one side of the votes wins, even by a slim margin, they get all the votes. This seems unfair, since if they won by a slim margin at least some of the state thinks it should be a different vote. It would make more sense if the states awarded both sides of the vote if it was a close win for one side or the other, but they would award the true winner with more votes than the narrow loser.

Another problem with the E.C. system is that states that are largely of one belief Republican or Democrat ect. have no real reason to pay attention to the opposite side of the canidacy. Since the state would be largely one thing or the other, it is irrelivant if thirty percent of the state votes one way if seventy percent of the state votes the other, since the landslide victory style of electoral vote giving is present in most states. This also means that states that are biased and small states get almost no exposure from the opposite side of the canidacy because they know they have almost no chance of winning their votes. This seems to force the voters to choose one candidate's electors because they don't know enough about the other.

In conclusion, the electoral College needs to be replaced with a more fair, balanced system. It has the potential to allow the electors to defy the will of the people who voted them in, invalidating the people's votes and making them pointless. It also has candates only focusing their ads and visits on the states with more votes and the states biased towards their party. Finally, it has almost all the states have a landslide ""winnertakes_all"" style of awarding electoral votes. This means if one side of electors only wins by a slim margin, the other side gets nothing, even though since they lost by a small number they clearly have a sizeable amount of voters for them. The electoral College needs to be removed before someone takes advantage of it's serious flaws and takes the votes of the people and makes them useless.",0
73347b59,0,"Most people think that driving is a top priority. There are other ways of getting from place to place. There are many advantages of limiting car usage. For instance, there will be no more pollution, most people stopped driving, and many people will gain plenty of exercise without the use of cars. There are many other positive ways to get around the city instead of driving a car.

This world already has enough pollution, but with the limitations to car use there won't be. Cars these days give off extra gas that is harmful to the animals, plants, and even people. According to Source 3: Carfree Day Is Spinning Into A Big Hit In Bogota, by Andrew Selsky, ""It was the third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the Day Without Cars in this capital city of 7 million. The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced 25 fines."" This cause is a good way to lower air pollution. For example, many women and some men face the struggle of having breast cancer. On certain days there will be a walk to help cure breast cancer. It won't stop it completely, but it's a great cause to help cure it. According to Source 1: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars, by Elisabeth Rosenthal, ""Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middleclass families from Chicago to Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe."" The efforts are strong and with more people being included will help make the air pollution lower to a better percentage. For example, when people are sick they have to take medicine in order to get better. This world and the atmosphere will become a better place to live if more people get involved with the limited auto use.

Driving isn't in the number one spot on thingstodo anymore. Most people stopped driving in America. According Source 4: The End Of Car Culture by Elisabeth Rosenthal, ""Recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less, and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" The change in fewer people getting a car will also be a good way to stop traffic in the cities. For instance, if someone brings in chocolate cupcakes, but no one except one person likes chocolate, then they would take more for them. Same with the road less people on the road the more room for people who want to or need to drive to some place. Also in Source 4, ""As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995."" A lot of people can't afford cars or even think they are a waste of money. For example, no one would buy something that they don't nessecarily need. People would take the money and use it for something more important. There are many advantages of limiting car usage. When people stop driving, that means there wouldn't be a lot of people on the road. There will be more space for people that have emergencies or important business errands, or people that just want to drive.

Without many cars around due to limited auto usage, people will have the advantage to exercise. There are many people that are overweight and need help to fix it. According to Source 3: Carfree Day Is Spinning Into A Big Hit In Bogota, by Andrew Selsky, ""In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, and skated to work during a carfree day yesterday."" Without cars for a limited time would be a great idea to take control and work out. It helps people live a healthier life style and build muscle. For instance, some kids are forced out of the house for atleast an hour of play time and get on track to become healthy. Not just children should be doing this, but also adults. Although when someone needs to get to some place, taking a car would be quicker, but having no cars has advantages too. Some people might complain and be too lazy to go ride a bike to the store, but as a result in the end, the person on the bike will be in better shape than the person in the car. There is nothing wrong in staying fit when there isn't an option in driving a car somewhere.

There are other ways of getting from place to place. There are many advantages of limiting car usage. For instance, there will be no more pollution, most people stopped driving, and many people will gain plenty of exercise without the use of cars. There are many other positive ways to get around the city instead of driving a car.",0
7367863e,0,"Cars are used used in everyday life but they may be used too much because of all thedamage they do to the environment and the citizens must be informed on it. Cars are used to help get around easier unless if towns are developed so that people can walk or ride a bike everywhere. Cars cause pollution which causes smog and it can really hurt peoples health and the environment. A life without cars can make plenty of people happy due to the fact that people get injured or die in cars every day.

To start off most towns do not build buildings close together because people have cars which takes up more time to get there and money for gas. If buildings were made closer together everyone could get to the stores quickly and back home in time for special events. If buildings were made closer gasoline would be less of a problem due to the prices being high. In a town called Vauban in Germany seventy percent of all families do not own an automobile.""All of our development since World War two has been centered on the car,and that will have to change"" said David Goldberg.

Cars are known to cause pollution and some places have a partial ban on cars. Paris is well known for the Eiffel Tower and also its pollution problem so Paris allowed people with even and odd number license plates to only drive on certain days or else they will be fined. When cars cause pollution it makes smog and smog can kill crops and animals if it gets out of control. Currently heavily populated areas such as Newyork has a big pollution problem causing grey skies.

A life without cars is a happy one according to some people. A place in Colombia called Bogota made an event called ""Carfree day"" which is a day where everyone goes the entire day without driving ""It's a good opportunity to take away streaa and lower air pollution"".""These people are generating a revolutionary change and it is crossing boarders"".""The rain hasn't stopped anyone from participating"".

The reasons people should cut down on car usage is to lower pollution in the air. It just makes people happier without vehicles. Towns could be made with closer buildings to prevent using too much gas. Smog can really make an environment unhealthy by killing some of the plants that are there.",0
73783cf8,0,"Imagine this you're in a very populated city. Lets say New York, New York, U.S.A, London, England or any densily populated city for that matter. Now aside from the sounds of car horns blaring and the sounds of the thousands of people around you there is one thing that would most likely stand out the most to people the smell of car emissions mixed with the food street venders sell. Now they may not be a huge surprise but think about this, a city or suburb without cars. Now some may say that limiting the use of cars is a terrible idea and would hurt the working call citizens, but it may be better then you think. The reasons why these ""carfree"" places might not be so bad is it helps reduse the growing percent of greenhouse gas emissions that cars give off. You wouldn't have to deal with smog, and there wouldn't be as much noise pollution as there is with cars. Yeah these points may not seem like they are worth not having a car but there are comminties that actully don't allow cars because of those reasons. So maybe after this you may think a little differently about your car and may think about moving to one of these places that have alread choosen to go ""carfree"".

First off, probably like most people around the world you love your car, bt do you ever think about the car emission you admit into the air just driving to worl and back home. Now that does seem bad but, as shown in paragraph 5 of, ""In German Suburb, Life godson Without Cars"", an essay by Elisabeth Rosenthal, she writes that experts say the passenger cars alone are responsible for about 12 percent in Europe, and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the U.S for greenhouse gas emissions. Now 12 percent doesnt seem like a lot compared to the 50 percent but that is still a lot of greehouse gases getting put in our atmosphere year after year.

Now think about this idea of a ""carfree"" suburb or city again. An example of this kin of place would be the city of Vauban, Germany. Now in Vauban drive ways and home garages are forbidden now car ownership is allowed but there are about two places to park. Now that place to park is a large garage at the edge of the development where as well as buying your house you have to buy a parking space for 40,000. Now because of this 70 percent of the families don't have cars and 57 percent of them sold their car to move there. Since there aren't car used here the air is much cleaner and because of not having little to no cars there they don't pollute the air.

Secondly, another reason to think about moving to one of the places is that there isn't any noise pollution from cars. Beause of the lack of car noiseses these suburbs and cites let you hear nature a little better and also allow a kind of peaceful feeling making these paces probably a lot more chill and ""sleepy"" in a since. making them good for people who don't want to live in a noisy city but don't want to live in the middle of no where.

Lastly, another good reason to move to these little areas would be that there is no smog there to make it harder to breath. A real world example of this would be from the informative essay, "" Paris bans driving due to smog"" , by Robert Duffer. Which basically states that due to nearrecord pollution Paris put a ban on driving to try and clear the air in the city. Now to help enforce the ban the put a 22euro fine31 if you where driving on a day your lichens plate was not allowed to drive. Now because some people did follow the ban nearly 4,000 people were fined and 27 people had cars impounded because of the reaction to the fine. Now because of this some companies complained about lost revenue and the transit of free of charge according to the BBC. And because of these efforts the smog cleared enought that the ban was lifted. Now that probably isn't very convinet but in carfree areas they don't have to deal with making it eariser to get to work on more accessible public transportation options like a bus or a bicycle.

Now think about this idea about carfree places one more time knowing what the benefits are compared to the risks you get. Maybe noe you just might look at these places a little more carefully and acually think about making a switch to live there in this greenhouse gas free, noise free, and smog free zone.",0
739d1898,0,"All around the world air pollution is a major problem, most everyone knows that. However, there is one thing that a lot of people do not know. They do not know that they themselves are contributing to polluting the very air that they breathe. Car usage is an enormous contribution to the pollution going into the air and is a problem all around the globe that needs to be drawn attention to. This essay will help to prove to my fellow citizens that limiting car usage has huge advantages and should be carefully considered for our community.

In the first article, In German Suburb Life Goes On Without Cars, it informs you about a town called Vauban located in Germany. This town is involved in a movement under the name of ""smart planning.""Thisthe attempt to ""separate suburban life from auto use.""Since street parking, driveways, and home garages have generally been banned, ""70 percent of the towns families do not own cars."" It goes on to tell you that ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some areas of the United States."" By cutting down the usage of their vehicles, the are making a difference. People are and have been taking notice and began to join this movement. It has hada ripple effect and could really make a difference in our air pollution content if it keeps its momentum.

The second article, Paris Bans Driving Due To Smog, takes on a different setting. It takes place in Paris, France and whereas vaughn's ban was voluntary, Paris's not so much. The city had to take a drastic approach after they reached ""nearrecord pollution"" with smog so bad that is ""rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one the most polluted cities in the world."" As you can imagine, precautions had to be taken. Those precautions resulted in a ""partial driving ban"". Those who did not listen to the band would be fined 22 euros. As a result, car traffic in the busy city of Paris was down a whole 60 percent. The ban was so effective that the smog cleared enough after a few days that the ban was retracted, showing proof that limiting car usage really does make a difference in our environment and should not be overlooked.

I know that it is hard to imagine your world without having you vehicle to use at all times, but it is a change that needs to be made. Our air is suffering and getting worse and worse due to our increasing car usage. Citites are being made denser for two decades to make for better accessability. It has been proven that it works so why should we not give it a try? The citizens in our community should seriously consider this option of limiting our car usage. If they do, they will quickly be amazed with positive outcome that follows.",0
73d94ea3,0,"Although limiting car usage may seem out of the ordinary, it has many benefits that appeal to people. By limiting car usage, people save money, the air isn't being poluted as much and there aren't as many traffic jams.

For starters, not having or using a vehicle is a huge money saver. For example, a German suburb, Freiburg, near French and Swiss borders allow the use of cars, but is somewhat strict. Rosenthal states, ""Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to parklarge garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home."" Not only does it cost 40,000 just for that but gas and fixups go along with having a car.

Secondly, the less people use vehicles, the less air pollution is going to be created. For instance, Paris issued a driving ban in an effort to ""clear the air of the global city."" Duffer says, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" The smog that affects Paris is also known to ""rival"" with Bejing, China, one of the most polluted cities in the world. By banning car usage for a day, the air had a chance to breathe and is overall healthier for the people that live in that area.

Lastly, it's obvious to say that with less car usage, the more likely it is to have a decrease in number of traffic jams. To further explain, Bogota, Columbia has a program in which people do not use vehicles to get where they need to go. Andrew Selsky states, ""...millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day.. leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" It's a positive thing to have ""carfree day"" because less accidents mean less people getting injured.

To conclude, limiting car usage is not only good for people, but it can be positive toward the earth and environment as well because it saves people money, the air is healthier and people have less of a chance of crashing.",0
73e0bd01,0,"People think about today's world as the era of technology constantly advancing and creating new ideas beneficial to us all. But are they really benefiting all of us? That's where the car comes in. Automobiles are one of the highest polluting machines out there. People are constantly worrying about greenhouse gas emissions while they use their cars consistently. Now, when us stubborn Americans try to imagine a life without cars, we immediately oppose the idea. But can you blame us? Society has been built upon the idea of cars since World War II. Cities are so widely spread out that the mear thought of walking or biking to the nearest shopping mall makes you appreciate your car even more. It could take a matter of time before any civilization modernizes into a carfree society.

But people must realize what the real matter here is less driving equals a healthier planet. Think all of how much less pollution would be around if people did not use their cars so religiously. Our earth is sacred. If we continue to destroy it with fossil fuels and car exhaust, there will not be anything left for generations to come.

Not only would the environment improve drastically, but people would also save money from not having to buy gas! If you pay 3.50 for a gallon of gas, that can add up extremely quick. Imagine all the alternatives you could use that money for instead of gas. Why pay for oil when you can simply ride a bike for free? Biking and walking rather than driving is much healthier for your physical state as well. Altogether, people will be much happier and at a better state of mind with cars banished from every day life.

As you see in cities such as Seattle, Washington for example hardly anyone owns a car. The people have revolutionized into using the trains. The subways create less smog, more efficient car pooling, and will still get you to your destination in a blink of an eye. Seattle is a booming city, teaming with life. If that is not proof of sufficient life without cars, then I do not know what is.

Humans' lives revolve around automobiles. Just think about your average day. I can guarantee you spend a good amount of time driving hastily around town trying to get to your many destinations. This can be stressful. As stated in one of the articles above, a media trainer and mother of two who resides in Vauban, Germany, a carfree city, said, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Nobody wants to spend their evenings in their car while they could be spending quality time with their family, but that seems to be the way everyone lives nowadays.

A carfree world is the ideal society us as people should strive for. There are extinential benefits to life without automobiles and many downfalls to life with automobiles.",0
73fceca4,1,"Dear Senator, I firmly believe that we should keep the Electoral College. Many people say that it is ""outdated, irrational, and unfair"" but that is an option. Their are meany rational reasons about why the Electoral College is beneficial rather then destructive. Out of these many reasons i am able to narrow it down to 2 reasons about why the Electoral College should be kept. These reasons are Everyones President, and Swing States.

In Richard A. Posners' article about keeping the Electoral College he talks about the President that is elected being everyones this President. ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have a transregional appeal. No region South, Northeast, etc. has enough electoral votes to elect a president."" This is not also a great example but it is a great counterclaim to Bradford Plumers article. In PLumers article he states that, ""candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the the tight races in the ""swing"" states. The Electoral College assures that the President isn just wanted in one area that is wanted all around the country. Electoral Colleges assure that the President is wanted in many differt parts of the United States.

""The electoral college invariably produces a clear winner,"" says Posner in his article. A way of producing a clear winner is by having swing states. Some people argue about the Electoral College turning off potential voters, Democrats in Texas but this may actually determine the election. If those other party people dont vote who knows mabey if they had voted their party might have been luckly. Statistics prove that when certaint parties win controversial states thats because some people from 1 party didnt vote. No voting especially in swing states can make your party, or your wanted candidate loose the election. Every year some of the swing states change so everyone should vote especially those in the swing states to insure your party or your candidate win.

The Electoral College is something that this country needs for our benefit. It helps us Americas get a President that will benefit us all not just those in certaint areas. Although some peopel dont think that the Electoral College is helping there are twice as many people who believe that just a popularity vote is a bad idea. Having swing states, and having a way that finds ""everyones"" president are just few of the many exaples about why we need the Electoral College.",0
7405b110,0,"Cars, though useful, have negative impacts on the world. These effects can be seen from high density urban areas, and around the globe with global warming. Smog, greenhouse gasses, and stress are some of the main outputs from cars they are a useful but dangerous tool.

Smog in urban areas are a global concern, causing many cities to try to reduce the smog by putting restrictions on cars. It may be the ban of plates with even or odd numbers on certin days, or the ban of cars all together. The effect is staggering cities are becoming more and more clean. Even America, the world leader in automobiles, is showing some want to reduce car transitions in their cities. In some cities smog is a crippling thing. ""the smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" in Paris this was the case, and after banning cars on certin days, the smog began to clear up.

Greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to become more extreme. reducing cars can help save dying ecosystems or dwindling numbers of certin animals. Car free days in places like Bogota help reduce greenhouse gas, and it shows. people are driving less and less so ""many sociologist believe... people driving less will have a beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment"" Stress caused by cars is just as big as a problem as smog and pollution. People who switch to cities that are designed to not use cars say that they have reduced stress compared to when they had cars. ""When I had a car I was always tense, I'm much happier this way."" says a member of Vauban, a city desined with no cars in mind.

With all of this information wse might be able to help fix the world, by reducing the cause of the problem. Smog stress and Greenhouse gasses are on the decline thanks to less and less people driving.",0
7415762b,1,"The Electoral College has been around for quite some time. It has aided us in the election of the president for years. Is it truly fair though? Are the right votes being expressed? Whilst the Electoral College has a history for determining and appointing the president, I believe that it is not quite fair as it doesn't use the direct votes of the people, the slate of electors have the ability to defy the will of the people, and the voting system just isn't fair.

To start off, in this system of voting, the actual votes of the people aren't used. The people vote for a slate of electors who in turn vote for the president. These electors can be appointed by state conventions, the state party's central committee, or even the presidential candidates themselves. These electors may be chosen and then paid to vote for a certain candidate and therefore swinging their decision to an obvious bias. This is quite troubling as when it comes down to the actual counted vote, it really isn't the will of the people as a whole, it's the will of those few electors who have the ability to vote for the other candidate rather than the one they are chosen to vote for.

That being said, the electors that are chosen may have been chosen for a certain candidate, but are payed off to vote for the other. Though this is unlawful, it is a possibility. The people vote for these people rather than the president themselves, so the decision rests on this slate of electors. Should they change their mind on who they want to vote, or should they be paid in someway, they could defy the will of the greater people who have voted for them.

Having established that it is not the actual vote of the people, but a slate of electors electing the president, the number of actual votes do not go towards the president. Though a candidate may have the highest number of popular votes, if they do not have the highest number of electorial votes, they are not going to win. I believe this isn't right as the votes for the president should come directly from the poeple. If a candidate has the highest amount of popular votes, I believe that candidate is the one that should be appointed president because it is the greater people that favour them.

In closing, I believe that the of the Ellectoral College should be abolished as it isn't the vote of the poeple being used, the slate of electors always has the ability to defy the greater will of the people, and the over all system just isn't fair. There are many kinks to this process that I believe direct voting will take care of. I acknowledge that such a transition would be quite the lengthy process, but I would like to see the change happen.",0
741707a9,0,"Todays society uses automotive vehicles almost everyday. When they go to work, to go to school, to go shopping, for fun, or anywhere they wanna go. Smog has been building up from the cars pollution for a very long time. Using Vehicles less will decrease smog, improve people's health, an will be better for the earth. Using automotive transportation less will help everyone an everything in the whole world from humans to the air we breath, from animals to the grass they eat.

However, using vehicles less will decrease the smog amount all around the world. Smog affects everything so decreasing it will help everyone an everything out greatly. Banning cars for a day or banning oddnumbered plates for just one day would help out tremendously. In France they have banned oddnumbered an evennumbered plate numbers for one day each on different days. "" The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescing the ban for oddnumbered plates on tuesday."" So even banning vehicles one day can have a huge impact on decreasing smog. An it also clears up congestion on the roads.

However, by using automotive transportation less it will improve people's health. Walking, skateboarding, riding bicycles, or running will all improve your health. If you had to go somewhere you could walk there an it would improve your cardio. If you do this in a large city for one day a great majority of people would participate. ""In Colombia, a program took place an millions of Columbians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work."" That would greatly take a impact on the smog ratio. And all of those millions of people who participated got plenty of excessive for the day to improve their health.

So, by using automotive vehicles less it would tremendously help the entire Earth. Smog affects pretty much everything. The air that all the humans and animals breath in is polluted. The air is polluted so it affects the grass an vegetables that animals an humans consume for energy. It affects the trees that give off fresh oxygen so we can continue to breath. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Not driving would take away traffic jams therefore, people would not stress as much an also traffic jams cause a gigantic amount of air pollution so not driving would greatly help the entire Earth that we live on.

In conclusion, using automotive transportsation less would greatly help reduce smog build up, improve everyone's health, and it would tremendously help the Earth. It would lower air pollution so that the air we breath in would not be harmful to us. Even if we just banned cars for one day the whole Earth would be a lot cleaner. In the U.S the numbers of miles driving peaked in 2005 an have dropped stedily since then. People are starting to drive less and less an it is greatly helping the entire world.",0
74280ec3,0,"Has it ever seem hotter than it usually has to you? The sun's heat just burning the skin on your body. Does it feel like if you want to get any where you have drive in a car because it's to far to walk? Cars are our main source of transportation but it is not helping our environment. Gas that is used in cars send off green house gas emissions that hurt the ozone layer, a layer of gas in the stratosphere that protects us from the sun's ultraviolet rays. Many cities have started becoming car free because of this harm to the environment.

One of the cities that has become car free is Vauban, Germany Source 1. This city has found a way to become car free so that it is good for the environment and people can still go to stores or their jobs. What this city does is they make suburbs more compact and make store easily a walk away from a store. It mentions in Source 1 that Passenger cars are responsible for 12% of green house gas emissions. In the United states it is at 50%. All those green house emissions put a hole in the ozone layer making it hotter around the world and letting the ultraviolet rays from the sun hit our body which can cause skin cancer. The design of Vauban is used to structure other cities allowing those cities to use less cars.

The acumilation of smog can be very dangerous. in Source 2 in talks about Paris having to ban driving due to the amount of smog in city. The people driving would be fined 22 euro. The congestion of the smog dropped 60% because of the ban on driving. Source 2 states that France uses diesel fuel instead of regular gasoline due to a tax policy. Diesel makes up 67% percent of vehicles in France. Diesel fuel is harsher than regular gasosline to the ozone layer because it uses different chemicals and burns quicker than regular gasoline.

In Source 4 it talks about the United States using less cars than normal. In April 2013 the number of miles driven per person dropped by 9 percent compared to the past. It also states that the amount of young people driving has dropped 23% between 2001 and 2009. This drop in amount of people driving is very good due to green house gas emissions being the second largest source behind power plants. This drop in cars driven also causes less harm to the ozone layer. Source 4 also says that because of technology and the internet people do not have to drive to see and speak with each other. Instead they can email, call, or text each other.

To conclude, with people driving less cars it becomes better for the environment. It allows less smog to build up and hurt the ozone layer allowing ultraviolet rays to harm us. Cities will be designed differently to acomdate the fact of using less cars by making jobs and stores closer to houses.",0
74371080,1,"Dear State Senator, The Electoral College is widely acknowledged for serves a purpose as a method of selecting a president and vice president, not a legitimate college. The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers in the Constitution as a compromise between having the President elected by a vote in Congress and an election by a popular vote of qualified citizens. This process of choosing a president needs to be modified into popular vote for the reasons that the Electoral College was established to actually vote a slate of electors, voters feel disenfranchised, and is unfair to voters.

To begin with, the Electoral College was actually established for voters to vote for a series of electors, which then get together to have the final decision. Stated in ""What is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the Federal Register, "" The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise...process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress."" This means that under this system, voters don't vote for the president, but for electors who then elect the president. The voters sometimes aren't told full front that they are chosing someone else and not always can they control who their electors are voting, leaving many puzzled. Voters aren't to be puzzled. They are to vote who they'd like because it allows them a freedom to express who they want because they are strongly acknowledged of the troubles of their society and how they should be handled.

In addition, the Electoral College makes voters feel discouraged and disenfranchised. According to ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner, it is stated, "" No region...has enough electoral votes to lect a president...residents of the other regions are likely to feel...that their votes do not count...that he really isn't their president."" This means that voters feel that the president they chose is their president because they believe their votes count.

furthermore, the Electoral College is unfair and irrational to voters because the candidates they ""vote"" for don't spend time with them. Sizes matter to the candidates. According to ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer, it is stated, ""...the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakesall system in each state, candidates do't spend time in states they know have no chance of winning..."" This quote conveys that because some states are small in population and size, they will not help the candidate succeed. This is immensely discouraging to the voters because they feel worthless for not being big in size. Candidates should not have an excuse to not thank all their voters because every vote counts, not matter how small.

Admittedly, the Electoral College allows a clear and certain outcome because it exceeds the popular vote, however, the method is actually turning off potential voters for a candidate. The popular vote allows every voter to express their opinions because the overall vote chooses the popular president.

In the final analysis, a change is needed because with the Electoral College many candidates are losing potential voters considering that the qualified feel that they arn't doing much by voting considering they aren't voting for the president, but a gamut of electors to vote for them. They alos express the feeling of discontent and unfairness because they feel that they don't count and know they have no chance at winning.",0
743e9f23,1,"I argue in favor of keeping the Electoral College. That is the way we did the voting for years and why would you want to change that. The outcome of that might be a disaster because we haven't used the popular vote to decide a president. The first reason why I think we should keep it is because when we vote for the people that represent us they have lots of experience in the politics area therefore meaning they have a better idea of who would be a better president. They have spent years learning all about politics so the ""most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election.""paragraph 20 In paragraph 16 it says ""But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee."", also meaning that the people we select to represent us is trusted people that will have the same vote as you for the desicion of president.

My second reason of leaving the Electoral College is because if the founding fathers established it in the constitution as a compromise then it should be left alone. Others might say that its a bad idea to have the Electoral College but if thats how the system is set up then it should not be changed because if it does change then maybe everything would be different. Paragraph 15 says ""The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a nondemocratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the candidate who recieves the most popular votes the winner. The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense... it is the electors who elect the president, not the people."" therefore going back to my first paragraph that is why you select people that you trust.

My third and final reason for my choosing is that the certainty of outcome is relatively high. Like in the 2012's election. for example, Obama recieved 31.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes. Also in that same paragraph 18 it says that because almost all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralote victory in that state. or. State Senator i think it would be best if we just left the Electoral College method alone.",0
7458d9c8,1,"An Electoral College is a process established in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. Each candidate running for President has a group of electors who people vote for when voting for the candidate of their choice. The candidate with the most electoral votes and popular votes is the new President. Although this is not a democratic process, we the people still need to keep it for various reason including, having swing states, the votes between bigger states and smaller states, and avoiding runoff elections.

Tossup states, or swing states, mainly help the outcome of the election. Although they don't elect who becomes President, they are the ones who are more likely to really listen to the competing candidates and know who to vote for than careless voters who vote for no obvious reason or are told to. They are the most thoughtful voters, which could really help the U.S. pick a great President for the next 4 to even 8 years. The more votes from those who pay attention to the election, the better chance of having a great President.

Bigger states are important to the candidates in the election. A larger population would mean more votes, and more votes would avoid a tie between the candidates. For example, Florida is a larger state. In 2012, the popular vote was very close because Florida had more electoral votes. Wyoming, a smaller state, had only 3 electoral votes. In other words, larger states get more attention from presidential candidates than smaller states do.

The Electoral College avoids runoff elections, which is when no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. When there's a tie in votes, great pressure arises and the presidential election process is greatly complicated. The Electoral College avoids this problem, reduces the pressure and produces a clear winner.

The Electoral College may not be a democratic process and may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carring their state, but is important in a variety of ways including swing states, votes between big and small states, and avoiding runoff elections. Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote that may decide an election.",0
745b9080,0,"Statistics show that when a community has given up the use of cars that the amount of polution will go down, excessive levels increase meaning weight problems will go down, and in addition to this, there will be an increase on all round living environment and secure a higher quality of life for on coming generations. Why go through all this frustration when the alternative is so near to us. Its simple we don't have to.

Polution is a huge problem in this ever growing world. Its not solving any thing nor is it leaving things better for our new generation ton come. In places like Paris, Bogota, and Vauban Germany these few innovative pioneering societies have given up the past ways of driving and have looked on to better pastures. They have reduced polution, the ever growing smog and the reliance that man kind has found in automobiles. having a over populace of cars in one place or country can be the game changer when it comes to polution increase if we would just deal with these few over populated areas we would reduce this global warming affect. 12 percent of passenger cars in europe and 50 percent of cars in the US are responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions.

As well they have a no unnecessary congestion, or disruption of the peace of their homes. All this allows them to have a high Quality of living they get more excessive time seeing that they walk every wher. This is solves the huge population of growing obesity in modern countries. In places like Columbia there was a huge decrease in polution, on a carfree day. Millions were seen biking skating, hiking, and taking the local bus to support the new idea of carfree societies.

When living better it's just as important to excessive as it is to to have a clean and stress free environment. The every day problem of missing the bus or getting to work to late is a huge hassel to deal with. Your problems would over with out the use of cars this ensure the percentage of stress to decline. I'm not promissing a life care free but if if it can help why not. ""It's a good way to take away stress and lower air polution,"" a direct quote from a man who has this carfree life. Yes real people are doing this and Yes the results of it are positive. 94 percent of perticipants have agreed that there quality of life now is better than before.

Its not a hard choice to make we either live in this world the way it is now and watch it come to a end, or we make the change that we want to see in it so tommorow I'm asking you instead of driving to work alone take a bike to work with a freind or simply reduse the affects and ride with a bunch of friends or take the bus. Its up to us to see that this world is taken care of so help me to the change.",0
7463b396,1,"Dear State Senator, We all know that the presidential election process is very important to our nation. Many believe that using Electoral College is not a democratic pedigree, and that using the popular vote method is better. I believe that we you keep the Electoral College in electing our nation's president. There's a less likely chance that there will be a dispute, and we'll avoid runoff elections, with Electoral College. During a presidential election, it is possible to have a dispute over who should be our next president. The Electoral College helps reduce that issue.

In addition, the Electoral College voting method is better than voting by popular vote. With Electoral College, we're less likely to have a dispute. A lot think that a dispute over an Electoral College could not happen. According to ""In defense of the Electoral College: Five Reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"", a dispute is possible. A dispute happened in 2000, but it's less likely than a dispute over popular vote. The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College rarely exceeds his share of the popular vote. The third source gave an example of the Obama and rodney election. Obama received 61.7 percent and rodney received 51.3 percent of the electoral vote. Making a certain outcome of the election, and not resulting in a dispute. Also, with Electoral College we avoid a runoff election.

To continue, the electoral college avoids a ruinoff election. It avoids the problem where no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast. The third source stated above, gave an example using the Nixon and Clinton election. They both had only 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College. When no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast, it complicates the presidential election. The Electoral College reduces any complication involving that.

Although the Electoral College is the method in which we select our president, it may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state. Democrats in Texas, or Republicans in California, have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign, knowing their vote would have no effect. But, no voter's vote swings a national election. Which means about onehalf of the Americans eligible to vote, did not. People that vote are people who want to express their political preference, rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election. The Electoral College method is the choice to pick.

I believe that the Electoral College is the method we should continue using when electing our nation's president. We're less likely to have a dispute, and we would avoid a runoff election, with the Electoral College. This method has been working and should continue to work for our nation.",0
7475d6a7,1,"The electoral college is not a good thing and it certainly messes things up it takes votes away from people, It changes the votes to make a person lose presidency even by changing the senators, and it's a winner take all system these dont turn out good no matter what. It's even overthrowing the people with the popular vote yes it sadly is possible.

Why would you still have the electoral college if it doesnt help anyone at all?

There are many many ways to win an election and this is not one good way it can easily make one side lose even if they won the popular vote. The odds of one side winning is easily changed with electoral votes. This interrupts the odds of how much the people likes them then it turns into how much the government of states likes them. However it could help some people win if they are not the popular vote.

It can also make anyone with the popular vote lose when they should have won like after Al Gore during the gallop poll thanks to the perks of the electoral college won the popular vote but he lost presidency over it. Even though 60% of people prefer the direct election now some prefer the electoral college.

But this can all be due to the fact that the electoral system was made by our founding fathers on the Constitution so it may only be natural that they support it. A good argument was when the system allowed for far worse when the electors for defy the will of people like in passage 2 it says ""in 1960 when segragationists in the louisiana legislature almost succeeded in replacing electors who would oppose John F. kennedy"" that is just evil. Although the law has not been changed since the Constitution was made.

Even at the most basic level the electoral college is still unfair to voters because of the winner take all system put in place for each state. They saddly dont visit every state in passage 2 it says ""Candidates dont spend time in states they know they have 0 chance of winning, focusing only on tight races"" Although the winner take all is made just to do what they are using it for by awarding electors to the presidential candidate exept for Maine and Nebraska it is being used for what they are using it for.

In all the electoral system is not good but its not all bad it takes the votes away from the people,Its a winner take all system, and its taking people down who deserve to win even changing the senators to make them win. Its evil and makes no sense to what they are doing trying to give other parties a chance i get it but its gone a little to far.",0
749032d9,1,"""The Electoral College is a process, not a place"". It was established as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote elected by the citizens. But people such as Bradford plumer are staring to think even the ""bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"". While others believe we should keep our ""despised method of choosing the President"" said Richard A. Posner. but in all reality the Congress should keep the Electoral College as a way of electing the presidents and its candidates, even though it could use some updating.

The Electoral College should be kept as the way of voting for the President and fishers candidates. ""Despite the lack of democratic pedigree, its all pratical reasons, not liberal or conservative reasons."" says Posner. A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible, but its not likely than a dispute over the popular vote. Basically its a certainty of an outcome, Now understanding the fact that the electoral college voters vote not for the president, but for the state of electors, and over 60 percent of the voters would prefer a direct election. Only because the people believe the electoral college is unfair, outdated and irrational to the voters. People can see what the ones against the electoral college are upset about, its true, it is the electors who elect the president, not the citizens who vote. But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominees, and that trust hardley ever betrayed.

Ones against have said ""the large states get more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign rather than a small state"". They also have said ""the winner of the take it all system in each state, candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all, including South Carolina and Rhode Island.. they didnt even get a single ad"". But the electoral college restores some of the weight in the political balance that the large states lose in population.

Plumer strongly believes to abolish the electoral college. This year he already expects a close election in which the popular vote winner could lose the the presidency yet again, but the electoral college still has its defenders.. In his argument he would call the electoral college a ""disaster factor"". The only disater factor on the electoral college is that its not a modern sense.. When you vote for a presidential candidate your actually voting for a slate of electors. The Electoral College needs to be updated in the method of selecting a president.

In a nutshell, the Electoral College should be the way to vote for the president and the candidates. It could be argued that the elctoral college is unfair and not updated, which is true, the electoral college needs to be updated. But the electoral college was made by founding fathers as a compromise, and it should stay that way.",0
74a42ef1,0,"Cars, the pride and joy of many people. They may look nice and go fast, but they hurt the environment more than most people would know. If Americans in certain places used public transit or walked, air pollution would go down by 50% in those areas. It would be better for the environment, and for the human body's health to reduce the amount they drive in their personal car.

To begin, cars are the second most cause of air pollution in the United States behind power plants. Since the end of World War II the U.S.A has been idolizing cars, and they have been focusing on the production of these cars. In Vauban, Germany there is a ratio of 3 to 10 people who own cars. Only 30% of the population owns a car, which is saving the air from quite a bit of pollution. Another event that will help lower pollution would be banning driving cars for a day or two. In Paris, there was so much smog that it was compared and even rivaled Beijing, China which is one of the most polluted cities in the world. The people who drove their cars on this day would be fined 31 American dollars. The public transit was free of charge because it was being promoted to use, as it helps the air become less polluted. This event also happened in three Colombian cities, Bogota, Cali, and Valledupar. The ban on the cars made many people seem to be happier, and more energetic. This ban has been happening for three years now in Bogota, and other Latin American cities are now seeing the importance of it. The use of bicycles, the public transit, or even walking helps reduce air pollution in your city.

In addition to not using personal cars, walking from jobs or to the mall has seemed to make many people in these driving bans less stressful and much happier. From government officials to the commonfolk of the street, all of the Colombians in Bogota look much happier. Even rain hasn't stopped them from biking to work. One woman in Vauban, Heidrun Walter, said, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" She does not own a car and lives a happy life. She even sold her car to move here, along with 57% of other families who live in the town. Not only does the relaxation of not driving make you less stressful, it also makes you get more excersize. Since 70% of Vauban's families do not own cars, we can assume that they are one of the healthiest cities in Germany or even the world. If all cities in Europe were nearly identical to Vauban then they would have only 3% greenhouse gas emissions from cars, but they would also have a much lower rate of obesity. Even in some parts of the United States, car emissions would go down by 50% which would, in turn, cause obesity to go down by a gigantic number as well. The use of bicycles and your feet would greatly reduce obesity along with increasing happiness.

Although some people may argue that people who don't own personal cars will use public transit instead and societies without personal cars will not have a decreased obesity. This may be true, but if people use public transit then they are helping the environment even more than themselves. They would still have to walk to and from the bus stops. Which will decrease obesity although it may not be in as big of numbers as we would like.

In conclusion the absence of personal automobiles would greatly reduce the air pollution in most major cities. Beijing could become it's once beautiful city, and Paris wouldn't have to ban driving because of thickened smog. The United States would also never have problems with smog, and we would also reduce air pollution by 50%. Communities like Vauban and Bogota are prime examples of people who do not need cars to survive. They are stress free, and much happier than most car driven societies. Personal cars do much more harm, than good. This is why we do not need to rely on the use of personal cars.",0
74cfd859,1,"Dear Senator, I feel the need to eliminate the Electoral College process of voting and just have a regular election where the President with the most votes wins, as simple as that. Each vote counts as one, and there will be more or less votes depending on the state and its size and population.

Just like Source 2, I feel ""The electorsal College is unfair, outdated, and irrational. "" ""Abolish the electorsal college!"". When you vote, you vote for ""a slate of electorss, who in turn elect the President"" Source 2, Paragraph 2. Why can't it just be a regular election where you either bubble your democrat or republican representative instead of being so complicated and misleading. This can get people confused, and get them to vote for the wrong candidate without them even realizing! ""Do voters sometimes get confused about the electorss and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes."" Source 2, Paragraph 2. In the 2000 campaign, 17 states didn't even get to see the candidates in a campaign ads they focus on the ""bigger"" and more important swingstates to win. Each person should count as one, and each state should be as important as the other, just varying in the number of voters they had.

In Source 1, it says how ""The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electorss, the meeting of the electorss where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electorsal votes by Congress."" You're electing electorss instead of just who you want for President. To top it off, you can't even control who your electorss vote for! So people can vote for an electors thinking that he's going to vote for the Republican party but then he votes for the Democratic party. This process can be very misleading. ""Can voters control whom their electorss vote for? Not always."". The disaster factor as mentioned in Source 2 could aways occur.

Some counterarguments might include the certainty of outcome, and how the Electoral Vote might be greater than the Popular Vote. But at the end of the day, the people are nominating their president, they don't want others to do it for them. The Popular Vote representing our country as a whole with all individual votes added up should be the deciding factor. A tie is almost impossible in that circumstance also, because what are the chances out of millions of citizens the number would be perfectly split in half. If a president appeals for a region, then let them vote for who they believe is the better candidate. At the end of the day, the majority wins. Swing states won't have to be a factor without the Electoral College, and big states are just counted them same, one point per vote. Runoff elections won't be necessary if the highest percentage president wins, even if its not majority.

So, hopefully you see my view on this issue and the Electoral College can be eliminated.",0
74e1349c,0,"Our country's history with cars date back a few centuries. Today, there are many cars from different brands, with different designs, and with different benefits. Though all these cars have one thing in common they emit harmful pollution to the air. We already know that the pollutantss given off from cars have caused the greenhouse effect in the world. This has been a main topic for decades, on how to figure out how to solve and reduce the amount of pollution so that Earth can sustain us. Limiting car usage will reduce the pollutants emission from the cars, it will cause less traffic jam and congestion in parking, and some people are tend to become more relaxed and happy.

The Earth is being effected with harmful gases caused by cars. Our vehicles that we drive everyday, the one we take to work or schools or places you want to see, are the main source of pollutantss coming into the air and causing the greenhouse gases. The limited usage of cars will reduce the amount of emission given off. In the article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, France has the most amount of smog in the European countries. This smog has caused warmer layers of air to trap car emissions will cause heat to the country. But when they have put a ban in cars for a while, the amount of smog has decreased. Furthermore, if we continue to reduce or at less limit the amount of time we spend driving or riding in the car, we can help reduce the emissions made. Rosenthal states, ""...emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle class are choking cities."" If we do not limit the use of cars now, not only will the Earth suffer, people will suffer as well. The limit usage of cars can save the Earth and ourselves.

The constant honking, switching lands, and when reached the destination, a parking is needed to be found. With the amount of cars, traffic jam and lack of parking space is evitable. Pollution also contributes to the traffic jam and congestion. Though if limited cars we used congestion will come down. According to Duffer, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" The lack of cars on the road will cause many more people to get to work or school or any place they want without rushing becaus the roads are clear. Moreover, parking space is a hassle to find when there are so many cars everywhere. With less cars means less space for parking, this could save money for the government and invest more on what the country needs. In Vauban, Germany, they had to give up their cars but on the positive side, on the main streets, stores are placed walking distance rather than on a highway Source 1. With the less amount of cars, highways and roads do not have to be invested in too much rather the money may be used to invest in other important things.

When we are younger, we dream of driving and having a bit of freeedom but when we actually start driving it gets tiring. Some people are stressed out when driving and tend to be very prone to accidents. Though when just taking a bicycle or walking it relieves stress. Carlos Arturo Plaza states in the article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Stress will only increase when we get older, taking off a load of stress by limiting the usage of cars can be a breather for all of us. Also, people are happy when they do not need cars. Heirdrun Walter said, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way, Rosenthal"" When Heirdrum means ""this way"", she is referring to not using a car to get to places. A person should be happy rather than angry and rage because when in a car, some people may do things that could hurt them.

Roads and highways are always being invested because of the increase in car users. If we continue this in the future, there might not be a bright future if we do not stop it. The limit of using cars can cause less pollution in our air, get people to places faster, and make a person smile. This may lead some down fall into the economy and for the employees but with the increase of other alternative to get to places this can lead into a boom in the economy. The positives out run the negatives in this topic. If cars are limited, parks and sports centers will bloom uneven, pitted sidewalks will be fixed to smooth sidewalks rushhour will be cut traffic and food places and stores will increase. Even the executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company proposed ""parternering with the telecommunications inductry to create cities in which 'pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commerical and public transprtation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety'"" Source 4. In the end, it is up to decide if we would rather continue using cars or not. So go and choose the side that will benefit not only the economy or government but the people and environment.",0
74fad39b,0,"It's not a secret that we as humans use cars to get places. The mall, the grocery store, school, work. All these places may be too far to walk to, or just too much of a hassle to not use a car to get to. This is why vehicles have long been a main export and very commonly seen sight in the world. But what are they costing us? To name a few, vehicles are costing us clean air, time, and money that we are not going to get back easily, unless we change our bad habits. That's why limiting car usage is so beneficial to us as a population, not only for ourselves but for future generations as well. Putting a cap on driving will help us with the large amount of emissions that is put out every day, it will reduce jams and increase safety, and it will be less expensive. Cars are a dirty form of transportation that need to be controlled better.

Along the lines of dirty, cars give off a gross amount of emissions into the atmosphere. According to Elisabeth Rosenthal, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Cars, because they are used so much and so densely in the world, give off the highest amount of carbon emissions, second only to power plants. This is detrimental to our atmosphere and puts a serious weight on the air around us. Smog has started to get to escalate the extremes. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" as stated by Robert Duffer in an article detailing the heavy smog that rivaled even Beijing, China, often known as one of the most polluted cities globally. The fiveday restriction on driving was implemented to, basically, give the air a rest after the intenseness of the trapped smog in the city reached 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter, compared with brussels 114 and London's 79.7. If we were to enforce this rule of reduced drivinhg everywhere, the amount of deducted pollution would be astronomical. It would be healthier for both the environment and for us humans.

Also being safer for humans would be the lower amount and intensity of traffic jams that would come with a restrictive hold on cars. With only exceptions for plugin cars, hybrids, cars carrying three or more people, and public transportation, traffic jams would be nearly nonexistent. Examples have already been seen in places where restrictions have been implemented. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France,"" stated by Duffer of the ban on cars for the fiveday pollutuion scare. Another big example is written my Andrew Selsky, and he states, ""In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or too buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of Bogota, Colombia eerily devoid of traffic jams."" Densely populated cities and highways are extremey dangerous, both for cars that may get into accidents and for the pedestrians that may be present. With a reduction of cars, the danger of being hit is lowered greatly. It also saves time, due to jams and high volumes of traffic bogging of streets gone. Walking and biking would be safer, and for the few who drive smartly, such as with a hybrid, the traffic would be all but gone as well. Health expenses and potential hospital bills would be avoided, and ease of getting where you need to go would be stressfree and simple.

On the important topic of less expenses, this leads into the final claim. Along with the restrictions of cars use comes less expenses, something we all want. Elisabeth Rosenthal writes, ""...the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995. Part of the explaination certainly lies in the recession, because cashstrapped Americans could not afford new cars, and the unemployed weren't going to work anyway. But by many measures the decrease in driving preceded the downturn and apprears to be persisting now that the recovery is underway."" This shows that the lessened use of cars has lead to an increase in money, and people are continuing to go through with this idea. Money is important to us, it is our lifeline in this cashoriented world. Without it, we live poorly, in all senses of the word.

To end off, driving is not something absolutely needed in our world. It strips us of smogfree environments, time, safety, and money. Putting a cap on driving will help us with the large amount of emissions that is put out every day, it will reduce jams and increase safety, and it will be less expensive in our daily lives. To reduce driving is to increse our standard of living.",0
75213c7d,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, The Electoral College has served us for more than a century in determining our nation's new president. ""The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electorss, the meeting of the electorss where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electorsal votes by Congress,"" states the article ""What Is the Electoral College?"" written by the Office of the Federal Register. This means that we do not vote directly vote for our new president, but instead vote for electorss that vote for a candidate running for office. Though many individuals are in favor of keeping the Electoral College, if kept, it will continue to cause problems in our nation. Our presidential campaign will be much better if we change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States.

To begin with, the Electoral College is the cause for many issues in our nation's presidential campaign. First of all, voters sometimes cannot even control whom their electorss vote for. Ergo, one may vote for an electors of our favorite candidate's party, however, we don't know if that electors will go back on his word and vote for another candidate. The article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" written by Bradford Plumer states, ""The single best argument against the electorsal college is what we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the sytem allows for much worse. Consider that state legislators are technically responsible for picking electorss, and that those electorss could always defy the will of the people"". This means that the people never know if their electorss are going to go back on their word and vote for another candidate. Aside from that, their is the worrying aspect of a tie occurring. If that were to happen, then the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives. The article The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" written by Bradford Plumer states, ""In 1968, a shift of just 41, 971 votes would have deadlocked the election In 1976, a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 votes in Ohio and 3,687 votes in Hawaii had voted the other way"". This says that if those people had just voted for the opposite person, then there would have been a tie between the two candidates. Yes, those numbers seem large, but in comparison to the number of voters that there were in those years, they're a small fraction of them. This shows how close elections are with the Electoral College.

Aside from causing issues in the United States, the Electoral College is extremely unfair to voters. The article, ""What Is the Electoral College?"" written by the Office of the Federal Register states, ""Most states have a winnertakeall' system that awards all electorss to the winning presidential candidate"". That is not fair to other voters who don't vote for the popular candidate in their state they don't receive any electorss. Additionally, most candidates only advertise and visit ""swing"" states. ""Swing"" states are the states that usually determine the outcome of the election. ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" written by Bradford Plumer says, ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad"". It's unjustifiable that simply because you have fewer electorss in your state, you don't get to watch your candidates campaign. As previously mentioned, each state has a different number of electorsal votes. It all depends on the population. For example, Texas, with a huge population has 38 electorss, while Maine only has 4. The article, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid out defenses of the system are wrong"" states, ""Beacuse each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters"". Why do some states have more representatives than others just because of their population? It's not fair to the smaller states. It is true that the bigger states have more people in them, needing more representation, however, the smaller states have as much to say as the big ones. ' To conclude, the Electoral College has caused many disastrous factors in our presidential campaigns. It has caused the wrong president to be elected, and it doesn't give our citizens much of a voice in the election. However, changing the system to popular vote for the president will give people a louder voice in this nation and it will show them that the government cares about their opinion. As the article, ""The Indefesible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid out defenses are wrong"" written by Bradford Plumer states, ""It's officual: The Electoral College is unfaor, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguents against direct elections are spurious at best.",0
7524fd23,0,"The limitation of car use provides many improvements to our environment and healthe. Many different places have now started to get into thee habit of preferring to use bicycles, carpools, or even walking. Limiting car use could lead to less pollution, more activity, and even safety. If we were to limit thee use of cars, we could save many lives, including our own. While limiting thee usage of cars many doors could open theat leads many different places. Limiting cars could possibly terminate childhood and adultheood obesity. It could also provide happiness and joy, and even willing exercise. Cars bothe hinder, and help us, it gets thee people where theey need to go, but it ruins thee environment and makes many people letheargic.

Withe thee limitation of cars comes thee major improvement on pollution.

""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe.... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in thee United States"" 1, Rosentheal. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 precent of thee greenhouse emissions found in Europe, and where most cars are used thee greenhouse gass emissions are up to 50 percent. The amount of gas theat is polluting thee air is asoultly hazardous to thee healthe of many people. ""...The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of thee most polluted cities in thee world"" 1, Duffer. Paris eventually needed to ban driving due to thee smog theat was being produced from thee cars. As stated in thee article, ""...it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and thee environment, since transportation is thee second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants"" 1, Rosentheal. If we were to limit thee car usage, many smog and greehouse gases would not be as much of an issue as it is now. If we were to limit thee usage of cars and prefer to carpool, alot of gas, money, and lives. Withe thee limiting of car usage comes thee possibility of living a longer, healtheier life witheout pollution tearing a hole in thee ozone layer.

Limiting thee use of cars can also produce more activity among thee people and happiness. Limiting thee use of cars forces many people to start walking, using trains, running, and even bicycling. As states in thee article, ""New York's new bikesharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect theose new priorities, as do a proliferation of carsharing programs across thee nations"" 1, Rosentheal. Many places are now starting to realize theat thee people are slowly loosing interest in cars and now perfer to walk, run, or even take public transportation. As stated in thee article, ""..millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work leaving a carfree day yesterday, leaving thee streets of theis capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams.... 'It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" 1, Selsky. ""It has seen thee construction of bicycle pathes, thee most of any Latin American cirt....Parks and sports centers also have bloomes theroughout thee city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smoothe sidewalks rush hour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"" 1, Selsky. Many citizens are starting to prefer to walk ratheer thean drive. The people are slowly moving away from motor vehicles and are starting to go outside and to exercise. As mentioned in thee article, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier theis way,"" 1, Rosentheal This choice is making alot most people happy and satified. Many people no longer need to fret about gas money or traffic, or even about arriving on time. Having no car is a stressreliever theat saves you time, stress, and keeps you from pulling at your hair. Exercising is also a much easier way to be able to blow off steam and reduce stress.

Anotheer positive of limiting car use is thee safety theat is provided. Many Americans are now choosing to not recieve a license. The people are slowly moving away from thee driving of cars and are now preferring to use public transportation, or even walking. People are now slowly starting to center theeir lives around where it could be easy to transport. Their place of work could now be centered around where public transport is able to drop theem off, a walking distance, or even on thee normal route theat a friend, whom you could be able to catch a ride, wouldn't mind dropping you off at. As stated in thee article, ""They organize theeir summer jobs and social life around where theey can walk or take public transportation or carpool withe friends"" 1, Rosentheal. Anotheer reason why many people do not drive, is due to thee fact theat many families and people cannot afford a vehicle, or theey choose to not purchase one. As stated in thee artice, ""'What most intrigues me is theat rates of car ownership per household and per person started to come down two to theree years before thee downturn"" 1, Rosentheal. Withe less amount of people on thee road, theis lowers thee possible chances of someone being in an accident. The possibility of poeple being in car accident have been lowered, because a majority of thee people are refusing to drive. As mentioned in an artice, ""When adjusted to thee population growthe, the enumber of miles driven in thee United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily theereafter, according to an analysis by Doug Short...thee number of miles driven perperson was nearly 9 percent below thee peak and equal to where thee country was in January 1995"" 1, Rosentheal. If thee people were to drive less theis would mean less accidents and less pollution which could lead to lenghtier lives and to healtheier lives.

In conclusion, withe thee limitation on thee use of automobiles comes thee many possibilities theat could possibly save lives and reshape theem into sometheing much more healtheier. While reducing thee usage of automobiles comes exercise and thee relief os stress. Maybe childhood or adultheood obesity would not be as large of an issue if were reduced car usage. Many people could theen be healtheier and more involeved in theeir communities. Withe thee limitation of car usage comes thee unlimited possibilities.",0
7530e3e4,1,"Dear Florida senator, It is in the interest of your state and your nation that you insist the keeping of the Electoral College system of voting. This is overwhelmingly clear because it allows the presidential candidates to focus on the country as a whole in their campaign trail instead of relying on a single region to win the presidency for them, it has been present in this nation since out founding fathers, and the system also shows a clear winner in the end of the election.

In order for the presidential candidate to have a reasonable chance at winning the presidency, he or she has to appeal to the country as a whole instead of just focusing on a particular region. This is all due to the Electoral College. A candidate who is practically assured to win in a region, such as the Northeast, would not campaign as much in those states. The article In Defense of the Electoral College highlights that if that candidate were to become president of the United States, ""The residents of other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised...that their votes do not count...that he really isn't their president."" Just think about that. Imagine having a president who got elected just because he won over the South. It would be as if he or she had only that region's interests at heart and did not care for the rest of the nation. The president is suppose to be the leader for the whole nation, not just a section of it. If this were to happen,the nation would be fractured, all because we got rid of the Electoral College. Some might argue that that probably would never happen, and it might not, but we always have to keep in mind the worse scenarios to ensure the best decisions for the United States.

The Electoral College is arguably an old method of voting. It was established by our founding fathers and has been quite realiable over the couple hundred years it has been in service. Admittably, there have been a few blips in the system, but what system doesnt have kinks that need to be rolled out once and a while? It was intended to be ""...a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" as explained in What is the Electoral College?

Why should this system be outed because of a fleeting feeling of anachronism? The intention of this system is meant to give equal votes to both the people and Congress.

The Electoral College system of voting has been under scrutiny lately. It has been a controversial issue. The system has had its share fo faults, but no more than a new system of voting would have. The Electoral College has served its country well and has given voices to the small states, given candidates a broader spectrum on their campaign trail, has been around for over 200 years, and shows a clear winner when all the votes are counted. Don't listen to the people telling you to stop the Electoral system Senator, because it is a valuable part of out nation.",0
75383a8e,1,"Dear Senator, I think that Electoral College is not the way to vote in the future. We should make a change in our government and make elections by popular vote. For these reasons we should make changes. We don't know who the electors vote for. The Electoral College is unfair. Popular vote is more accurate.

If we are going to have Electoral College lets at least know who our elector votes for. ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always."" By this I mean, not letting him choose who ever he's going for. As in of showing that he took everyones vote and made them all count. Even if the guy he's going for wins the election, we can say it was fair.

The Electoral College is not fair. First of all we don't know who picks the electors. We don't know if there truthful as in putting in votes. I'm sure they have to have certain requirements to become an elector but we are not the ones chosing them. In the 2000 campaign 17 states didn't even see the people running in the election. Also in an Electoral College ties exist so then it has to be thrown into the House of representatives where the delegations will vote on the president. Making our votes worthless because the people in the government get to chose whos next to become president.

Popular vote is more accurate. By me saying this is that everyones vote counts. There's no electors involved causing you to fall in doubt. Even though it says that Electoral College electors ""...that trust is rarerly betrayed."" I still think that the people will cofide more in popular vote showing them that they didn't just vote for no reason.

Electoral college is getting more and more complicated causing people to doubt. We should change because we don't know who the electors vote for. The Electoral College is unfair. Also because popular votes are more accurate. Electoral College is irrational and not accurate.",0
7578fb27,0,"The breeze of the late summer air, it's fragrance of flowers and the occasional bakery wafting into our noses. The sounds of children safetly playing amongst themselves and soft chatters of people coincided with the smell. It seemed like an utterly new universe where we tread, thanks to no more pollution and the ruckus of vehicles beeping and swerving every now and then, the atmosphere was delightful. The advantages of banning cars or at least reducing them is that the carbon dioxide levels will decrease and business will bloom.

To begin with, banning carsreducing them will benefit our ecosystems and environments. Take Paris for example, they banned cars due to all of the smog and pollution it was emitting. Congestion, traffic, was down 60% after five days of intense smog it was worst than one of the most populated cities in the world, Beijing Source 2. That CO2 rises into the air, the atmosphere of Earth trapping all of that heat in, and it bounced back down at us. The climate would be more reasonable, there will be a less amount of traffic jams and people being late to work, and maybe some day, our Ozone Layer could replenish. Carlos Arturo Plaza from Source 3 stated, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" We as a population don't have to completely outlaw driving but more acts of carpooling and using public transportation will immensely reduce the CO2. We can all be able to give up something for the benefit of the common good, in Bogota, Columbia it has been three straight years that cars have been banned found in Source 3 and they have a population of a wopping seven million. Michael siva brings up a good point in Source 4 saying, ""What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person started to come down two to three years before the downturn."" Elisabeth Rosenthal states that, ""Mine 19 and 21 speaking of her children have not bothered to get a driver's license, even though they both live in places where one could some in handy. They are interested, but it's not a priority. They organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends.

Alongside with the bettering the environment, there is the sudden blooming of business and profit. With everyone on their feet and searching somewhere to hang , shop owners will be opening for business, and actually take part in the outside world. In Source 3, a valid point is relevant, ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughtout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restauraunts and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" There will be a fluctuation of revenue throughout all these newly built shops, stores, entertainment centers, and restauraunts. People will be more active with running, walking, and biking around the citytown. In Bogota, Columbia according to Source 3 new paths have been opening up, ""It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American city,"" stated by Mockus the city mayor. An ordinary person, Heidrun Walter, positively commented on the ban of cars, ""When I had a car, I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Consider all the factors of health, one will be fully exercised on a daily basis, there will be little to no car accidents where people have died either in the vehicle or on the sidewalks DUI, drinking and driving, will not be an pestering issue anymore.

In conclusion, the idea of banning cars is magnificant. There will be less pollution, less traffic jams, more businesses and shops and restauraunts opening to suit our needs, and just overall great for the environment. We can all join up together as a union to save our Earth, the Ozone Layer from allowing harmful objects from outer space into our atmosphere, and induce more activity amongst each other. We will all be happier and less irritated without the ruckus of cars and checkup like oil leaks, motor mishaps. Think of this new world, it could happen with one voice.",0
75794807,0,"If someone wishes to travel somewhere, such as a normal commute, probably the first transportation method they think of is a car. Cars are everywhere. They're the things hiding in a home, waiting for someone to enter the depths of the dark garage. Unless the garage is truly empty of the worldkilling machine, such as in Vauban, Germany where people have done the unthinkable: got rid off cars.

Though it may sound preposterous, or even critically insane to even consider giving up a car, the citizens of Vauban are a lot happier to be rid of the burden. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" Rosenthal, In German Suburb, Life goes On Without Cars. As you may have forgotten, car payments, maintenance, check up, oil changes, and gas are all part of owning a car which may be a financial strain for most.

Again, those robots that you move with pedals and a steering wheel are seriously affecting our Earth. We're Earth murderers. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" Rosenthal, In German Suburb, Life goes On Without Cars. Fellow humans, we are not the only species on planet Earth. We are so used to cars it's like watching something interesting on TV and trying to pull away from it it's nearly impossible. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clean the air of the global city"" Duffer, Paris bans driving due to smog. Less driving cars is less greenhouse gasses that destroy our Earth.

In our society today, cars are the dominant transportation method. When you go outside in today's world it is most likely not the sound of nature, but a manmade vehicle. Without cars, a whole new world will come forth, or most likely the beautiful world we forgot about that is mercilessly trapped beneath unessesary layers of greenhouse gases. When Paris banned cars, it improved the pollution stuck in the air. ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French part to recind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday"" Duffer, Paris bans driving due to smog. If we stop driving cars, it will help most people financially, help our Earth, and ease the worry and stress over the maintenance of a car. Once again, we are not the only species on Earth.",0
75874327,1,"The Electoral College should be abolished because citizens can't vote directly on which candidate they want. The electoral college is unfair because a candidate that wins the vote of the people, they can't become president if they don't have enough electoral votes. For example when Al Gore was elected, Gore won the popular vote but could not become president because of insufficient electoral college votes.

It is not fair to the people that their vote cannot count unless it goes through the Electoral College. The Electoral College bases on what the overall state vote is, instead of the individual voter, thus making it unfair to each voter if they do not get an equal say in who they want as president. Said in source two, ""Under the Electoral College system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" The citizens should be able to choose who governs their country. Direct elections are much easier than having an Electoral College. The voters vote, the majority wins and we have a new president.

In the Electoral College system, the voters vote of another set of voters who vote for the candidate of their party. The Electoral College way is much more difficult than having a popular vote method of voting.

In some cases,when no candidate wins a majority of the popular vote, in source 3, ""For example, Nixon in 1968 and clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the electoral college301 and 370 Electoral votes, respectively."" This could be a clearer solution to having runoff elections. Also in source 3, ""There is no pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the voters cast that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidentail election process, is reduced by the Electoral Collage, which invariably produces a clear winner."" The president should be choosen by what the people want. There are also some citizens who may be a republican in a democratic state and vice versa who's vote wouldn't even be considered because the Electoral College will be voting for the overall states vote. In a popular vote everyone gets a say in who our president will be.

Having the popular vote method is a way to give all citizens a voice in who they want their next president to be. It's also a way to get people involved with government. If everyone gets an equal say,Then the president is choosen fairly among the citizens instead of a group of electors that go by the states overall vote rather than everyone getting equality. After all, America is a democracy and the electoral college isn't very democratic.",0
75973b92,0,"The main way the majority of the people in our community get around each and every day, is by car. A car is the number way that people get from point A to B, but this is not the case throughout the world. A lot of countries have taken to effect the amount of damage a car can do, so they are beginning to limit car usage. They are beginning to realize that there are benefits from not having to crank up a car every time they have to go to the store thats a minute or two up the road, or every time they have to go to school, or what ever the case may be. A lot of them are coming to the conclusion that by limiting the car usage will, lower the amount of pollution and smog that is released in the air, lower the stress on having to worry about gas prices, and citizens will be more motivated to work and etc.

The amount of pollution that is let out into the air every day is ridiculous. In a lot of countries, smog has become a big issue even with out the effects of car usage. Car usage only makes it worst. In France, there was recorded to be a numerous amount of cases where they reported a lot of congestion in the air, due to tha gas that was let out in the air due to the usage of the car. Paris began to enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. Paris has more smog than other European capitals, it was recorded that Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter, with Brussels having only 144 and London having 79.7. They began to momentarily stop miter vehicles dropping the amount on congestion to 60 percent.

Although the amount of excersie that is received is at an all time low. By banning the amount of car usage this pushes more people to get excersie. A lot of the people in our community always depend of the vehicle on four wheels to get us around, not realizing they have to feet. Most stores in our community are beginning to be built at every corner to make things a little bit more convenient and in walking distance, and by lowering the car usage a lot of us will have to begin to depend on walking, to get from point A to B. Which will, and can do a lot of our health in the long run.

Now many of us pass by more the one gas station a day, and begin to dread the prices of gas. The gas prices go up, and seem to consistitently go up more and more. A lot of those who work, don't like the fact that they have to give machines their money to get from place to place, and this only gets worst. Most children around teen ages who are beginning to get their liscense are not in the rush just for this exact reason. The prices of gas will only pull you down along with a lot of other expenses that people have to face everyday. Researchers have shown that the precentages in young people driving has decreased by 23 percent between 2001 and 2009.

In conclusion, many are beginning to realize the cons of how much driving can do. For example, the fact that it causes pollution, has a big effect on expenses and has a lot to do with excersing and etc. Many should to take these things into consideration before they try to argue it, and realize the positive effects it may have.",0
75ab7834,0,"Cars are not the most important thing in our lives. Although cars are helpful, not having one can help you a lot in the long run. Having a car causes so much stress worrying about the traffic if you're going to be late for work or school, gas prices are not as low as people would like. If you had to walk everywhere or ride your bike, you could be getting a lot of exercise from it. People think having a car is so important but they dont see the positive side to it.

Many people stress out if they are not going to make it to work on time because of traffic, I know that I dont make it to school on time because of all the traffic trying to get into my school is horrible. Instead of stressing out, you can just go on a calm walk or bike ride to your destination. In the article written by, Elisabeth Rosenthal, there is a quote from Heidrun Walter saying, ""when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" because they had banned cars in his city. You can always find an alternative way of getting to where you need to go. If someone has a meeting to go to, they can always use the alternative of the Internet if they cant get their in time or the weather is not the best. Instead of stressing out about driving, you can walk to your destination and save money from not paying for gas.

We all know that gas prices are high and out of our budget. They've reached four dollars, that's insane! Why would anyone want to spend that money if they don't have to. There is a simple solution on saving your money that you waste on gas, and that is walking or riding your bike. Some people can afford the prices of gas but others are struggling in the economy but are to lazy to walk, nobody wants to get exercise so they drive everywhere.

Banning cars on the street is a good way to help people get exercise. If they know they can't drive, they would obviously walk or take a bike because they have places to be. It would be an effective way to get people to stop being lazy and helping their health. Some people would probably get frustrated because they have to walk everywhere but it's only helping them.

Walking or riding a bike is a good opportunity to realize the beauty of life without stressing out over bad drivers or traffic, saving money, and getting exercise. Most people would think banning cars on the street is a good idea for those few reasons. I know that it is super effective although some people may not see it until it actually changes.",0
75c255e3,1,"""The founding fathers established it in the constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by popular vote of qualified citizens."" Paragraph 1 The electoral college is made of 538 people called electors, these people are there to take in consideration what the people voted and then they them selves vote physically for the President of the United States. The electoral college is good because there is not as much controversy and if its been fine for this long it would not be changed now.

controversy, a big word with lots of meaning, but what does it really mean in this context. It is when two or more things are being argued about, in this case two political veiws. Whether or not we should keep the electoral college or get rid of it and go back to popular vote for electing the President of the United States. Having a little bit of controversy is good but the reason why the founding fathers made this into the constitution is to stop the out rages arguing that was going on when electing the First president. It states in paragraph 3 ,""The electoral college consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president."" This shows that they didnt just make it to please one side of the argument, this pleased both side because it was very fare and didnt favor one side to the other. By doing this it nearly ended all of the arguing and controversy, which that is what they wanted to accomplish.

furthermore, the electoral college is good because why would you change something that has been working perfectly and helped the voting process out tremdously over hundreds of years. They have had voting for the President down to a science now, for example,""The presidential election is held every four years on the tuesday after the first monday in november."" paragraph 6 Everyone in the U.S. knows this date, it is imprinted in our brain when that day is and we need to clear our calenders and turn on the grill because that is a very specail day of change for our beautiful country.

Many people say there are problems with the electoral college, then again there are problems with everything in this crazy world we live in. ""The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century."" paragraph 11 Yes there was a crisis but to say that the electoral college is corupt and bad just cause of that fiasco is to far. America is too strong to break down from just that and there are to many belivers in the electoral college to have it just fall to peices from that one problem. It also shows the resliency of the electoral college, and not just that but also showing changes so that those crisises wont ever happen again. ""Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors..."" That is living proof that there are changes and fixes being made to further the effiency of the Electoral College.

All in all the electoral college has proven itself to be more then just helpful but it has changed America itself. It was made to settle a compromise made but it has settled more arguments then anyone can count. Its proven to the world it is here to stay and is not leaving anytime soon.",0
75c5636c,0,"The number of positive connotations that limiting car usage around the world would have on society is infinite. It would lower congestion, promote more healthy and efficient means of travel, and it would reduce emissions by a very large factor. People around the world are turning towards methods of transportation that do not monopolize on the automobile. Maybe one day cars will be pass?

According to a study in Paris, congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France after prohibiting driving for a few days, and fining those who disregarded the experiment. Less congestion led to less road noise, which, in turn, made people ""happier."" It created a safer environment for children and parents alike. Having fewer cars on the road encouraged people to go outside whenever they could. Citizens of Vauban, a city in Germany, are taking this newfound peacefulness to an extreme. Driving is forbidden in their city and there are not any available parking spaces in the event that they still own a car! Vauban is an example of a city that was built based on ""smart planning."" More communities are adopting this ideal and try to have everything located within walking distance of a person's home. This encourages people to get to where they need to go without the use of an automobile. People nowadays also have the technology to communicate with others electronically, so that reduces the need for an automobile to get from point A to point B. Why waste the time and money on gas to communicate with someone when you could send them an email or text for a low cost in a matter of seconds?

This being said, limiting car usage promotes public transportation services. In Bogota, 118 miles worth of bicycle paths have been built in an effort to steer people away from automobiles. This encourages people to get from place to place via a healthy and fun means of transport. Undoubtedly, people are more likely to stay close to home without the accessibility of cars, so limiting the use of cars saves the time that would be spent on the roads.

Limiting car usage has major benefits when it comes to carbon emissions and environmental problems. President Obama has wanted to curb the United States' emissions and so far his goal is a success. Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less, and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by. Smog has been severely reduced in countries around the globe since plans to limit car usage have gone into effect.

Limiting car usage might seem like something that ""would be good in theory,"" and it will definitely be a hard thing for today's generation to wrap their head around, but the positive impacts it would have on society are limitless. Congestion and emissions would be reduced, time spent commuting would be saved, and the world would be a much safer place to live in overall. Limiting car usage everywhere is definitely something to think about.",0
76034fd0,1,"Dear senator, if I may speak for the people I think that the Electoral College was a great idea thanks to the founding fathers. The concept of every state in the United States of America and the people in the states have the power and decision over chosing the commander and chief. The fact that the founding father created the Constitution and the amendments is right because look at where we are today in history. The US is so strong and civilized because of the Constitution it keeps us heading in the right direction. Back to the keeping the Electoral College and its voting system.

The right to vote is a great power and acknowledgement. The people go to vote and then the state counts the the votes and which ever candidate gets the most votes receives the electoral votes which is separated between the states. This is a great thing because every right full human being has a chance to make a difference. If the winning candidate was only chosen for popular votes then it would be uneven and unfair then nobody would want to vote. Dont you think me or miss senator that if the founding fathers thaught about this many years ago and they saw us today they wouldsay what a great idea and concept we came up with. The founding fathers thaught about the right of the people and thats what counts.

The Electoral College is a smart way to give the people there right to vote and chose who will make things better. THe candidate has to appeal to the people as the right guy to run the United States and can help improve the economy. The electoral college is not to make things harder it is to make things right and even for everyone. SOme states have little populations so they get less electoral votes compared to others states with huge populations they get more electoral votes cause they have more people voting which is fair for everyone. In the end the Electoral college is a efficient and non problematic solution to voting for a president or candidate.

The other fact is that the Electoral College provides a certain winner. The candidates have to go out and speak with the people and explain what they want to change and improve in the United states. The candidate have to prove they are worthy and capable of creating a better tomorrow. For example Barack Obama has created millions of more jobs for people and has brought up our economy. Since the crash in the economy he has done an amazing job in creating a better tomorrow for the people. How did Obama win well its the cause of the popular vote of the state and then which every person votes and then the winner get the electoral votes of the state that is 538 divide between the states. The people did there job in listening and watching the candidates and how they can make us stronger. Mr or miss senator I would like you to think how would you feel if the you where a founding father and what would you want the us to be like in the future and how you can achive that and the peoples right.

The facts are all here the founding fathers and how they came up with this idea and the diddnt even know what wuld be the out come but in the end the right to vote and how every single human being makes a difference in chosing the president of the United States and commander and chief makes every person valuable to tomorrows out come. My honest opinion me or miss senator is that we should keep the Electoral collge cause it is based on peoples right which is most importan and that why the constitution is based on the peoples right. The amendments where thought up as just an idea on a paper and when we make it a concept in the United States Government it makes us the people who and what we are today. To answer the question 'Does the Electoral College Work""? Well the answer is Yes, cause it is based on every persons vote which means ""peoples Rights"". If I may take one more minute of your time me or miss senator to say ""Human rights are the main idea and thats what we are all based on"" Thank you for your time in reading my arguement and why we should keep the Electoral College in place."" Do what is for the people and by the people"" Thank you me or miss senator.",0
7611ff17,0,"Car usage could easily help detoriate waste and pollutants from our air. If every person in the United States were to limit the use of their driving then most of he worlds pollution and green house gases would vanish. In Beijing, China, it's a common, everyday procedure to put on a medical mask to prevent ""dirty"" air into getting into their lungs with ease. If every single person on the planet were to reduce the amount of driving they had to do, if they started driving hybrids, if they began using cars that ran on vegetable oil or electricity, we could practically erase the damage that has been done to our ecosystem via pollution. It would take a while but I don't see why we couldn't attempt to make Earth a little greener.

According to paragraph 41 in article four, a quote, stated ""A study last year found that driving by young people has decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009...."" meaning that they had either carpooled or used a friendlier alternative to cars and the gaseous fumes they emit. If people were to start riding bicycles we could drastically change not only our planet and the ecosystem, but we could also fix our health.

Most American's rarely exercise and it's a common thing to be mildly obese to extremely and deadly overweight. We could easily begin a new generation of healthier teens and adults if we were to introduce healthy lifestyle habits whilst still at a young age.

Article one shows that a new study that has been developed has created a new town with fewer drivers and everything is available when you walk outside. Vauban, Germany has led a research team to see the impact that driving motor vehicles has on society. There are 5,500 people living in this ""rectangular square"" mile that ""may be the most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life"" if they could do it, why can't we?

Paris has temporarily banned driving due to smog. Article 2 has said that their French citizens would be fined 22euro 31 for drivingbeing in a car! Congestion had died down around 60% and it's said that the smog had rivaled Beijing, China, known as ""one of the most polluted cities in the world."" Diesel fuel has a large role to play in this, but maybe if one day we could find other resources to fuel our driving needs, we could restore this beautiful planet and its atmosphere to what it once was.",0
763f168e,1,"Dear state senator, I ask you to change the voting methods to popular vote instead of Electoral collage because the candidates for presidency give no importance to small states that do not have many electoral collage votes focus more on those that have many Electoral collage votes and candidates for presidency dont need to be the most popular of all to win the presidency.

Candidates don't really care for small states with small population because they know that they don't matter in the result them being elected as president or not. According to ""The Indefensible Electoral Collage: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer ""Seventeen states didn't see the candidates al all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get so see a single campaign as. ""You may ask yourself why they didn't see any of of this well one thing that both of them share is that they dont have as many electoral collage votes as other states like california that has 55 electoral votes. And it's a winner take all the less popular candidate from the state doesn't get any votes at all.

You dont have to be the most popular in the nation in order to win the presidency and its a winner take all. According to the ""The Indefensible Electoral Collage: Why even the bestlaid defense of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer ""Voters vote not for the president, but for a slater of electors, who in turn elect the president."" For example when bush was running for president he was not the most popular in the nation and Gore was, in the end Bush was elected president for winning more the electoral votes then Gore. This is unfair for many people because more then half the nation didn't want Bush but yet he was elected without the popular vote.

However According to ""In Defense of the Electoral Collage: Five reasons to keep our despised methods of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner there is less likely to be a dispute over the electoral collage votes then in a dispute over the popular vote. It also requires a a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. ""The electoral collage avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast.

This is why I ask you state senator to change from Electoral Collage voting methed to The Popular voting to elect The President Of The United states Of America because the candidates for presidency give no importance to small states that do not have many electoral collage votes and care more for those that do plus the candidate doesn't have to be the most popular in the to win the elections to become the President of the U.S.A.",0
766d1c26,1,"Dear state senator, After researching the Electoral College process I find that the process should no longer be used. The process is not efficient for choosing the next US president and therefor the voting process should be changed to popular vote.

""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" This makes the Electoral College not a democratic method for electing the president. This nation was founded on the belief of democracy, so when the government ignores the call for a democratic method for elections it is disrespectful towards out Founding Fathers, and especially to the citizens of the United States of America. Furthermore, state representatives may misrepresent a state, possibly by defiance. This has happened in the 2000 campaign where segregationalists defied the people and nearly succeeded in replacing the electors for those who opposed Josh F. Kennedy. Although defying the people does not happen often there is still the risk of repeating history to a greater extent.

Continuing, the ""winner takes all system"" causes states with smaller populations to be ignored. According to source 3, ""Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by popular vote."" Larger states are paid the most attention to by candidates because they will receive more votes than compared to the number of votes a smaller state would produce. This causes smaller states to have less interest in the campaign because they know they have a lesser chance of their favored candidate winning. Even more, candidates focus on swing states. Swing states are states that can be easily convinced for votes. It is important for all states to focus on the campaign so that an unworthy or unprepared candidate is not chosen for presidency, but only large and swing states are paying attention. In contrast, it can be argued that no single region can shift a campaign greatly, nonetheless a single voters vote.

The Electoral College should be rid of. The process is not democratic and misrepresents voting citizens in more ways than one. If voters were able to directly vote for candidates then more states would actively engage in the campaign and all people would be represented equally. It would lower the chance for downfall, and the chance for incidents to occur. I propose that the next presidential election should use the process of popular vote to choose the next president for the United States.",0
76ac4c02,1,"This country is built on democracy, the idea that all of its citizens have rights and a say in how the country is run. The Electoral College takes away the peoples vote, because in an election, the eligible citizens vote for a candidate, but in reality they are voting for a group of electors who will then vote for the candidate. I believe this is unfair and that the Electoral College should be removed from the country's government.

The first flaw with the Electoral College is that voters cannot directly vote for their favorite candidate. In Source 2 paragraph 10 , it says "" ... voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president.

"" If citizens of the United States can't vote for their own president directly then it takes some of the democracy out of the country. It rarely happens but the electors don't always vote for the candidate with the most popular vote, they can vote for whoever they want, if they really wanted to. This is just one reason I think the Electoral College should be removed, and replaced by a popular vote.

My next reason for replacing the Electoral College with a popular vote is that a tie in the Electoral College is possible. In Source 3 paragraph 18 , it says "" A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes538is an even number...

"" If a tie occurs then the vote goes to the House of Representatives, but how will they know the feelings of voters if they vote one party for Congress, and another party for president?

My final reason to get rid of the Electoral College is that a candidate can win the popular vote, but lose the election. In Source 2 paragraph 9 , it says ""...

Al Gore thanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the poular vote but lost the presidency...

"" If the people's favorite candidate wins the popular vote, a vote representing the country's citizens, but loses the election because of the Electoral College then the system is unfair to voters.

Source 3 paragraph 19 , "" The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region South, Northeast, etc. has enough electoral votes to select a president.

"" But this country should be about how the people vote, a popular vote would be the same, no region would have enough eligeable voters to elect a president, so a candidate would have to campaign all over the country.

In conclusion I think the Electoral College should be replaced with a popular vote. Voters cannot directly vote for thier choice candidate, ties can occur in the Electoral College, and a candidate can win the popular vote, but somehow still lose the election.",0
77bdc4a7,1,"Imagine that the president the majority of the people voted for did not win because the electoral college got confused and voted for the wrong candidate. That would not happen if we didnt have a electoral college. I believe that we should change the electoral college to election by popular vote because the electoral college can cause a catastrophe and is unfair.

The electoral college can cause a catastrophe. The electoral college is basically a disaster waiting to happen. We the people of the United States would be able to do nothing if the people of the electoral college made a mistake or even was pulling a scam. Source 2 states ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. So that popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy."" Many political disasters such as this would not happen if we had the election by popular vote system.

The electoral college is unfair. The system is outdated and irrational as well. Source 2 states ""Because the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states."" Many people that are in a electoral college state don't care aould the peoples vote and sometimes might even want to vote for the people who they want to vote for! Source 3 states ""The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidates recieve a majority of the votes cast."" In my opinion, this is exactly the problem. The american people have the right to do a tie breaker not the electoral college.

To conclude, the electoral college should be changed to the election by popular vote. There is not reason that the electoral college should still be the way we vote because it is not a stable way of casting votes disaster prone and it is unfair.",0
78030be4,0,"Limiting car usage can have many beneficial outcomes for the environment around us. Avoiding car usage will drastically lower greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, cut pollution in big cities, and make rushhour easier for human beings.

The first thing that decreasing car usage will do is that it will lower our greenhouse gas emissions. In Source 1: ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", by Elisabeth Rosenthal, Rosenthal explained that because automobiles are very necessary to middleclass families all around the world,""it is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe..."". Without cars there wouldn't be so many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and globalwarming could be evaded much easier. According to Source 4: ""The End of Car Culture"", by Elisabeth Rosenthal, Rosenthal again shows information which states that, because recent studies suggest Americans are using fewer cars, ""President Obama's ambitious goals to curb the United states greenhouse gas emissions, unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from an incipient shift in American behavior"". With less and less Americans getting licenses and buying cars, greenhouses gases will start plummeting at a faster rate than ever before.

Also, lowering the use of cars will decrease pollution in big cities which are usually surrounded by clouds of smoke. From the information in Source 2: ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", by Robert Duffer, Duffer said that because of the amount of congestion in the city of Paris, ""Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"". Paris could have easily avoided the ban on driving if they stopped using cars so much, which would in turn decrease the amount of pollution in the sky. There was a similar situation in Source 3: ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", by Andrew Selsky, where in Bogota, Colombia the government created a carfree day where no cars were used at all and people like Carlos Arturo Plaza, a businessman, said that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"". Another big city is lowering their amount of pollution as well just because they are using cars less.

In addition, an environment less reliant on automobiles creates easier traffic and a more relaxing road to travel upon. In Source 1, a media trainer and mother of two called Heidrun Walter, recalled that ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"". Now, more people won't have the same stress they had in the morning when they had to worry about the amount of cars on the road. In Source 4, Selsky explained that the new carfree day will be ""leaving the sreets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams"". Without the everyday clutter of cars, streets will easily be more open and easier to drive upon.

Although limiting car use seems a bit distant at the moment and very hard to accomplish all around the world, with less cars there will be less greenhouse gases, pollution, and traffic on the road.",0
780c39e1,1,"The way we should change the way we choose our United States president. I am against the Electoral college. I feel like with the Electoral college my vote does not matter. The Electoral college is a pretty unfair way to choose out president. I think its time to try something new. A expirement perhaps. How do we know the popular vote system doesn't work if we had not tried it. You know what they say don't knock it to you try it. We can avoid what happens in 1968 or 2000. Im just saying and im not the only one saying this but the Electoral College is unfair and irrational.

The Electoral college is a voting catastrophe. Many people fell like their vote doesn't matter or even make a difference. Their not the only ones. Some people just feel like the Electoral College is way too complicated to understand. Some just rather have their vote go straight to the president. Well they say their trust is rarely broken. Well thats still means it can be broken. Also, whats with the ""winner take all"" ? People here that say "" wait what?"". Well to start off its a little bit unfair. We the people just want to pick our president of united states not some electors who might not even be that loyal to the person you voted for any way. We young generation should try something new in the future. Which im saying that the Electoral College is a little bit old and outdated dont you think.

This Electoral College can be unfair and irrational at times. Also complicated as well. We voters wish their was an easier way to choose the president. well their is, we just haven't been using it yet. They say they want to avoid another 1968. Or, even a 2000 election. Well i haven't seen any change or concern for this matter. Instead of changing the rules , how about we change the voting systems in all. People have been trying to abolish the Electoral College for decades. People like President John F. Kennedy. Even one of our presidents was oppose to the Electoral College. Who is the Electoral Collage any way. Just some people who Dont currently hold office. Well whats the point of knowing who your voting for but not actully know who your voting for. basically voting for someone who can not be trusted or not be loyal enough. We have to vote on trust and confidence. I know i want my vote to matter.

So you see why we should change the way we choose our president. The Electoral college is a pretty unfair way to choose out president. I think its time to try something new. Many people fell like their vote doesn't matter or even make a difference. I just want to seeif any change can happen in the future. This Electoral College can be unfair and irrational at times. Also complicated as well. If we want to avoid 1968 or 2000 lets make a change. Atleast lets try it out for a election or two to see how it works. Instead of going off of this is what we been using so we are going to keep using it. Im just saying and im not the only one saying this but the Electoral College is unfair and irrational.",0
783256be,0,"Many cities are experiencing perhaps the biggest economic change being implemented into society since the invention of the Model T. People just simply aren't interested in attaining a personal vehicle, or even a license for that matter. As a result, many personal vehicle companies are starting to become more ""mobile"" to stay with the times, or become bankrupt due to being stagnant in sales. Not owning a car has actually proved to come with more advantages than if owning a car. Such as, less carbon emissions in the air, less stress in certain communities where carfree zones are being implemented, and finally restaurants and stores becoming more ""cropped up"" due to rushhour restrictions essentially boosting the economy.

The lack of car use has fundamentally benefitted the environment as an entirety. Cars emit carbon emissions into the air that are not only harmful to many animals, but to humans as well. According to Source 2, in Paris, France alone, it was shown that ""due to the use of diesel fuel over regular fuel, there were 147 micrograms of particle matter per cubic meter."" Comparing this to other major cities in Europe that find more use for regular gasoline, you'll find that the results are less. In Brussels, there were 114 micrograms of PM per cubic meter, and in London, 79.7. Even though areas that used more regular fuel over diesel fuel were significantly lower in micrograms of particle matter, even 79.7 micrograms can be potentially fatal, and cause lungrelated health problems in the later lives of the people occupying these areas. Officials not only in Paris, but also in major cities such as Bogota, Colombia and New York City, New York have also began to take a stand. In Paris, France for example, ""there are certain days in which cars cannot be driven by people with license plates ending in even numbers, and the next day by people with license plates ending in odd numbers. This new way of thinking has been implemented into the French law system to help decrease the amount of pollution in the air."" Source 2 Bogota has also found a unique approach to a less polluted environment. ""Carfree day is a day in which no cars are driven, with the exception of buses and taxis."" Source 3 Finally, New York City has implemented a ""new bikesharing program in which bicycles can be rented for a costeffective amount. In addition to this, bridge and tunnel tolls have also reflected these new priorities by skyrocketing in price."" Source 4 These new implementations have proved beneficial in decreasing the amount of carbon emissions in the air. Many communities have not only found a way to reduce pollution in the air, but also live a more stressfree lifestyle.

Stress and rushhour are known to have some corollation, but newer communities are starting to take a stand by limiting the amount of car usage in their area. Vauban, Germany, a newer community only just established in 2006, is an example of one of these communities that has started to ""smart plan."" Over 70 percent of Vauban's occupants don't own a car, and 57 percent have sold a car to move there."" Source 1 A happier lifestyle has appeared as a result. According to Heidrun Walter, an occupant in Vauban. When she had a car, she was always ""tense."" But now, she's a much happier mother of two, and the distant hum of an occasional motor vehicle is drowned out by the ""chattering of wandering children."" Source 1 In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency EPA is suggesting that we start implementing these ""car reduced"" communities in our nation to better society, as well as to provide a more stressfree environment for these new communities' residents. Source 1 Even in Bogota, people have said that the use of no cars is a ""great opportunity that has taken away stress and lowered air pollution."" Source 3 Not only has pollution been reduced in all of this or the fact that a factor attributing to stress has also been removed, but areas where these communities are starting to form, have also boosted the economy. In Bogota, it has been reported that due to Carfree day, that both ""parks and sports centers have started to appear throughout the city. In additon to this, sidewalks have been replaced by more broad, smooth sidewalks. As well as, rushhour traffic has been cut, allowing new restaurants and upscale shopping districts to flourish."" Source 3 ""Cars are starting to become a thing of the past,"" according to Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University. Even her children 19 and 21 don't have licenses. ""They say they're interested, but it's not a priority for them,"" she later goes on to say. As a result, gas money is saved, and people can spend more money on things that matter to them.

In conclusion, it has been displayed that the advantages of not using a car are starting to outweight the benefits. The lack of car use in these carfree communities is helping to reduce stress and tension on the road, boost not only the community's economy, but also the entire nation's economy as well. In addition to this, the lack of car use is also helping to preserve the environment, by reducing carbon emissions into the air. According to many sociologists and business professionals, the downfall of the car may well be on its way, but it may not be such a bad thing.",0
78bc587a,0,"Nowadays, there is one sure thing we depend on to go from Point A to Point B: cars. Cars are used everywhere to drive to work, school, a park or wherever it may be. However, the total amount of automobiles moving out in the streets consumes up too much gas. This gas being released causes smog, or air pollution, that is harmful to our atmosphere & is one of the main causes of global warming. Next, the elimination of cars improves the safety of pedestrians and people wandering on the roads which has indeed prevented people from dying in countries like Colombia and France.

To begin with, when people are driving cars for whatever it may be, they are unintentionally harming the economy. This happens because cars run off of gasoline and when a car is accelerating, the gas is being burned by the motor engine which after is released into the air. Smog is produced being one of the top causes for global warming & this is an exceedingly problematic effect to the atmospherical being of humans and space. Moreover, Paris has reinforced a temporary driving ban due to these longterm, harmful effects to clear the air of the global city. If drivers refuse to obey, they would get fined 22 euros and up to 4,000 drivers were fined. They were blaming diesel fuel although, after five days of intensifying smog, congestion drastically dropped 60% competing against Beijing, known as one of the most polluted cities in the world.

In addition, the elimination of cars in the streets has benefited society in a way that it keeps people safe. As various countries around the world face the risk of car accidents, innocent deaths, lack of resources, and car commuting, they begin to enact laws to try & stop these risky, dangerous downfall from happening. In the suburbs located within Germany, residents of Vauban are pioneers doing what commuting executives have never done before: giving up their cars. This happens since street parking and driveways aren't allowed although the streets are ""carfree"", a couple are found at the edge of a community as well as the tram running down Freiburg. Plus, without an abundant amount of automobiles anymore, cities become more loose and flow therefore providing a better walking path.

To conclude, cars on the streets may be efficient for people to get to places easily and rapidly, but the substances it releases is harmful to the environment. Smog and air pollution are formed when cars drive greatly contributing to global warming, because they consume up too much gas. Furthermore, not only does it cause air pollution, but it also creates a possibility of putting people's lives in danger by the factors that might affect the consciousness of a driver. So the eliminating of cars does the community good both physically and economically like it is practiced in Vauban, Paris, and Bogota.",0
78d38b70,1,"Dear Senator, Every four years, citizens of the United States ages eighteen and up, gather at local voting locations to elect the President, our government leader. From Washington to Obama we have always elected our leaders as such. The Constitution has given us our way to vote the Electoral College. This process, of course, consists of our 538 electors, the place where they meet to vote, and the counting of said votes. But how effective is this process? Honestly, I believe the Electoral College should be diminished.

Statistics show that direct voting is preferred by the majority of the citizens in the U.S.. According to a poll taken in 2000, 60% of voters would rather direct voting over the current system. With the current "" winnertakeall "" concept in most all states except Maine and Nebraska, many people find that even if 45% of all the votes in the state are for one party, all of the votes go to the opposition. Citizens may as well not even vote under this standard if they wont even be represented.

Although not one vote will decide an election if we had direct voting, many single votes can. Take the 1.4 out of 3 million people in California who voted one way and got all their votes thrown the other because of the other 1.6 million people. With that 1.4 million, mixed with tons of thousands of voters, one party may actually win the election rather then the candidate who would have won with the Electoral College process. For example, in 2000, George W. Bush won the election and most of the Electoral College votes. However , Al Gore got the most individual votes. How can that be fair at all?

When ""we the people"" vote for the president, we are not actually doing what we have come to believe. In reality, we are actually voting for representatives called Electors to vote for the candidate. These electors cast their vote depending on the votes that we you and I, cast. These electors that we choose are generally very trustworthy and reliable, being the reasons we choose these government officials to elect our government leaders. Sadly, however, not everybody is who they say they are, as we all have flaws and sins occasionally one of these electors will be unfaithful and vote for the candidate they deem fit, instead of who we have chosen ourselves. Although this is rare, the possibilities would be negated completely if we simply had direct, individual voting.

To wrap up, I vote that we abolish the Electoral College and allow the citizens of the United States to vote for ourselves. It would make the majorty of the U.S. happier, it will make us better represented, and we will be directly electing our own government officials. I believe that we should amend the old ways and evolve and adapt to newer, better ways, as we always have in the past.",0
79255ae0,1,"If I were to choose between keeping the electoral college or abolishing it, I would chose for abolishing it. The electoral college has a system that can be considered confusing to most americans. This system indirectly transfers citizen's votes to congress. This allows for loopholes and sabotage to be commited during the process of electing a president.

Back in 1960. segregationalists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.

source 2, second paragraph.

This is stating that in 1960 people who opposed Kennedy nearly became his electors. So if they succeeded in becoming his electors his votes would have gone to another opposing candidate. This could not happen with a system of voting that directly connected everyones votes with congress. This was a clear case of sabotage in the election of 1960.

Votes in larger states and smaller states are balanced out so the number of votes would not be based on the number of people in the states. This can be seen as a way to make sure that state votes did not compare to the population of said states. In reality it is limiting the votes of citizens. If people ignored how larger states had more people than smaller states and just thought of everyone as individuals everyone would have a say. The system I am proposing does not view states as the voters, but every american citizen as one. After everyone passed their votes, they would all be tallied and which ever candidate had the most votes would win.

You may think that the votes could be sabotaged, and that politicians could put in fake votes and get rid of real ones. This problem could be dealt with by maximized security. There would be videocameras wherever the votes could be swaped.

I propose this system to ensure that every citizen has a vote, and that corruption while transitioning the votes would be eliminated. This would be a less confusing system that could make voting more efficient.",0
793bb935,0,"global warming has been said to be a problem for years now. it has been said that we are slowly but surely destroying our ozone layers. and air pollution is for sure one of the main causes. Smog levels have risen substantially and it shows, but there are more and more solutions that are beginning to show.

germany definitely has the right approach here. they live in what is pretty much a car free society. in a one square mile city of 5500 people, 70% of them do not have cars. everything in that city is within walking or biking distance so there is no need for one. having a society like this is also very stress relieving in a sense. you no longer have the every day stress of being on a highway or constantly alert for cars, a society like this is for the most part more laid back then a regular one. the amount of exercise is also increased here because you are walking or biking everywhere, you are constantly moving. it is something that every country should take into consideration. the long term effects of pollution will be detrimental to our world and we know that. now is our time to fix that.

tail pipe emission accounts for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in europe and up to 50% in dense cities in the United States. and after near record breaking pollution in just a matter of days, paris decided to put a partial ban on driving. by doing this congestion in the city was down 60%, and by doing this the smog cleared relatively quickly. in this short amount of time that driving was partially banned we were able to see a large decrease in not only pollution but the amount of congestion in a city. not only does this make everyday life safer for every day citizens but improves the living quality of all people by making the air and world cleaner. projects like this are showing multiple benefits and great long term affects, not only for car drivers but for pedestrians that are walking the streets to, if congestion in a busy city is down by that much it makes getting around a lot easier for someone who walksbikesor runs everywhere. i think its crucial for people to understand the upsides to having societies like this. grnated it will be hard to adjust to but the upsides to it will outweigh the cons in the long run.

a big thing to look at here in one of the benefits of having a car free society like this is not just the pollution but the exercise rate. as americans we are without a doubt an overweight country and thats obvious. what having something like this would do for us is incredible. even if it was a one day thing to try like Bogota, Colombia. once a year everyday they have what is called a ""car free day"" where everyone in the city is restricted from using cars unless it is a taxi or transit. this now enforces or allows if you will, everyone to ride a bike, skate, run, or walk to their destination. the streets are left practically empty. when you also do this you can bring improvements to your community. Bogota went from a cracked unevenly paved sidewalk to the replacement of smooth broad and even sidewalks. parks and sport centers have increased and blossomed all throughout the city, and you see the community just start to come together as a whole.

Now with all this being said there obviously are still downsides to cutting out gas producing cars. weather being a main one. suppose it rains one day, how do you get to work? not only that but in warmer climates if you have to go a longer distance to get to your job it gets hot and if you are in your suit and tie you're going to be sweating. if you are a blue collar worker, you have equipment that you have to keep on you at all times not having a vehicle will restrict that. not being able to drive will also slow down many buisnesses that travel to someones home such as a lawn service or a plumber. if you work out of town how do you get to your job? people would have to leave their families and move closer to their workplace if they worked out of town or quit their job. there is a lot to take into consideration when you think about all the possibilities of creating a society like this. and the only way this could work is if it was incorporated the same way that it was for Vauban germany. if you had a one square mile society where everything was walking distance and your job was in the area then i believe it would be extremely beneficial, but areas like that are few and far between and making areas like that would change the geography of the entire country.

by no means are we as a country America ready to change to this kind of society any time soon, but i do think that in due time we can benefit from this in a huge way. but there is a lot that has to change and our nation as a whole has to be willing to conform to this. there would be a substancial amount of change in this nation if this were to happen and we as a country are not one that necessarily likes change. we like our two car white pickett fence houses and cutting that out of everyones lives would no go over well with the majority of Americans. this is something that the future of America needs to seriously take into consideration. its appearant that we are destroying our world every single day and we are one of the main contributors.",0
796c3106,1,"Do you know what the Electoral College is? It's a process that the founding fathers established in the Constitution as a compromise between election of President by a vote in Congress and election of President by popular vote of qualified citizens. I think that we should change the way we vote by changing to election by popular vote for the President of the United States. I feel that this is a good idea and a good way to vote, let me tell you why. It's a good idea because it benefits the public, everyone knows exactly what kind of impact they're making and so it doesn't mess up the votes and or voting. Let's continue, shall we?

It's a good idea because it benefits to the public. The public wants to know exactly who and what they are voting for, they want to know exactly what their vote means to the election. More than half of the time they don't notice what kind of an impact a vote can make or what exactly they are voting for. Also when they do elect a President, the end up getting mad over their finances or taxes because the President that they voted for affected it in a negative way. They wanted to elect him because they wanted a better economy, to benefit them, not to restrict them from not having what they want. This is only my first reason, I have two more to go.

Another reason of why I believe that it's a good idea is because it let's the public know what kind of impact they're exactly making on the election. We all don't want to vote and not know what kind of impact our vote can make. We want to know that we can make a difference on who we're voting for, or who we vote for. They want to know and be sure if they vote for lets say ""Billy Henderson"" that he will lower gas prices and boost the economy, make this world a better place and help all the needy, instead of ""Robert Metinguey"" who will maybe to this and maybe do that. We want to know for sure what we're voting on and how much of a difference it can make. Not to be worried about if it won't happen.

The last reason I have to give for why this a good idea is so that it does not mess up the voting process. According to the gallop pole in the 2,000, taken shortly after Al Gore, thanks to the quirks of the electoral college, won the popluar vote but lost the presidency. Over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. This is what im talking about people. People are losing their elections due to the electoral college. One of the major reasons of why people are wanting a change, there should be no electoral college, only a popular vote for the election. We all want a better Government. I only there was a better way to vote.

Well, there you have it. My reasons are final. I feel that we should change the voting process because it would benefit the public, so everyone can know exactly what kind of impact they're making and so it does not mess up the voting process. Don't do it for the government. Do it for your own sake. If you wanna make a difference, be on my side, and we can. Together.",0
79924dfe,1,"Dear our state Senator, I am writing to you for not only myself but for the citizens of our state. I do not agree with The Electoral College and I think that our way of voting for president should be based off of popular vote. I know our state and our country has been using electoral college as our way of voting for a very long time throughout our nations history. But Electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. and i'll tell you whats wrong with the electoral college.

As you may know we do not directly vote for our president. we vote for our electors who will hopefully vote for the president we want. when the time comes for voting the state legislature are technically responsible for picking our electors. We the people are not always in control of who they vote for and the electors could always defy our will. We do not always control who they vote for. So is it really fair if we vote for an elector who doesnt even support us and our say in who we want to lead our country?

Another reason why i do not agree with the electoral college is for the smaller states. they do not have as much of a say in who runs our country like we do. luckily we are one of the biggest states along with california. but in smaller states they almost have no say at all. they dont even see campaigns because no one running for office pays attention to the smaller states. For instance, The campaign in 2000 seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all.

One of the biggest faults in the electoral college even though it is very unlikely but not impossible is a tie. As you already know if there was a tie the election would be thrown to the house of representatives,where state delegations vote on the president. because each state casts only one vote, the houses selections would hardly even show the will of the people. the people would barely have any say whatsoever. does that seem fair to you?

Those are the reasons why i and many other citizens do not agree with the electoral college. its unfair to us , the people, and smaller states. America is known for being the country of freedom and choice, but if we the people barely have say in who runs our country, are we really eligible to be called that? thats why i think we should use popular vote as our way of electing our president.",0
7997b6e7,0,"The car is a staple in modern day society by many standards, it represents wealth, societal rank however on the more negative side of the matter cars are the result of a majority of deaths in the United States. Alongside the fatalities, cars also pollute the environment that is so very delicate. The benefits of becoming carfree are immense and far outweigh the ""negatives"" that come alongside living without cars.

Cars as many people know see them are recognized for their glamour and attraction, but what is forgotten somewhere in the infatuation with cars is the true devastation they can cause. Cars in the United States and many other countries around the world account for a majority of the fatalities in total. Living without cars would completely irradiate the fatalities due to cars as well as reducing the stress that comes along with having such a hefty responsibility.

Along with the potential danger to humans, in the United States cars are the second largest source of emissions right behind power plants according to paragraph 34. Countries like India and China are among the top few most polluted cities on this planet now imagine the impact of implementing a carfree law. The amount of pollution would go down immensely and the effect that this would have on the lifespan of people living in those countries would be incredulous. Some will argue that this will negatively have a change on their life. And to that I would say, are you willing to sacrifice some of the comfort that a car supplies you for a better life for your children and grandchildren?

Many people acknowledge that buying a car is arguably the second largest and expensive purchases that will be made in your life second to a house. The amount of money that would be saved from living a carfree life would be incredible. Without having to pay car payments, car insurance, and gas fees every month imagine what this money could be going towards. Removing such a monetary factor would reap such high rewards that so many would agree is completely worth some of the sacrifices that would have to be made.

All in all cars are not completely necessary, and that implementing such a thing would have such a benificial outcome for society as a whole. Think not about the present but about the future of the world, and by living a carfree life you are bettering the present community as well as the future world.",0
79b93add,0,"Every year, the residents of Bogota, Colombia celebrate a trending event known as CarFree Day. This skyrocketing campaign has led to as many as 7 million people giving up cars for the day, which reduces air pollution, promotes exercise, and avoids traffic jams. This may seem like a strange phenomenon, but reduced driving is spreading all around the globe. Just to name an example, there are multiple towns who have also caught on such as Vauban, Germany where only as many as 30 percent own cars.

There are multiple advantages to reducing cars from our lifestyles. A very large pro is how much we can reduce Greenhouse gasses. Not too long ago, there was a long span of nearrecord amounts of air pollution in Paris, France. In an attempt to fix this issue, they came up with a plan. The scheme was decided to order Evennumbered license plates to leave their cars behind for the day, or be fined 31 22 Euros. Oddnumbered cars would be told the same would apply for them the following day. Unfortunately, approximately four thousand people were fined, with twenty seven others having their cars impounded. just after five days, the smog was so thick that it rivaled one of the most polluted areas in the world Beijing, China. along with the weather, much of the smog was blamed by the massive amounts of diesel fuel that France uses. Many complained, but after accepting free public transit, and exceptions for hybrids and electric cars, the smog cleared enough for the French to take back the ban.

""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the united states,"" Claims Elisabeth Rosenthal, who wrote ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"". In response to some of these things, a recently finished city in Germany has completely carfree roads with a few exceptions. This is because of a few reasons. Firstly, Vauban, Germany doesn't have any parking, driveways, or garages. the only place you can park is in either of the two large parking garages that you would buy a 40,000 parking space for, along with your home. This has resulted in seventy percent of the population of Vauban to be without cars, and about fifty seven selling theirs to move here. Suburbs like these have been trending all across Eurpope. In return, this has provied the community with less traffic, much less pollution, and the creation of denser cities so it's better for walking to and from the shops and resturuants on mainstreet. According to Heidrun Walter, who is a mother of two, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" With more walking, and less sitting at the wheel, this can also provide more social interactions. Many people now ride bikes together to and from work, and there is less stress from traffic jams due to packed streets. This way, enviroments are more relaxed, open. Even for those who don't give up driving completely, now carpool and travel in groups to reduce gas use and air pollution.

This trend has even begun to spread to the United states, the car capital of the world. Although the Vehicle's immense popularity, the density of usage here has finally started to decline. Teens are getting their licenses later, and not even getting a car until much after. This is also a good thing for multiple reasons. There are less reckless teenagers roaming the streets, and much safer roads, along with the help of Carpooling, there is much less gas being used, and more excercise when people decide to ride their bikes or walk places.

There are numerous reasons we should reduce driving, Let it be reducing air pollution, promoting exercise, and avoiding traffic jams. even if we take small steps, we can create a much healthier lifestyle with just a small change.",0
79da99ff,1,"Imagine a World where the people didn't have a say in electing for a president. People would be living a life where they can't have a say in the government and who runs the government. This would be the life of millions of people if they were to remove the Electoral College. There are many reasons why it is better to keep the Electoral College because it can avoid runoff elections, it will make certainty of outcome, and not having one region to elect a president. Having an Electoral College can change the fate of the people and all the states.

To begin with, runoffs elections can happen if there is no Electoral College, which can be a major problem if it can not be handled correctly. ""For example, in 1968 Nixon and Clinton in 1992 both had only 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College."" With runoff elections there is pressure when no candidate wins a majority of the vost cast, which causes a huge problem when electing the president, but with the Electoral College it reduces the complication making it easier to see the winner. Electoral College helps to provide a clear winner rather than making it difficult. It makes the runoff election process simple.

Secondly, the Electoral College makes sure that there is an outcome. ""In the 2012's election, for example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and rodney."" This means that popular votes have some sort of outcome because it helps the electoral votes go up, but not all the time will the percents be the same. The electoral votes is what is used to decide the president.

Lastly, the Electoral College requires the runner ups to have a multiregional appeal. This is done because no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. For example, rodney was favored by the South in which he gets his electoral votes, but he cannot only count on the South to win the election he also needs to convince the other regions. North, East, etc. Trying to convince the other regions is difficult, but the outcome can help change the future.

To conclude, The electoral College have a positive effect rather than negative. It can help stop the complications when there is a runoff election. Having one makes sure that there is a outcome to one side. Also, forces runner ups to have a multiregional appeal. Keepin the Electoral college can help the United States in a positive way.",0
79f714f8,0,"Personal automobiles and cars have played a major role throughout the world since the invention of the car in World War 2. Cars have been a very successful invention and many people drive their own every day on their way to work, school or other places their feet cannot carry them. Though the car has fulfilled its duties in making the lives of humans easier, it has also contributed to many negative events. For example, car emissions get trapped in the atmosphere and cause living things to breathe in dirty air around them. Therefore, a revolutionary idea has been spreading around the world: using personal automobiles less. The new aspect of using cars less has promoted a happier society, a cleaner environment, and an open attitude towards alternative transportation.

First of all, by establishing an agreement to decrease car use, people have been said to be happier and stressfree. The continuing congestion and traffic jams that are among most areas of the world, create an enormous amount of stress for the people driving. Many develop road rage or irritability and are unhappy after suffering from a long ride home because of traffic. Some believe that cities should become more like Vauban, a community in Germany in which the citizens have given up their cars, because those who live there are not focused on driving and are pleased living in such a manner. Heidrun Walter, a mother who lives in Vauban, portrays her love for this carfree community when she states, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" Rosenthal. By living in an area with little or no use of cars, the society becomes more cheerful and has less stress to cope with. In addition, with no cars people are forced to spend more of their time outside to get from one place to another. In Bogota, Colombia there is an annual carfree day, in which anyone who does use their car has to pay a fine. Many spend their day outside walking or riding their bikes to get around and believe that the carfree day is ""a good opportunity to take away stress..."" Selsky. As they exercise more without cars and enjoy the great outdoors, they wear bright smiles on their faces and look at things with a positive attitude.

With a smaller amount of people using their personal vehicles, less gas emissions are becoming a part of the Earth's atmosphere. Humans breathe in the gases that are polluting the air and can become sick from it. The environment suffers from the dirty air and may not be able to sustain life if there is not a stop to the large amounts of pollutants being emitted into the air. In the United States, passenger cars are the cause of ""up to 50 percent"" of greenhouse gas emissions while in Europe they are ""responsible for 12 percent"" Rosenthal. This means that the car use in the United States is ruining the air around us and assists greatly in creating a disgusting environment. In popular and global cities, pollution is even more noticeable and overwhelming. For example, in Paris smog has become an everlasting issue. The climate in the area contributes to the smog filling the air along with the use of cars: ""Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions"" Chicago Tribune. To reduce the smog in the area, an elaborate plan was taken into action. Cars with even license plates could not drive on certain days and cars with odd license plates could not drive on the other days. By doing this, the air in Paris cleared up dramtically. Therefore by promoting a system where car usage is not as common, the environment can become healthier and cleaner, which benefits the citizens of the Earth.

Last, declining the use of cars creates an open attitude towards alternative transportation methods. Those who live in carfree communities discover new ways to reach the destinations they have reach throughout the day. Some will utilize their body and take advantage of nature by biking or walking from one place or another. Others might us public transportation or will carpool with those who do own a car. As previously mentioned before, Colombia participates in a car free day, which means ""Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses"" to get where they needed to be Selsky. Their use of other means of transportation on the day without cars, exemplifies that it is possible to live using other ways to get around. Some people are against the idea of using other transportation, but if they were to see the impact the alternatives have, they would be more accepting. These days many young people tend to get their license later by waiting until they reach their twenties, suggesting that they can live a happy life without relying on a personal automobile. Instead of using their own cars, they find other ways to get to work or school. These people become acclimated to organizing their lives ""around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends"" Rosenthal. Younger people who commit their lives to walking or public transportation, become aware of the fact that driving a machine that can negatively affect the world is not a necessity. Their awareness then can continue passing on to each generation and can ultimately prevent the excessive use of cars throughout the world.

In conclusion, a life without cars might be a life worth living since it contributes to a stressfree society, a healthy environment, and an acceptance of other means of transportation. By relying less on cars, people can eliminate the variety of negative impacts on the world. The Earth can become a happier, cleaner, and more accepting place with a dead engine.",0
7a5920b0,0,"Fellow citizens should know about the advantages of limiting car usage. It is less stressful and it saves money. It does not pollute the air as much and keeps the global healtheir. Limiting the car usage helps a alot to the citizens and to the earth.

One advantage of limiting car usage is that it is less stressful and it helps you save money. From source 1, Hedirun Walter said "" When I had a car I was always tense."" In the community you could own a car but you were not allowed to park wherever you wanted. You had to park it in large garages and you have to buy space for 40,000 with a home. So most people didn't have cars but they were saving lots of money. 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars and 57 percent sold there cars to move to the community. Most of the people liked walking around the community or just taking the transportation they gave them. It peaceful and less traffic.

Another advantage is that it reduces pollution and also reduces global warming. From source 2, ""After days of nearrecord pollution, paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" If they did not leave their cars at home they would have to pay a fine, 22euro 31. After they have had the cars off the streets ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the of france, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" The cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer to trap car emissions. They also blamed the diesel fuel...""A tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in france, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel engines.."" From source 3, Colombia had a ""carfree day"" where all colombians hiked, biked, skated or took the transportation buses to work. For 3 years they have been doing this being they wanted to reduce the smog. People who disobeyed had to pay 25 fines. "" It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,""said businessman Carlos Arthuro. Since people have started walking or riding bicycles, they have improved the city by fixing the uneven sidewalks and making them smooth. Also since there is no traffic, "" new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" In conclusion, there are many advantages limiting car usage. It saves money, helps the environment and a human's health. Limiting the car usage teaches the citizens that we also have to car about the environment and that is it less dangerous.",0
7a7b297d,0,"Have you ever realized how driving everywhere isn't always the best way to get places? Well, there are a few advantages of limiting car usage for fellow citizens. Think about it, cars aren't all that great, yeah they get you to your destination much faster than, let's say walking or maybe even riding a bike, but that isn't always a good thing. Bikes and walking are so much easier than driving everywhere because in order to drive to your destination you must have gasoline in your vehicle. If you were to walk to your specific destination you will not only get exercise but you can also walk with a friend, it will give you time to hang out with others and be social! Limiting car usage will also limit the amount of accidents on the roads everyday. It will end the ""texting and driving"" situation throughout the streets. The less people driving the safer the ones that do drive will be. People don't realize what cars do that are bad, all of us only see the good in vehicles because we don't want to have to push ourselves to change for the better.

Oh my! 2.56 for a gallon of gasoline will add up very quickly! That isn't the only gasoline that is affecting people either, there is also greenhouse gas from cars driving by. ""And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe..."" Source 1: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars IGS Paragraph 5 Line 34. The greenhouse gas percentage has gotten very high going from Europe to the United States, it is getting quite out of hand if you ask me. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Source 1 IGS Paragraph 5 Lines 46. Prices on gasoline stand very high now a days and it is bringing people downhill because the higher the price the less money they begin to have until they can't go out anymore. In result to trying to solve the pollution of gasoline problem the fined who ever it was that was causing the situation. ""Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters... Twentyseven people had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine."" Source 2: Paris bans driving due to smog PBDS Paragraph 12 Lines 13. I believe that every country, state and city should take at least one day out of the year and make it a no driving day. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" Source 2: PBDS Paragraph 10 Lines 12. If we do the same as Paris we can clear the air and not worry about the pollution as much but there are still other disadvantages for car usage.

Lifting weights? Joining a gym? Those are all good ways to get your exercise but really you could just get in the habit of walking to wear you need to go and get more exercise than you would in the gym. ""While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs."" Source 1 IGS Paragraph 6 Lines 13. Making the cities denser will mean that the citizens who live in them can walk to the stores and resturaunts down the street instead of driving. ""In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway."" Source 1 IGS Paragraph 6 Lines 810. Not to mention the traffic while driving! Walking to your destination will make getting places so much more afficient because you won't have to be late to a meeting or even work at that matter if it is walking distance. ""Congestion car traffic was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of intensifying smog..."" Source 2: PBDS Paragraph 14 Lines 12. If there are less cars on the street and more people on the sidewalks, the world wouldn't be so gloomy. No one is social anymore, they don't care for others they only care for themselves and that is very wrong. If the limit of car usage decreases, the more people will want to walk and be social with others.

Watch out for that....! crash! Safety is so important when you are driving, accidents happen so quickly and if you aren't careful it could be you. This is another reason why limiting car usage is a rather good idea because it will cause accidents to happen less often than they do now. Car accidents happen everyday, maybe to a complete stranger or to someone you know, either way walking is safer. ""In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Columbians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" Source 3: Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota CFDB Paragraph 20 Lines 14. Walking to places is more, what's the word I'm looking for..? Oh! Walking is more social and safe, if you took one whole day without using your car, you could walk and as others catch on to why you are walking they will begin to walk along with you and you will develop the idea that walking is more fun and safe than driving. ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaces by broad, smooth sidewalks rush hour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new resturaunts and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" Source 3: PBDS Paragraph 28 Lines 14. More people will begin to go out and walk for fun after getting in the habit of going with you and you can enjoy the world so much more knowing that the air isn't being as polluting and there won't be a many car accidents. You will save yourself and whoever follows through with you to limit the usage or cars and other vehicles.

Get a few of your friends together and go for a bike ride to the mall! There are some advantages of limiting car usage. Being in your car, whether it be alone or with others, is quite boring. You get to places very quickly but also don't have the experience that you could if you try something different. Try walking to the mall or a resturaunt not so close to you and bring some of your friends, see if you have more of a good time walking than you would driving. Driving is too expensive, you need to pay insurance to drive as well as paying to get gasoline. ""With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may find less reason to resume the habit."" Source 4: The End Of Car Culture TEOC Paragraph 36 Lines 12. People are beginning to realize that cars are not all that great and don't do good for the world, they pollute the air we breathe. The less people to drive the better our cities will be, they will start to have less pollution in the air, less car accidents and more exercise to walk and bike to where you need to be. Be the one to make the clear the air day, and be a role model, show others why you decided to limit car usage.",0
7a8c970f,0,"A day without driving your car? who can't do that. Also making the Earth a better place to live? awesome! Taking advantage of a limiting car using its a great idea because people are lowering air pollution and there's no more rushhour. Getting stuck in traffic isn't pretty nice and most likely if you have a meeting your going to be late. Also people just dont want to own cars anymore.

To start off, I like the idea that people are limiting their car usage because people are lowering air pollution. In source 2, the author explains ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog.. rivaled in Beijing, China, Which is known as one of the most polluted cites in the world."" This means that cars are bad for the environment they had to decrease the number of cars so they could stop the smog because they didn't wanted to end up like china. But however, not using cars is affecting car industry like it states in source 4 ""since ttransportation is the second larges source of America's emissions, just behind power plants. But it could have negative implication for the car industry."" Never the less, air pollution is the main problem like in source 3 in Bogota ""The goal is to promote alternative ttransportation and reduce smog."" The reason they are doing this is for people to find another way to get to their destination and to reduce smog as it states.

Furthermore, I like the idea that people are limiting their car usage because there's no more rushhour. avoiding traffic is great like in source 3 "" Bogota, Colombia In a program that's spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or tok buses to work during a carfree day.. leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic."" colombians do this to avoid traffic and its a cool way because you could ride bikes and skated. likewise in source 4 some Children don't get their driver license its not because they're lazy it's because they don't need them, yeah they come in handy but they're not interseted for example in source 4 they stated ""They organized their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends."" having a car isn't a teenager main interest, they rather walk to a close by place or car pool with their friends.

To sum up, in my opinion I think limiting car usage is a great idea because less air pollution, rushhour, and some people just don't want to own cars.",0
7a962b93,0,"In America, cars are considered an important necessity to life. Cars get people from one place to another in a significantly shorter amount of time than walking from place to place. Cars, however, aren't as beneficial as they may seem. Motorized vehicles are harmful to the environment and ourselves because they release an immense amount of greenhouse gases and force other countries around the world to ban the use of cars to restrict smog.

Firstly, the amount of greenhouse gases released in the United States alone is relatively high compared to more suburban countries. In some large U.S. cities, cars produce approximately 50% of the total greenhouse gases, according to ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"". That percent is extremely high compared to Europe where cars produce only about 12% of the greenhouse gases. Beijing, however, is more polluted than the United States and is said to be the most polluted city in the world. France, on the other hand, has made it a law where certain cars are forbidden to drive on certain days. As a result of France's action, congestion decreased by 60 percent in the capital of Paris. If the United States took a step forward to reduce pollution, the air quality would benefit rather than gradually decline.

Furthermore, other countries around the world have made an effort to reduce pollution. In Bogota, Colombia, there is one day a year where cars are banned with only buses and taxis permitted. The day called ""Day Without Cars"" is promoting alternative transportation and is reducing smog. Vauban, France, for example, is a suburban city where cars are forbidden. Ownership is allowed, however, there are only two places to park and the cost is 40,000 just for a space to park. The people in Vauban tend to be happier and less tense, according to Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two. Paris is a more urban city than Vauban but has still made efforts to benefit air quality. Motorists with evennumbered license plates were demanded to leave their cars at home on Monday. Motorists with oddnumbered license plates left their vehicles home on Tuesday. Congestion decreased by 60 percent. Other countries around the world have put an effort to reduce pollution from motorized vehicles and the results were positive environmentally and mentally.

The use of automobiles greatly impacts the environment and society negatively. Greenhouse gases pollute the air and driving cars produces mental instability in some cases. Other countries such as Colombia and France have taken a step to reduce pollution and since the cars in the United States produce 50% of the greenhouse gases, the U.S. should concider following Colombia and France's ideas.",0
7ac7862e,0,"Some people may view car limitations as bad or inconvenient, but that isn't true. There are plenty or ways to get to where you want to go other than driving. More people have been cutting down on their car usage and it helps with many things. There are lots of advantages to communities and cities when car usage is limited.

Pollution is a major problem in big cities like Bejing, China known as one of the most polluted cities in the world. Cutting down car usage in big cities like this can help get rid of the horrendous smog. Paris, which often has more smog than other European capitals, has made some significant changes to help reduce the smog and harmful greenhouse gasses that are trapped in the air from car emissions. They let cars with even numbered license plates drive on some days and cars with odd numbered license plates drive on others. This reduced the smog in Paris within a few days.

Most people depend quite a bit on their cars. Reducing car usage can help people not to be so dependent on their cars. Instead of driving to work people can ride the bus, take the subway, etc. This will help a lot with the congestion of the roads during rush hours. There will be a lot less traffic if people are carpooling or taking some other mode of transportation, keeping roadways clearer for emergency vehicles and public transportation. There also won't be the problem of people being late if they get stuck in traffic or their car breaks down.

The number of miles people in America drive has gone down significantly since 2005. This means that people are finding better, more efficient ways of getting to where they need to be. This will help everyone in the long run. There will be less money spent on cars, car repairs, and gasoline saving everyone a lot of money. Cars can be very expensive to maintain, especially when no one knows if their car battery is going to die or if they will get a flat tire. Having another source of transportation would save people lots of time and money. If there is less need for cars, then more public transportation will be offered, even in places less populated like the suburbs.

Limiting car usage is helpful for everyone and eventually it will become even more efficient and convenient not to drive a car everywhere. Pollution will go down and money will be saved. There are already entire communities like the one in Vauban, Germany that don't rely on cars. If there were more communities like this around the world, they would help lead the way to a new age where cars aren't as important and people won't have to depend on them as much as they do now.",0
7ae2e889,0,"To you, a car may mean no more than just getting from point A to point B. Cars play a much bigger impact than it may seem. They affect not only the person driving, but the people around it. They also have a negative impact on the greenhouse gases. So riding a bicycle to work one day, won't just be good for you, it will also be good for the environment around you.

Cars have become a universal item. A lot of people have them, but no really gives them much thought. There are a few places that have spent the time and really developed ways to keep a community clean without the hazardous fumes coming from the car exhaust. For example, Vauban, Germany has developed a system where cars are banned. The only place you can keep your car is on the outskirts of town in designated garages. Due to this, most people dont even have a car, and have chosen to sell it before moving in. In Bogota, Columbia they had a developed a day free of cars where anyone that drove a car would have to pay a fine. According to the governer it was a amazing thing and everyone was participating in it. This also helped get some the nasty gases that they produce away.

Cars give of hazardous gases threw their exhaust. These gases will rise and get caught in the ozone. Which impacts the environment greatly in more ways than one. It can cause the air your breathing to be toxic. It also is one of the main reasons for ""Global Warming"". Paris learned this the hard when they reached a record level pollution. They decided they had no choice but to ban half the cars one day and ban the other half the next day. After this the congestion was down 60%, proving that it has helped greatly. Just imagine if one day instead of driving you could ride a bike and help change the environment.

Places have tried to develop ways to reduce the levels or gases. Some have been very succesful, for example, in Bogota and Vauban they have found creative ways to help. The question is whether or not cars should be done with all together. To that i'd have to say no, cars play a big part in getting to work on time or traveling. Taking cars away would mean taking away family trips and other fun things to do with cars. The real answer to the question is that cars should not become so much of a necessity. There should be ways for people to get around better without the use of cars. Now what that might be, the future has yet to tell.",0
7b03bdee,0,"Cars have been a part of our culture and society for a very long time now, but this might need to change as limiting the usage of care would lead to substance benefits to our society. these benefits are a lowered carbon footprint, not having to spend as much on upkeep and lowered public transportation costs, and more closely knit communities with healthier people.

To begin, limiting car usage would greatly reduce our carbon footprint thus help the environment. This is because emissions from cars produce around 12 percent of the greenhouse gasses in Europe and could be up to 50 percent in certain carintensive areas in the United states. If we where to cut down on driving there would be a significant reduction in the pollution in the environment. Paris is already enacting laws around this where only people with odd license plates where able to drive one day and even plate numbered cars the other. This has lead to less congested roads and lower amount of smog in the city.

Another draw to limiting car usage lies in lowered cost of public transportation and less money having to be spent on car upkeep and insurance. If people where to use more public transportation instead of personal cars people not have to worry about needing a car and instead keep the money that would normally go to upkeep and insurance to use on other things. Furthermore if public transportation became more nessisary, then public transportation will be cheaper such as in Paris where public transportation became free for the week when they where testing the new law.

Lastly with a reduction in car usage there would be better suburban planning like in Vauban, Germany and people getting more exsersize. Over in Vauban driving cars is severly limited so locations like shopping centers are a walk away from houses and the city is more closly knit with more bike and pedestrian paths. With people walking more that would help with the growing obesity problem Amarica is currently facing and could lead people to live healthier lifestyles In conclusion limiting car usage would be a very fruitful endevear because of the reduction of our carbon footprint, not having to pay car insurance and lowered cost of public tranportation, and more closly knit communities away from the roar of an engine the world would be much better off.",0
7b726748,1,"The electoral college is a very important this to keep when desiding the presidentd. Our founding father established this process in the constitution. The president has to have transregional appeal he cant just have a lot of states on his side. it is true that public voters dont directly vote for the presidentt and sometimes the electors may not vote for the right person.

The process of the electoral college is writen in the constitution by our founding fathers. Its a compromise between congress votes and the peoples votes. To win the electoral votes you have to have 270 votes witch is the majority of the votes. Every candidatees has his or hers own group of electors that are choosen by the political party.

The presidenttal candidatee has to have transregional appeal because a candidatee with regional appeal is unlikely to win. If a candidatee were to campaign heavily in one region he or she will gain no electoral votes. so the candidatees have to go croos contry and not stick to one region to actully gain anything. A candidatee can make every person in one region vote for him. But the candidatee that go cross contry have a better chanse of wining because they have more electoral votes.

Yes a public vote does not go directly to helping a person win but it does help. if there were no electoral colled a candidate could go to all the heavily populated state and get all those votes and be puy in to office like that. Just because you are voting for a slate of electors does'nt mean you are not voting. The publics votes go twored helping choose the electors that vote for the presidentt.

The electoral college is a good thing to have when voting for the presidentt. Its a compromise between congress and the citizens thta was set by the founding fathers. It makes it so that a candidatee cant just win over one part of the connery and win he or she has to win over the majority of the people. Yes you are voting for people to vote for you but your votes choose those people. The electoral colleg is a grate prosse to have and keep.",0
7b9e799c,1,"Dear Mr.Mrs. senator I believe that you should consider voting against the electoral college. Now you may ask why, but, I assure you that the electoral college is a way for corrupt presidential candidates to win the office and make this great nation a horrible place. To back up my reasoning here are 3 reasons as to why you should consider voting against the electoral college. Segregationists replacing voters of one candidate for another, the election could become a catastrophe if a tie were to happen, there is a chance of a ""disaster factor"" happening.

In 1960 segregationists in Louisiana nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose J.F.K. Source 2, Bradford Plumer, The indefensible electoral college: why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong, P. 11, line 44 Imagine if the corrupter had been able to corrupt the election, we might have had a fiasco bigger than the 2000 presidential fiasco. If we were to continue to turn our backs on the matter we would soon be run by fatasses who spent all their time gaming and would claim they know exactly how the system works, opposed to a real man who spent all his time rising from the bottom up and knows the system by heart. Who do you think would win if those 2 people were to run for President? Not the one who should.

Some people claim an electoral tie is impossible, but, in 1968 a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election, if that doesn't seem so bad lets take a look at how many people are in the United States alone. In 1976 a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 voters from Ohio and 3,687 from Hawaii had voted the other way. Plumer, P. 12, line 80 The election is really only a few swing voters away from catastrophe, and possibly, the worst government shutdown these United States have ever seen. So, if 41,971 voters from 1968 didn't seem like alot, then lets look at the 9,246 voters from 1976, ties are seemingly getting closer and closer, what will happen when it is too late?

There is always the off chance of a ""disaster factor"" occuring, like the one in the 2000 Al Gore VS. Bush Presidential election. Imagine if that were to happen again, only, this time, we put a blood thirsty, war hungry, nuclear savage into office. Imagine the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from 2000present and then imagine them being fought on our own soil, imagine, instead of little Iragi children fighting against an invading force, your children fighting against an invading force, and that is just one of the minor things that could happen. Imagine if we put a man in office who thought the way to answer everything was through nuclear war, imagine what would happen to the United States. These are just a few examples of what could happen if another ""disaster factor"" were to happen again.

These are the 3 reasons as to why i believe you should consider voting against using the electoral college. Imagine if We the People actually got to vote OUR favorite president into office on OUR own terms instead of some idiots a political party throws together, imagine how much better off we would be than we are now.",0
7c104f04,0,"The works of a car have created wonders to people as early as the early 1900s. Now people need to understand the advantages of limting car use. Pollution has gone down in cities from not using cars and people have reported less stress, which is due to the car rates going down. Many people have argued that jobs are going to go more down then we may need, if we stop using cars, but there is always a way to fix small situations such as that.

Studies have shown cars have created pollution for the environment. Pollution can cause sickness and other affects that can cause a habitat to be inhabitable.""passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50% in some carintensive areas in the United States,""Rosenthal,5. Though, we can fix that. Many cities such as Paris,France have experimented with the law involving cars to see if the country can have a pollution decrease and they did, within the first day. Duffer reported that on Monday Paris created a ban for the evennumbered plates and the smog was able to clear in one day's time. ""The smog cleared enough money for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday,"" Duffer,19.

People have argued that stopping car production may cause people to lose their jobs. There is a way to fix that. Selsky reported that in Bogota,Colombia because of the car distribution slowing down they were able to make parks and sport centers accessible. ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city,""Selsky,28. With that being said without people running any of those faclities then parks and sport centers wouldn't be that accessible to the fellow citizens. So by creating more places like parks and sport centers, and less places like car factories we would be able to limit car usage without the worry of someone losing their job and not being able to get one.

Cars have also been known to cause stress. In the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" Rosaenthal quoted Heidrun Walter talking about how tense she was when she had a car. The constant worrying for gas and car bills may be a factor towards the stress in someone's life. Young adults have not worried as much for a car, making the somewhat more content. ""Mine 19 and 21 have not bothered to get a driver's license, even though they both live in places where one could come in handy,"" Rosenthal,39.

Limting car use can cause a major impact on today's society. ""Demographic shifts in driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate,"" Rosenthal,38. It has many advantages that people should understand. Pollution rates can go down. Stress could go down once you start limting car use.",0
7c48cf57,1,"Is the Electoral College a good thing? A Majority would say no and that it is a non democratic method of selecting a president. Many believe this system should be changed, as it is not really an accurate way to show what the majority wants, and that the president of the united states should be chosen through the popular vote. What if there is a tie in the electoral vote? In the case of a tie the election would be given to the house of representatives. Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for congress, this isn't really and accurate reflection of the will of the people.

The electoral college is a system that has voters vote for a slate of electors, not the president. If you lived in california, for example, and voted democrat, you actually voted for a slate of Democratic electors pledged to the Democratic party. These electors, if they won the statewide election, would then go to congress and the Democrat candidate would recieve the vote of these electors. Anyone not holding public office can be an elector. And it depends on the state on how they are picked. Sometimes the presidential candidates themselves choose who the electors are. Voters can't always control who the electors end up voting for.

Of course the electoral college method has its upsides. Being that with this system in place the outcome of the election is more certain. Of Course a dispute over the outcome is possible, it did happen in 2000, but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. However, it can be argued that this method can turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state, Democrats in Texas for example, or Republicans in California. These voters, knowing their vote will have little to no effect, would have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would if the president was chosen through the popular vote.

At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Most states have a winnertakeall system in place. Which means that they award the winning presidential candidate all of the electors votes. Because of this candidates dont spend time in states they have no chance of winning. They choose to mainly focus on the undecided states. In some cases, states don't get to see the candidates at all during the campaign, or even a single campaign ad.

In short, Does the electoral college work? In some ways yes but in many ways no. The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The electoral college should be abolished, and the decision of who becomes president should be left to the popular vote seeing as it is a more accurate representation of the collective will of the people.",0
7cf9ac79,0,"There are many advantages to limiting car usage, for example, it lowers the amount of emmisons present in the atmosphere which can lead to a better planet. All around the world people have started using cars less and less because of the problems they cause, such as pollution and traffic, and have started moving to a better idea of society where everyone lives in a closer area with stores and jobs within walking distance. The life of cars is ending but our life is just getting better.

Since the times of World War 2, people have had the idea of spreadout homes and private garages but with new times come new ideas, new ideas of closer centered, compact cities. These new cities would have most shops and businesses in close quarters with housing to reduce the need for automobiles and have walking as a more reliable mode of transportation as well as a small amount of public transportation to assist with the more lengthy distances between home and work. In this new approach stores are placed closer to home along walkways rather than in malls along highways in the distance. This would reduce the space needed for the shopping centers as well due to the fact that they would no longer need large parking lots for all the vehicles that were once needed to commute to and fro.

Emissions and greenhouse gases have been a problem in modern society due to the fact that almost everyone has an automobile. This has been creating a large amount of stress on the environment and can lead to problems in the near future. Because of these problems, many environmental agencies have started regulating car usage to try to keep the environment safe. Some of the ways they are doing this include promoting ""car reduced"" communities, which rely more on public transportation serving the suburbs than personal transportation. This helps to cut down on traffic and in turn the amount of emissions produced by cars on the road. Another way to prevent this is to ban the act of driving all together. Paris has done this in the past to combat the amount of smog accumulating in their city by banning the driving of certain license plate numbers which reduced the amount of traffic and emissions.

Car free cities are also very popular. an example of this is Bogota, Columbia. They have had cars banned for the last three years, minus buses and taxis. The goal of this project was to promote alternate means of transportation and reduce smog. This has created over 118 miles in bicycle paths as well as broad smooth sidewalks. The amount has traffic has also been cut in half during rushhour thanks to new restrictions. New restaurants and upscale shopping has also come up all around the area. The amount of smag has also been reduced significantly and air quality has made a huge jump.

Overall, the age of the car is coming to an end, but it is making our life better and easier. Hopefully these new restrictions and ideas will help us to reduce smog, cut down on traffic and produce a better, more stressfree, lifestyle. Then, maybe we can all become ""Urban commandos"" someday. The term ""Urban commando"" is trademark of the k Branch of 4Chan. org and is not to be used by any parties who do not assume the responsibilities of carrying this title.",0
7d062c2b,1,"Dear Senator, I believe that we should let our nation's President be chosen by popular vote. The Electoral College is a wonderful idea don't get me wrong, but it seems as if with the Electoral College, the candidates running for U.S. President are just getting free votes and could defy the will of the people.

When a candidate runs for office, aka Presidency, it means that he also has to choose his electors, but sometimes the state picks them. The electors can be anyone not holding public office. So when a voter wants to vote for their choice of candidate, they would have to send their vote for a group of Democratic or Republican electors that are pledged to your candidate. If your candidate won the statewide election, then they would go to Congress and your candidate would get however many electoral votes that he received from winning. ""The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor,"" according to Source 2. ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy, so a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy."", according to Source 2. Some electors occasionally refused to vote for their candidate and wanted to instead vote for some who they actually want to vote for. Another worrying factor is if the Electoral College had a tie. If that were to happen, then the election would be given to the House Of Representatives, and then the state delegations vote on the president, and the Senate would choose the VicePresident.

By the electors defying the will of the people, then the wrong President could be elected into office. If a majority of state voters wanted a candidate to be President, but the electors thought differently, then they could be unfaithful and vote for whoever they wanted to. Where would we be then? ""Most states have a ""winnertake all"" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate,"" according to Source 1. Some states, like Maine and Nebraska each have some type of ""proportional representation"". The reason I believe that we should have a popular vote is because you never know with the Electoral College. One minute they could be voting the way they should be, and the next they could be going against the will of the people and the state overall.

Overall, I think it we should rely more on ourselves than the Electoral College. It was a fantastic idea, but the electors could change their mind in a split second and who knows who could be going into office instead of the President we actually need and want to run our nation for the next four or more years.",0
7d6f7666,0,"How important is a persons car to them? Do they really need to have their own car? It would be more ecofriendly if they just car pooled, or even walked. It seems this question has occurred to a lot of people in high places. These people then used their positions to ban cars in many busy cities, with marvelous results.

Some where in Germany, there's a social experiment going on. This experiment is taking place in a small suburban town called Vauban. The people in this community have taken a huge leap of faith and got rid of all cars. But don't worry, they couldn't be happier. Their streets are nearly empty with virtually no traffic, they have less stress, and they don't have to worry about all the expenses that come with car ownership. The streets are very close together with stores on pratically every corner, to prevent having to go long distances. All they have to do is take a nice stroll down main street and have everything at their fingertips. They don't have to worry about people parking on their front lawns, or people flying dangerously fast down the street. It's just simple and easy.

Granted, having a car available does have benefits. Owning a car can give people a sense of freedom. It's like a reassurance that no matter what, people have the means to get something done. Without having to depend on others. If there's an emergency, people don't want to have to wait for the next bus to come through. They want to get there as quickly as possible. Owning a car makes that possible. Owning a car can also make visiting that aunt that lives three states away possible. Without having to ride a cramped, smelly bus to get there.

On the other hand, going without a car certainly has more pros than cons. There's less stress, it's cheaper, there's less traffic, it's healthier, and there's less pollution. For instance, in Paris, there was so much smog, they had to ban cars. If people violated the ban they had to pay a fine, or even get their car impounded. They blamed diesel fuel for the smog, because in France, that's nearly 67 percent of cars fuel. The cities smog rivaled Bejings', and that's the most polluted city in the world! Going without a car is also less stressful. People don't have to worry about how they'll make the next car payment, or how they might run out of gas. There's also virtually no chance of getting in an accident. Afterall, how is someone going to get in an accident without a car?

Not only is going without a car the better economical choice, its the best personal choice. Why would someone deliberately put themsleves through the stress of owning a car, when they can easily go without? Though it has some benefits, like being independent, those benefits are greatly outnumbered by the pros of going without. It's just cheaper and less stressful.",0
7d9fa6bd,1,"""The electoral college is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between electionn of the President by a vote in Congress and electionn of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" The Electoral College is one of the most fair systems our society has set up. This process is fair and essential because it is is not the only determination, each state gets the correct amount of power, and it shows a clear winner.

The Electoral College does is not fully responsible for the outcome of the decision for our President. In the year 2000, this was proved, Gore had received more popular votes than Bush, yet fewer electoral votes. ""It is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote."" The section of the nation that believes the Electoral College is unfair believes this because they assume all the power is in this system's hands. Yet they are mistaken because clearly our popular vote can override this system if necessary. Though it is very rare most will argue, the fact that it is possible to not allow the Electoral College to take control of our government proves that the power is really all in the hands of the citizens. Clearly, the ""unfair"" picture most perceive is largely mistaken.

The sizes of states in our country widely varies. From Rhode Island to Texas, we have power in Congress. It would simply not be fair if our small states had the same amout of power as our larger states. California has more of a population, therefore should have more say in Congress, than New Jersey. ""Your states entitles allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators."" Just the way this is set up in Congress, the same amount of power for each state is applied for choosing our President for the next four years. This is only fair to the population of America and equal representation in all the sections of congress would be unfair to the larger states that obviously require and deserve more power than the smaller states in the United States. Basically, power is fairly given to each state under the Electoral College.

""The Electoral College avoids the problem of electionns in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."" Though this situation is rare, in 1968 when Nixon ran against Clinton, both had a total of 43 percent of the popular votes. Yet, because of the Electoral College, a clear winner was shown. If ever in case of this event, this ""pressure"" can complicate and make the choosing of the President way more difficult than it was planned to be. For this reason, our Electoral College sets up a way to take care of this if it was to happen again. Obviously, the Electoral College shows a clear winner and takes out any confusion or problems that could arise.

To conclude, our country is based off of fair rules and systems, one of them being the Electoral College. It is fair because it does not have full power, the right amount of power is applied to each state, and it produces a clear winner. ""Voters in presidential electionns are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election.",0
7da5e81c,0,"An industrial world without cars may seem to be ages away, but according to the studies conducted in the passages, the reduction of car use is very positive culturally, environmentally, and even economically.

One advantage of a society without cars is a relief of stress. The residents of Vauban, Germany, a carfree suburban town, are much happier there. They don't have to deal with the pollution of gas emission or noise pollution from traffic they simply hear bicycles swishing by and children playing.

Car free towns have been an intriguing idea for years now even major organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation for America are willing to pursue carfree cities for many reasons. The major motivation for getting rid of cars is pollution. In Europe, 12% of gas emissions come from cars, and in some carintensive areas in America, gas emissions from cars reach 50%. There was even a ban on driving in Paris for a short while when the smog became too hectic. That's a massive amount of pollution an amount that can be greatly reduced.

Some countries are slowly getting on board with the whole ""carfree"" idea. In Bogota, there's a car free day where everyone takes alternative forms of transportation to get around, be it buses, bikes, or skateboards, which makes a huge difference in such a heavily populated metropolis. The citizens really enjoy this day, hinting that a car free life is more enjoyable. This car free day has even spread to other Colombian cities like Cali and Valledupar and will soon spread to other countries as well.

If a car free society is ideal, how come we don't have it yet? Currently, we still depend greatly on cars giving them up wholly is a very radical change. However, governments are working into it slowly. On top of carfree towns like Vauban and carfree holidays like in Bogota, carfree cities are being planned. These cities would be very dense, making it easier to get around with a bike, on foot, or on public buses and metrorails rather than in a private car. This will reduce pollution greatly, spawn a healthier population, and even support local business growth now that local restaurants will be a walk away from one's home. Even today, cities have been favoring alternative transportation with tolls on cars that exempt bikes.

It is even evident in America that the amount of people getting drivers liscences has been dropping steadily. Culturally, everything is growing to be more local: carpools, public transportation, and the internet keep eveyone connected without having to use private cars.

In the final analysis, shifting towards a society that is less dependent on cars will bring about very positive results. People will be able to enjoy a more local, connected, and happier environment and nature will flourish too with the relief of pollution, both in the form of noise and gas emission. Hopefully, the reduction of car use will be well under way in the near future and we can progress, improving society and repairing the global ecosystem.",0
7dd104f2,1,"Dear State Senator, The Electoral College has been here since the founders of this country put it in our Constitution to please both sides. This Electoral College has made a lot of history in our great nation and we appreciate what it has done for us. It's a huge part of our election process but is time we move on from it. Their have been to many instances where a presidential candidate has had the popular vote but has lost because he didn't have enough electoral votes. ""It happened in 200, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the first time since 1888"" source 3 This may have not happened more than twice but this could easily happen again and cause a catastrophe. This is why I disapprove of the electoral college.

This process is also unfair to voters because when they vote for a president they are really voting for electors. The electors can be any citizen so the voters don't know who the electors are. Voters can rarely decide who the electors vote for which puts them at a disadvantage and is an inconvience for the voters. ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president"" source 2.

There has been several of organizations and people who have tried to get the electoral college deleted from election processes including..."" Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole , the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO"" Source 2. These are multiple people with proven track records and are some of many who are ready for change. The electoral college has brought good and bad to our country but there are times when things should be left in the past.

Using the popular vote as the one and only way of electing presidents is needed in this country. The choice of presidents should be soley up to the american people. There should be no electoral college that can totally change the outcome of a election because one candidate doesent have enough electoral votes. In my eyes it appears the electoral college has slightly to much impact on the outcome of the election. Imagine running for president and you when the hearts of the voters with popular votes but happen to lost the election because you didn't have enough electoral votes. How would you feel about the electoral college after that experience? This is why there is a need for change in the electoral college. Save candidates from losing an election that they should have one but didn't because they didn't have enough electoral votes.",0
7e063298,0,"imagine a world, twenty or so years from now, completely free of any nature. there is not a single tree, bush, flower or even a blade of grass to be found. only concrete roads and dirt everywhere, along with our cars driving on them. in the cars are us, fat lazy people sitting in our cars, irritated and hollering out profanity at the mile long row of traffic as we try to get ot work. the cause of all this is toxic gases emitted by our cars. this is our future. do we really want this to happen to us and ouur beautiful planet earth? i know i don't, and thats why all around the world, cities and even entire countries are doing something about it, they are working on cutting back peoples' vehicle usage, or even eliminating it. without the cars, there would be a drastic decrease in pollution, peoples' physical health would improve, and no more stress.

we all use cars, it has become a daily thing for all of us. we have become so accustomed to driving that we don't even think about it. we never thought about just how much damage our cars were doing on our home, planet earth. cars are the leading source of pollution, everyday the pollution is ripping away at our ozone layer, slowly dooming us all and we are defiantly feeling the heat from it. places such as Vauban, Germany, have given up cars completely. in this experimental district, street parking, driveways and home garages are forbidden and, except for the main thoroughfare, the streets are completely car free. thanks to this, greenhouse gases in this area have gone down. residents of this town don't even seem to mind the car free life, they even enjoy it. having clean air makes this district a beautiful place to live in.

not having motor vehicles also can improve physical health. humans, especially Americans, have become incredibly lazy, and as a result, incredibly fat. no one has time in their busy schedule to excessive. everyone is too busy with work, school, kids, chores, or anythinng else. but, if we all got rid of cars and people either walked to and from their destinations, we would all be losing weight, be more aactive and be so muuch helthier. also, the helthier you are, the longer you live, so getting rid of cars will increase your life span!

having a car can also mean having a lot of stress. theres traffic backing you up making you an hour late for work, high gas prices sucking all the money out nof your wallets, expensive repair prices, and you are always putting your life at risk if you get into an accident. all this to think about while your just trying to get from point A to point B can be very stress full. but if everyone walked or biked to and from wherever, there would be much less traffic, no need for gas, the only repairs you would have to get is pumping more air in your tires, the onnly accident you might have is runninng your bike into another's bike and as long as you wear the right protectionn gear, you are very safe.

all of these factors add up to a safer, cleaner, helthier environment. if we all start now to eliminate cars, theworld would bbe a much bbetter pllace.",0
7e1c0cbd,0,"Many people wonder whether or not cars should be ban to help save the environment. They dont know if that would help us or make matters worse. Their are many advantages to not using cars. Some people just can't seem to let go of their cars. They need a push to get started and to stop using their cars every single day.

Their are multiple advantages to the banning of cars. One example would be getting rid of air pollution. Most air pollution is caused by cars so if you get rid of cars you will also get rid of air pollution. Air pollution can cause a lot of different problems it can cause people to get sick or many other things, so getting rid of it completely could help a lot of people.

Another thing people wouldn't have to worry about would be traffic jams on the way to work. During the week some many people are trying to get to and from work at the same time it causes a traffic jam. People are often late to work because of this reason. So putting a ban on cars could help out with that. People could walk to and from work or ride a bike. This would limit the number of traffic jams and people wouldn't have to worry about being late to work.

If people walked everywhere instead of drove everywhere people would be getting a lot of exercise and that could help too. Cars make us seem lazy where we drive everywhere we want to go but if we walk or rode a bike that could help out in many ways. Walking could get things off your mind you could walk with a friend that way you can hangout and talk about things while you walk. Walking could relieve stress. It could calm you down and just make you relax for a few and forget about all your problems.

Putting a ban on cars could also help the town in which you live in, not only by limiting air pollution but it could boost town activity. New restaurants would be built, and more places to shop. People would spend money on other things besides gas for their cars. Town businesses would do better and make more money, also new businesses could form.

Also getting rid of cars could limit the amount of deaths every year. Many deaths every year come from car accidents, drunk drivers, people not paying attention and many other things. If everyone walked or rode bikes to the places they wanted to go that could get rid of many deaths that happen every single day. That would make the world safer in so many ways.

Getting rid of cars and not depending on cars for everything could be what this worlds needs to improve itself. This could take us one step closer to living longer, happier, and healthy lives. People wouldn't have to worry about getting a car or paying insurance on a car. People wouldn't have to worry about getting their kids license, teaching them how to drive or anything like that. The number of deaths each year could go down and things could change for the better.",0
7e5c5f2f,1,"Electoral College is where we pick our state electors to choose our president. We as citizen get to help choose our state's electorss when we vote. It's a benefit to keep our Electoral College in the government system.

After all, Electoral College do have their negatives. In the source ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer claims that ""voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electorss."" We are not voting for our own president, but choosing an electorss for our own state to go on and help us vote for our United States of America's president,but with an Electoral College every state get two Senators and one House of Representatives. Which divide everything equally. Our votes are counted by our population of people. So, the Electoral College shouldn't be change.

Mainly, Electoral College help us vote for our president. In the source ""What is the Electoral College"" by the Office of the Federal Register assert that the winner of the president is ""election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" The more popular votes our states is given the higher chance that president is going to be elected. ""Majority of 270 electorsal votes is required to elect the president"" out of 538 votes for a president to win. With an Electoral College each president have to get at least 270 electors votes from all the 50 states for them to be president.

Lastly, Electoral College have no runoff elections. In the source ""In defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner mentioned that with no runoffs there wouldn't be any ""complicate the presidential election process."" There will never be a tie votes between an election. For example, between Nixon and Clinton both got 43 percent popular votes which is a tie and hard to pick, but with an electors vote their votes are 301:370 which is a big difference.

In summary, Electoral College is a useful system in the government that should be kept in place. It has been used over the years and it would be a pain to change everything now.",0
7e5e9ffb,1,"America was built upon the foundation known as democracy, yet we have been desecrating on what we believe in for years. I am talking about the electoral college, the process of picking a president or senator through voting for what an elector decides on and acts as a representative for what a certain region decides to vote for. From the Office of the Federal Register, ""The Electoral College consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral vites by Congress."" I do not believe that the electoral college is a wise decision as it being the process of voting for our next leader.

Many people disagree with my opinion and there are a few reasons why, that even I support. From the article ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president,"" by Richard A. Posner, he states that the outcome is certain when applying electoral college to a vote, while a dispute can be more likely to occur using the popular vote method. However, the electoral college can even decrease the percentage of voters in the country. There are Democrats in Texas while California has Republicans. This means that there are electors who already know what they're voting for and the candidates only visit ""swing"" states or states who have no preference on what party they are voting for. This will decrease the chance of voters to vote in a state that already knows what party the electors of their state will vote for.

I agree on the basis that vote by popular election is more applicable to the situation of voting rather than by electoral college. One reason is the messup that occurred on the presidential election voting in 2000. The problems of the electoral college is the reason why Florida screwed up and George Bush became president rather than Al Gore, who won the popular vote. Taken from the Article, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" by Bradford Plumer,""Answer: Abolishing the electoral college! They're not alone according to a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote, but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" Another reason as stated by Plumer's article,""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the president."" What would happen if there is a tie on the votes the elector gets? Would the elector simply choose one or the other or might not even vote at all. I also believe that it is unfair that each state gets the number of electors based on the population of the state. If California was Republican while Idaho could be for Democrats, then both do not have an equal value because California has more people. Overall, electoral college seems sophisticated but whatever happened to being ""plain and simple?"".

Voting through the popular vote method seems much easier and much better than voting within a certain region counts as one vote. It would be much simpler if every vote of every single person counted as it's own vote for the president, not for an elector. This makes your vote not seem that worthy and is the cause of discouragement of voting. From the Office of the Federal Register it states that, ""Most states have a ""winnertakeall"" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate."" There is proportional representation or statistics involved, simply who gets more takes it and it would be unfair to each person with this method.

In conclusion, the electoral college is an outdated process for electing a president and should be changed to whoever, wins the popular vote because deepdown, the people are the key figure in voting. With this process, you are undermining you, your state, and even your country by continuing with this absurd and unnescessary process when it could be all voted and decided, ""by the people and for the people.",0
7e657ec1,0,"Places around the world such as Germany, America, Paris, and Columbia are all contributing to reduce the use of cars to help make the Earth a better place. In German they dont allow cars except to be parked in a large garage along with a 40,000 fine so people can transport without using a car. Paris bans the use of cars to prevent smog which was indeed a problem there. In Bogota, Columbia, they pitch in to help by hosting a carfree day every year, once a year leaving people the options to hike, bike, skate, or take a bus promoting the use of excessive. Advantages to limiting car usage is reducing people from having stress and tenacity and saving the Earth from pollution and smog. Saving people from stress can be helped by the vacancy on the roads, things that limited car usage can provide. Limited car usage can also help contribute to the absence of air pollution and smog and saving your money.

""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" reported Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two. She, Heidrun Walter, along with others is thankful for the ban of cars because the ban reduces stress and density. businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza can second this statement and does by stating ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress..."". With the absence of traffic jams stress can most definitely be altered to a place of no stress and carfree day can leave the streets devoid of traffic jams, according to Andrew Selsky. Stress can drive someone crazy and it's in everyone's best interest that we, as residents of the world, try and stop the things that can cause stress. Some may argue that not having a car is stressful, but having stress over the presence of traffic jams can over see any other kind of stress to be thought of. Heidren Walker and Andrew Selsky can both support that argument that having a car is a lead to stress that a reduction of cars can eliminate. density and stress aren't the only upsides to a limitation on cars.

Are you tired of not being able to see bevause of smog and having bad particles in the air? Limitation can take away these issues! Paris can definitely be one to complain because in Robert Duffer's article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" they had 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter a little over Brussels counts and almost twice as the amount in Londons. Bogota is also struggling with the presence of smog and are in hopes to anialate the smog by having a carfree day. Carfree day also helps make the air pollution vanquish. Carlos Arturo Plaza gives his opinion by commenting ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Limitating how much you use your car can greatly help places around the world and help your own body.

Almost 4,000 drivers were fined because they chose to invalidate the regulation of not using their car according to Robert Duffer. Is it worth paying the prices? Using your cars overly or when you shouldn't is like throwing away food when you're hungry. It does no good and gets you in a messed up situation. In German suburbs people had to pay a price of 40,000 to pay for a spot to park their car. Is it worth it? People who drove on carfree day had to pay fines of 25. Is it worth it? So much money is down right wasted because of the use of cars so why go down the road of empty pockets? It's not worth it. Save money and live better by not throwing your money down the drain.

Places around our world is promoting limiting car use in places like Germany, America, Paris, and Columbia. Germany and Paris are both bannings cars and Columbia is having a carfree day. Making sure we dont over use our cars can help with saving ourselves from stress, saving ourselves from smog and air pollutants, and saving ourselves from an empty wallet.",0
7e8023fb,0,"Transportation is a must in today's society, and car usage plays a big role in the subject. Limiting car usage has many advantages. Reduced usage of cars can help the environment in various ways. Less car usage can help citizens be less dependent on cars, and can be a great stress reliever for others.

The environment is a big part of the lives of people and needs to be taken care of. Cars are known for polluting the air and damaging the environment. One of the problems about the air pollution involves greenhouse gas emissions. In the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, Paragraph 5 states ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"". Limiting car usage can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Smog is another issue due to car usage. Paris is a known city for smog. In the article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, it says ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals... Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London, Reuters found."", meaning that smog is a big problem in the environment. Air pollution can be reduced with limited car usage and can help the environment in which we live in. Being independent can be one of the many benefits of limited car usage.

Relying on car usage can put people at a disadvantage. Limiting car usage can help citizens become less reliant on automobiles. Paragraph 20 states ""BOGOTA,ColombiaIn a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" Source 3, Andrew Selsky. There are many differents ways of using transportation without having to rely on car usage. Jobs and businesses can be accessible through many alternative choices of transportation. Source 4, by Elisabeth Rosenthal, states ""He and I have similar obsercations about our children. Mine 19 and 21 have not bothered to get a driver's license, even though they both live in places where one could come in handy. They are interested, but it's not a priority. they organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk of take public transportation or carpool with friends."" paragraph 39. Different Transportaion routes, or options, gives a wider variety of getting somewhere. Limited car usage can help citizens be more independent with transportation. Limited Car usage can be a way of relieving stress.

Citizens believe that limited car usage gives them the advantage of relieving stress. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" Source 1, Paragraph 3. Reduced car usage can cause a fellow citizen to feel happier. Paragraph 35 of Source 4 says ""The Internet makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends."" Citizens feel more connected with friends without the neccessity of car usage. Less Driving impacts the lives of citizens in a postive way.

Limited car usage can only be seen as an advantage, it brings out many positive things. Reduced Car usage is Enviroment friendly and reduces air pollution. Less driving is a better way of being independent and stressfree. The world can be a better place with limited use of automobiles.",0
7e909226,0,"Cars have been used almost everywhere around the world to help us with our daily lives, like getting us to get to any where we want in a short amount of time. Though there are many benefits to having a car,there is a price to pay, such as greenhouse gas. Many of us have been so accustomed to having a car, that not having one seems like it will make life complicated as it is. However that is not necessarily true, because just like there are benefits to having a car, there are benefits to limiting car usage.

For example, in Vauban, germany 70 percent of the family's in the community do not own any vehicle as a result of street parking, driveways and home garages being generally forbidden, and 57 percent have sold their car to move there. A benefit that has come from cars being banned is some like Heidrun Wlater, a media trainer and mother of two, felt much happier without a car as opposed to when she had a car she always felt tense.

However, Vauban is not the only community that has used a movement called ""smart planning"", which is the separation of suburban life from auto use. The trend is growing in Europe, in the United States, as well as other places. Experts say that the method is an effort to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe. In places like Europe, passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. While places in the United States that has a high car usage number is responsible for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, the usage of cars is causing smog in places, such as Paris, where driving has been ban due to days of having a nearrecord pollution. However, with the exception of usage for plugin cars, hybird, and cars carrying three or more passengers. According to Reuters, research shows that Paris has more smog than other European capital. As a result of the ban, car traffic was down 60 percent in the capital. Furthermore, many delivery companies lost revenue. However, the benefit to ban of the usage of cars is the smog cleared up enough for the ruling French party to lift off the ban on oddnumber plates on Tuesday.

Moreover, just like in Europe, in the United States, President Obama wishes to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produce. The United States is wellknown for its car culture. However, research has shown that Americans are buying less cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as the years go by. Part of the reason for this outcome is the result of the recession, which led to Americans not being able to buy new cars and unemployed did not need the use of the car since they were not going to work anyways. If the pattern of the usage of cars continues the way it's going many sociologist belive it will have a beneficial use on the reduction of carbon emissions and the environment.

In conclusion, though having a car seems to make life easier. It has a negative effect on our environment. Furthermore, there are benefits to not having a car, such as being less stressed, reducing greenhouse gas emission, and creating a better environment.",0
7eb57bec,0,"All of these articles share the central idea of minimizing pollution where most of it comes from: cars. In the first source, they talk about how a city was created where cars are nonexistent, and people walk everywhere, a city called Vauban. This city is in Germany and consists of 5,500 people in a square mile area. Doing so in the creation of this city has cut down a major part of pollution in the surrounding area.

These methods of eradicating as much pollution as possible are making a substantial amount of progress, considering the densities of these cities and countries participating in this pollution expulsion effort. In Paris, France, they had an entire day where cars weren't allowed to be used in anyway or a massive fine would be administered. For the first day, people with even numbered license plates weren't allowed to drive, then the odd numbered the next day. Many people complained and didn't even go to work those days. Many trucking companies complained about a loss in revenue and being behind on work, and dozens of people were drastically fined. This did cut down on the amount of smog in Paris, though, and really cleaned out a lot of the city. It had gotten so bad in Paris that the pollution levels were around the ones in Bejing, the most polluted city in the world.

In Bogota, Colombia, driving was also banned for a day, but not because of high pollution levels in the area, but because the city feels they should do their part in helping the environment. Every year they set up a day when they won't drive, no matter rain, snow, any inconvience at all, is overlooked. They feel that the environment is more important than getting a little wet or being a little too cold, all of which are never permanent. The only form of carlike transport allowed was city buses, which even then weren't used very often besides by children or the elderly.

America is also doing their part in eliminating pollution, but are completely unaware of their doing so. The younger generation of America doesn't feel driving is at all of an imporance as other generations do. Many of these people don't have a drivers license and aren't planning on doing so for a long time. America has generally passed it's peak driving point in 2005 and is slowly decreasing in the purchase of cars, and drivers licenses.",0
7ef24744,1,"Our Founding Fathers created a new concept of a way to elect a President, called Electoral College. This concept was created so voting would be fair to everyone, since it is a compromise between the election of a President by a vote in Congress and the popular vote of qualified citizens. Electoral College may cause some domestic disputes between citizens, but in turn it keeps our nation running smoothly. The Electoral College helps avoid runoff electionwhich can be detrimental to our Presidential Election, it requires the presidential candidate to be ""everyone's president"", and it has a certainty of outcome.

Additionally, having an Electoral College helps us avoid the problem of elections in which, neither candidate receives a majority vote within the popular votes. For example, in 1992 Clinton had only a a 43 percent plurality of the popular vote, but won the majority of the Electoral College with 370 votes respectively. The presure of neither of the candidates winning a majority vote could greatly complicate the presidential election process.

Arguably there is a possibility of a tie in an electoral vote, since it consists of 538 electors. But a tie is highly unlikely. Every state does not receive the same amount of electorselectors are assigned given your states population including the District of Columbia. This means that states with a larger population have a larger say than a state with a small population in the Electoral College.

Even though the Electoral College is the most despised method of choosing our President it makes the presidential candidate have a transregional appeal. Meaning, the candidate cannot heavily campaign in a region where he knows he is the favorite of all the states in that region. For example, in 2012 Romney was the solid favorite of the Southern region. But he cannot gain electoral votes by increasing his popularity in this region. Since no region has enough votes to elect a president, he would need to increase his popularity in other regions in the U.S.

On the other hand, the Electoral College is outdated and voters do not actually vote for the presidential candidate, they vote for a group of electors. Those electors may betray the party of the candidate and cast their vote for whomever else is running for President. The system allows for much worse to happen. A state could send two slates of electors to Congress,and the Vice President could only validate only his opponet's electors.

In conclusion, keeping the Electoral College is a must. Without it our Presidential elections would be a diaster.",0
7ef9689e,1,"Voting has always been something special for almost everyone. From African Americans fighting in the Civil War for the right to vote and women in the nineteenthcentury also fighting for voting rights, Voting had always been a controversial topic. This privilege has changed many times in the beginning of the United States and since its birth, the primary way to vote for the president is the Electoral College. The Electoral college is a process of electors in it voting for the president. It is almost always an onesided battle for whoever that agrees or disagrees with the Electoral college. For someone that is usually neutral, i am in favor of keeping the Electoral College as the United States choose their president.

To begin with, even though the Electoral College is criticized of it not being democratic, it still allows the peoples voices to be heard and expressed. The trust between the people and their electors is rarely betrayed, however it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. The Electoral College will almost always guarantee an outcome while if it was another way, more ties and balancing will happen. from the article itself, it stated ""Because almost all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state."" Richard A. Posner. The Electoral College will always let the people's voices be heard even if it was in a indirect way.

Furthermore, The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No single region in the United States ave enough electoral votes for a president to get elected. Regional favorites, such as rodney in the south, will have plenty of problems if he is just a regional favorite instead of all over the country. This system will caused presidents to be more diverse in the country to be able to spread hierarchical diffusion of the idea of geting themselves to be elected. From source number three, it also states that ""a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."" Richard A. Posner. The people will get to experience the president themselves instead of jst voting for the one they are biased upon.

Lastly, The Electoral College method of selecting the president avoids the problem of elections in which no candidates recieves a majority of the votes cast and also dissolves the problem of few potential voters not wanting to vote. There is a pressure in which if no candidates win a majority of the vote,there will be a runoff election. that would greatly complicate the presidential election process by wasting more time and money. however, that process is reduced by the Electoral College method, which invariably produces a clear winner. The Electoral College System can also be argued against that it can turn off potential voters for a candidate who had no hope of carrying thier state. ""Knowing their vote will have no effect, there will be less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by popular vote."" Richard A. Posner is one of the quotes in source number three. But of course, no single vote can change the outcome of a presidential election since voters in presidential elections are mpstly people who want to express an opinion than thinking that a single vote will change a election.

In conclusion, our current way of the Electoral College system is the best way to vote for presidential elections. Even though people could argue that it is undemocratic, the way they elect the electors and having the president promote themselves in a certain way does make the system every one bit of it democratic. To remind you senator, the Electoral Collage system should stay because it still allows the peoples voices to be heard and expressed, requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal, and it avoids the problem of elections in which no candidates recieves a majority of the votes cast and also dissolves the problem of few potential voters not wanting to vote. That is why i truly believe that the Electoral Collage is here to stay.",0
7efd2b92,0,"There are many advantages to limiting car usage. These examples include, less stress, cleaner air, and more safety. There is less stress because you are always tense as stated in the first source. There's cleaner air because cars are one of the leading causes to air pollution as said in source two. There's also more safety because streets don't have as much traffic stated on source three and four.

One benefit of limiting car usage is that there is less stress. There is less stress because when you own a car you may find yourself tense a lot of the time or maybe all of the time. In source one, Hedrium Walter stated that she was always tense with a car and now she is much happier. Bike riding and walking outside can be relieving without the sound of motors, hearing the children play in the park and breathing the fresh air is much better. In source three Carlos Arturo Plaza said that car free day is a good way to take away stress and lower air pollution. This is another instance of someone supporting limiting car usage because there is less stress.

Cleaner air is another benefit to limiting car usage. Cars are one of the leading factors to air pollution, this is shown in source two. In source two, it states that congestion was down sixty percent in the capital of France afer fivedays of intensifying smog. This proves that limiting car usage provides cleaner air for the environment. With cleaner air, there is a healthier population which is a benefit to limiting the usage of vehicles.

There is more safety with limiting car usage. If car usage is limited, then there aren't as many car accidents and there is less traffic. Less traffic could also lead to public transportation becoming more efficient and faster. The bus would be able to get to places much faster without other cars being in the way with would be a benefit to limiting car usage.

Limiting car usage would be for the better of the population. It would cause less stress, cleaner air, and more safety. The usage of cars should be limited for the better of man and it should happen everywhere.",0
7f0d4b9b,1,"The electoral college system has been part of America for many years. At times, this system has proved to be a good thing for our country, but in most times, it has not. I am in favor of changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. I am in favor of changing to a popular vote because of the unfairness, faulty aspects, and electors in the electoral college.

To begin, the electoral college is fair in some ways, but mostly not. One may understandably say that ""The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast"" Posner, 22. The electoral college has proved to be a balance to the political weight of the large states, but regardless of the size of the state, it should be a citizen right to vote directly for their president. ""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states"" Plumer, 13. This quote shows the unfairness to the voters, those in the smallermore insignificant states don't even matter because of the electoral college! When voting, citizens also become confused with the electors, and potentially vote for their opposing party. Not only is the electoral college unfair for the voters, but for the presidential candidates as well. We as citizens vote for electors whom we must entrust to vote for the party's nominee. This trust is rarely betrayed, but ""...it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral bote will not win the national popular vote"" Posner, 16. In 2000, the election with Al Gore and George Bush, Gore won the popular vote, but did not win the electoral vote. The people wanted Gore to be the president, but he did not win, due to the unfairness of the electoral college.

Another reason I am in favor for the popular vote, is because of the faulty aspects of the electoral college system. A counterargument may be that the electoral college has held our country together, making the voting system a lot easier. But in my opinion this is not true. With popular vote, the citizens would just vote for the president, and whichever candidate recieves the most votes would win. But in the case of the electoral college, states cast only one vote for the entire state! "".. the single representative from Wyoming representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California"" Plumer, 12. The reason this is such a big deal is because, let's say that 10,000 people voted in Wyoming. 5,001 were republicans, and 4,999 were democrats. The electoral college would pick the elector representing the republican candidate. Thus, Wyoming's vote goes to the republican candidate. Without the electoral college though, those 4,999 votes would count, and would go toward helping the desired candidate win. Voting is an individual effort, and the electoral college does not allow for this.

As well as this fault, another fault is the fact that the electors could be anyone. ""They can be anyone not holding public office... Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always"" Plumer, 10. Although in most cases the electors vote for the correct party, an elector still may not be trustworthy, or loyal. They may even be bias and vote for a different candidate. The electors do not campaign. Only the presidential candidates do. When we vote for the president, we are actually voting for the electors. Voters normally know little, to nothing about the electors. This makes for an even faultier voting experience.

To conclude, electoral colleges are not the way the voting system should be. With popular voting, there will be an assurance that the right candidate will win, the unfair ways of the electoral college will be diminished, and there will no longer be any faulty aspects of the voting system. Citizens vote to be heard, and with the electoral college, the people aren't heard as loud as they should be. Voting is a right and priveledge of an American citizien, and popular voting will ensure this right.",0
7f356326,0,"Cars have been around for over hundred years. They caused some good and bad things. People use cars daily to go places. Now days people have not been using their cars that much. Some advantages, from some texts, of limiting car usage is there will be less car emissions, and less traffic.

To begin with there will be less car emissions. Ever since the first car rolled off the assembly line they have been polluting the air. As seen here ""Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter"" Duffer. From all the cars and trucks that Paris has, they have the most emissions in their air. Another example will be ""Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France"" Duffer. From experance working on cars the diesel engine give off the most pollution out of all the vehicles on the roads today. Since the air in France was getting to bad they had to ""Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31"" Duffer. The smog got so bad in the air that France had to take a good amount of drivers off the roads to reduce their emissions so the smog will be reduced. As a result from parking those drivers ""Almost 4,000 drivers were fined"" Duffer. Today, cars are assories and people need their cars to go to work and cannot blame those people for doing what they had to do. One last example is ""If the pattern persistsand many sociologists believe it willit will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment"" Rosenthal. Since people are using cars less the pollution in the air will decrease. The emissions had gotten to bad and its hurting our Earth.

Lastly is there will be less traffic on the streets. Lately people have not been getting their drivers license.""A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009"" Rosenthal. The newer generation does not have the desire to drive and to work on cars like the generation before them. Another example is ""As a result, 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent were sold"" Rosenthal. 70 percent is a high number of people and that is a lot of people that are not on the roads. Since those people are in Germany this is what happen in France ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France"" Duffer. That is a huge decrease in traffic there will be no problems getting anywhere on time. Another key example is ""People park their cars in large garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home"" Rosenthal. Since people do not have the money to pay for a parking spot they have to get rid of their cars and that will definatly clear up the roads. One last example is ""vaughn's streets are completey 'carfree' except the main drag to down town"" Rosenthal. vaughn's street are compleatly empty now hows that for no traffic.

In closing, cars have been around for a while now. They caused some problems and no problems. People use cars to go places daily. Now days people have not been using their cars that much. Some advantages, from some texts, of limiting car usage is there will be less car emissions, and less traffic.",0
7f5cb8b5,1,"We as Americans have the right to vote for who we want to be president. American citizens should be able to vote directly for the president, not for a state of electors. This is why we need to abolish the Electoral College. It is unreasonable, unfair, and unreliable to the people. In recent times, the Electoral College has been known to have made mistakes on purpose and on accident. The Electoral College system that they have going now is very unorganized and needs to be changed. It is about time that we change the way our citizens vote for our president. This is a huge deal to our country considering the fact that the president is one of the most important people in the country. We as American citizens should be able to trust that our vote was for the candate they chose.

First of all, lets discuss the past issue that have happened withe Electoral College system. The incident in 1960 with John F. Kennedy was a huge disaster. As said in source 2 ""...The Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy."" This is a perfect example of how the Electoral College is a misused way of voting. They tried to basically sabotage Kennedy's election. What about other problems that also occur with this system? The voters can't always control who their electors vote for. The confusion is a big key factor in the situations also. voters can easily get confuse about the electors and they will accidentally vote for the wrong candidate.

The peoples rights. Dont they have a right of who becomes president? They should. The Electoral College is taking away from the excitement of getting to make a huge decision on who will run the country. When a teenager finally becomes eighteen, what do you think is on their mind? Freedom. And part of getting their freedom is getting to vote for their country. The people should have the right to vote for whoever they may choose and trust that it went for the person they chose and not to a state of electors to vote for them. It's in the facts that more people prefer to have a direct election. The people think that it is unfair to their rights and we all believe that it is not the best way to decide who runs our country.

Organization is a key factor in this country. So why aren't we showing it? The voting system that we use to this day is very unorganized and has many flaws. The Electoral College is much to confusing of a system that we need to be using. We need to change our system now while we can before we hit another mistake. We need to take advantage of the freedom that we have in this country of ours and make a difference. We can change this system so it is much easier and more reliable to vote from. The people want it, so it's about time that the government stands up and agrees with us on that point. We can change our disorganization.

Our country needs to change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. I have discussed the problems our country has faced with Electoral College system, and hopefully it changes your view on what really is the right and better thing to do for our country. Voting is a very big deal here in America and it is one of the ways it shows we have freedom. The voting system would be much more organized if the system were changed to direct vote by the people. That is the right way. Its about time we change the system for the better.",0
7f775f50,0,"Attention my fellow citizens, we should limit car usage because limiting car usage will release stress, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe, and stop smog.

First, we should limit car usage because driving a car can be stressful. For example say you just got finished with a hard day of work and it was not the best day, You hop in your car and when you start to drive you look ahead and see a traffic jam. After working all day, getting in a car to wait hours and hours to get home is not peaceful or fun. Another example would be when you're on the road and the people around you are not driving safely. ""When I had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two.In geram suburb life goes on, paragraph 3 Not only does the usage of cars cause stress but it also causes greenhouse gas. The use of cars should be limited because we could drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" In geram suburb life goes on, paragraph 5 Using a car to get around is nice but isint living on earth better than driving a gas powered vehicle and slowly destroying the earth? ""All of our development since World War II has been on the car, and that will have to change,"" said David Goldberg, an official of Transport for America.P7 Finally, We should limit the usage of cars because if we do we can stop smog. Smog is pollution that creates clouds all around and it is disgusting and horrible for the earth. 'Bejing, China is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world.""Paris bans driving due to smog, Paragraph 14 After intensifying smog, congestion was down 60 percent and thats only after 5 days thats incredible!

All in all, we should limit car usage because if we can use cars less than we do, it will ease stress, reduce greenhouse gas, and finally clean the earth. What do you say, use your car less and get some exersize? Thanks for reading my fellow citizens.",0
7f84f1a7,0,"Imagine a world completely pollution free. A world with no worry about greenhouse gases or global warming. While it's highly unlikely that we will get to that point, we can still try to reach this perfectly healthy world. The are many advantages tolimiting car use, some of those advantages would be: reducing stress, reducing the amount of pollution, and saving money.

Stress is a feeling that everyone can relate to. Whether it be work, school, money, or home life stressing out about things is not healthy. There has been several studies showing that getting proper exercise has tremendous health benefits. The only problem is that no one ever seems to have time to work out or go on a walk. However, if you had to walk to get wherever you're going, you would easily receive enough exercise to help lower your stress. Plus, driving can be extremely stressful. Without having to sit through traffic or deal with bad drivers an average person's stress levels would plummet. The first passage contains a quote from a suburban mom of two, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm so much happier this way."" Recently, I feel as if all I hear about on the news is Greenhouse gases and pollution. Honestly, hearing about global warming is a frightening experience, almost like a glass of cold water being thrown in your face. 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe are caused by passenger cars and in parts of the United States it's up to 50 percent! While car companies are helping by rolling out hybrid and electric cars, those cars are very expensive! Not everyone is willing to shell out that kind of money. By reducing car use, the harmful gases polluting our air will greatly decrease and places like Paris,France and Beijing, China both ver heavily polluted places can have clearer air.

Money. Money seems like it rules our world and it really does. Do you enjoy throwing money away? Of course you don't! Well, if you drive a car everywhere you go, you might as well be. Gas prices are high and it takes upwards of 50 dollars to fill the tank of the average car. Not to mention the price of the car itself! While you have to pay for gas, car insurance, maintenance, and the bill for the car if it's not paid off yet, people who walk to work or to the store and don't own a car are saving thousands of dollars a year.

To conclude, when you reduce the use of cars you: reduce stress, reduce the amount of pollution, and save money. If you want to leave the planet Earth healthy and livable for the future generations, you should seriously consider ditching your car and buying a nice pair of walking shoes.",0
7fd66b21,0,"Cars are a huge advantage in traveling. They can get people to places faster than a single horse could and their a lot safer than riding on a horse. While there are positive advantages to these moble transportation, there are also negative portions that cars have. You may be awfully surprised what these transports can do outside their good nature. For instance, cars run on fossil fuel, which is a artificial gas that ruins the environment as much as people cutting down trees and smoke coming out of nuclear plants that do damage to the clouds in the sky. Cars don't just hurt the environment, they hurt innocent lives as well. Let me pull out an example: Person A and Person C are driving on the interstate when Person B spills out too much fossil fuel from the exhaust pipe of his car. This causes both Person A & C to spin out of control and crash into each other because they couldn't see the road very well because of Person B. This isn't the only threat cars can pull into, but I'll get to that later. With all these bad occurrences that happen people have been wondering, ""how can we save both lives and the environment from the issues of cars at the same time""? There is a way to do just that: limiting car usage.

Like I said before, cars can have a lot of negative issues in their state of mind. Some examples are foggy weather, over usage of fossil fuel, speeding, texting and driving, drunk driving and many more that exist that I cannot mention. Because of these issues, cities like Vauban Germany, Paris France and Bogota Colombia have bannedwell not really banned but you get what i mean driving cars due to the bad issues cars canhave caused. In the US, the presentage of people driving cars has decreased a lot over the past few years the story doesn't say what persentage. As much as I hate them doing that, they actually have a reason. In this case of fellow citizens, car usage should be banned for various reasons. I won't be telling all the reasons because that would take a long time to do so.

Reason 1: Drunk driving. Have you ever known someone or heard about an incident were a person is drunk inside a car and crashes into any random source they don't see coming? Well, let us face the facts: drunk people should not drive. If someone is drunk at a bar and is feeling funny, they should either walk home or get someone to pick them up. Drunk people who drive have a great chance at getting someone hurt of themselves hurt because of their stupid attitude. The person shouldn't drive again until they are fully consious again. Reason 2: Extreme weather. When people drive in extreme, they are risking their lives in a greater persentage than a zombie apocolypse, terrorists invading any country and being attacked by people who try to kill you. Extreme weather like thunderstorms, hail and strong fog are too dangerous for people to drive in. If you drive in that type of weather, there is a 90% chance you will not make it out without injuries. People need to wait for the weather to either calm down or stop completelyI just wait until it stops completely so that it wouldn't get worse as it calms down. This will help them prevent them or anyone from getting a wreck. If it occurs randomly while your driving then your screwed. Reason 3: texting and driving. Why is it that most people in this generation keep getting stupid and stupid every single minute? This is one of those incidents that has such that. People who text while driving pay more attention to their stupid phone than focusing on driving. Like drunk driving people who care about texting so much need to either sit in the back and text or not ride in the car at all. They propably should stay away from a car as long as possible until they learn to not text and drive at the same time. You can't do two things at once unless you're some one fictional or a pro at it. Final reason: Expoit of fossil fuels. I don't need to talk much about this one because I already did in my first paragraph and it is related to the extreme weather topic but I will do it once more. Cars that exploit fossil fuels can cause damage to the environment. If the smoke is exploited too much it can not only more damage to the environment, but it can cause people to reck as well.

These are the reasons that fellow citizens like you should limit your car usages. Remember that cars are not a same transportation vehicle that can get you from point A to Point B, they have a dark side like everything else. Even if you do limit your car usages, it doesn't mean you are safe from the world that hunts you down. Be careful out there and follow the percautions of safty carefully when you are traveling either by car or anyother place.",0
7fdf924a,1,"Americans have rights, I understand that, but many americans do not realize who they are putting their trust and votes into to. They may think that ""Oh if I vote for this President he will automatically be chosen"", but no that is not always what happens through the process for choosing the future President of the United States. We are given the right to vote as soon as we turn eighteen and any day after that, and you feel so great that you can finally do something that makes you feel as if you are an adult, but when you put a name on your ballet they may not be chosen for the office that they were running for. The Electoral College is process that was created very long ago by the founding fathers, which we still use today.

Many people in the United States vote every election for who they think is best suited for office as President or Vice President. Say you voted for President who was extravagant and had all the traits they had were excellent to lead a country, but what you may not know is that your vote can be changed if one person representing your state in the Electoral College does not agree with the person you have chosen. The state legislatures pick the Electoral College for each state, they may even come from public office, but the electoral do not technically have to choose the person you've chosen. Some state legislature may oppose the man that the people have chosen so they will bring in a new electoral college, like when John F. Kennedy was chosen voted for, but they tried sabotaging him so he would not get the votes. The Electoral College can choose whomever they please.

In some states Presidents do not even campaign, such as in Rhode Island and South Carolina also there were 17 other states that were included in the Campaigns for the election in 2000. This is called the winnertakeall system when the candidates do not take time for the states they know they have no chance of winning over. In some states they did not even see a single ad campaign which was not obligated. The focus is on the states that are called ""swing"" states where the elections are very tight and they want your vote. One of the facts I have learned is that if you live in a ""swing"" state start learning about your Presidents so you know which one you believe is more capable.

We understand if there is a tie in anything, like an election, we have to keep working till there is a winner. It makes everything take more time and it goes through a longer process. When a tie happens in the Electoral College it is now thrown to the senate and that is when it starts to increase in time and we have to wait a longer. In Wyoming they do not have many citizens, so they only have one representative, but they speak as much as the 55 representatives from California. An Eelctoral tie is very unlikely, but it has happened.

Many people believe in the Elecotral College, but many do not. I belive that it should be abolished. I do not think it is fair that other people who have a higher power can take our votes and change them if they do not like them. It is outdated , unfair, and irrational. We should change it to popular vote and take it right from the Americans who've voted for the President they want.",0
8033c676,0,"Advantages of limiting car usage? Is that even possible? Yes, there are many advantages of limiting your car usage, one of them being the money you'll be saving, another being less pollution. A lot of people don't care that they're wasting money on their cars or polluting the world, But what if we all gave up our cars and went eco friendly? Could you imagine how much money you'd save.

As said by Heidrun Walter in source one, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Loosing their cars isn't a big deal to them, it relives them of stress and money. To park in a large garage was 40,000 along with buying your house. Then there's gas prices and maintenance, cars can be expensive. Paris had pollution and to clear the air, they enforced a partial driving ban. Drivers with evennumbered license plates were fined or told to leave their cars at home. It was only 31 in our currency, but it was 22euros. Then the next day, being a Tuesday, the same ban to evennumbered license plates applied to the oddnumbered license plates. According to ""Reuters"" in source two, ""Almost 4,000 drivers were fined. This ban on the oddnumbered license plates didn't go through due to the smog clearing enough.

I know it sounds crazy, giving up your car, that's your freedom, your transportation to get from point A to point B. In Bogota, they have a carfree day. Only busses and taxis are allowed to be driving. It sounds completely out of the ordinary for us Americans to even think of not having our cars. source three says ""The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog."" Anyone who violates or doesn't cooperate is fined 25. As said in the article, the turn out for their carfree day was large. Maybe we should try it sometime.

Source four says that recent studies suggest that Americans are buying less cars, they're getting fewer licenses as the years go by. Researchers wonder, ""has America passed peak driving?"" Why is that? The United States has been the car culture. As said in the article, ""it is the birthplace of Model T the home of detroit the place where Wilson Pickett immortalized ""mustang sally"" which is also a cool song. How is it that we are buying less cars and not getting our licenses? My theroy, car crashes. Unrealted to pollution or money, but I think everyone has that fear in their head about car crashes killing them or taking the life of their teenager, so they stop driving. In reference to me, my mother won't allow me to drive untill I am 18 years old, the legal age to drive is 16. You can get your permit when you're 15 years old, only being allowed to drive with a driver over the age of 21. What's stopping everyone?

Driving is every where. How do you get to work? you drive. Grocerey store? The mall? you drive. There is more options though, you don't have to drive. You can brike, or walk or ride the bus. It saves you money. Pollution is a world wide thing, so is driving but with everyone working together and these ""carfree days"" we could end pollution. Giving up your car is the first step.",0
8048c61c,0,"The majority of people use some sort of gas transportation such as a bus or a car. It is a good idea to limit the usage of gas transportation to help save our environment, to help our own health and to save money. Cars are very popular nowaday but are also bad for everyone and for the world we all live in. Limiting car use will be better for all of us.

Car usage is extremely bad for our environment. According to the first article in paragraph five a total of about 62 percent of gas emission in our environment iin Europe and the United States are because of cars. That is lot, and to think that limiting the usage of cars or eliminating it will help better the environment and world we live in. As stated in the fourth article in paragraph 29 that every year our environment betters due to less people buying cars and getiing licenses.

Health is a big issue everyone faces. The more cars our used the more contaminated the oxygen we breath gets. We can not afort to let the air we breath get contaminated. In the second article throughout the whole reading Robert Duffer the author says that in paris smog is everywere. That fog absorbs all the gas that the cars release. Think about it, that poluted fog is n the air and you can not help breathing it. Once you breath that fog you are putting your health at risk.

Every car i money you have to waste out of your pocket. You waste money when you buy the car, when it breaks down, and even everytime the car is low on gas. If you put that all together you are wasting lost of money when you could be saving it and using on other things. In article one in paragraph two in the last sentence the author put how much money is wasted to be able to have a car which is about 40,000. Having a car means getting fines if you do something wrong or improperly as showed in paragraphs 11 and 21.

In conclusion, cars are not good for the environment, our health, or for our money. Use cars less or do not use them at all. Everyone needs to end car use. Make a change, it is all up to you.",0
80548231,0,"In today's modern world, new inventions are shaping our daily lifestyle. Cellphones took over meeting personally, calculators took over long division, and cars took over walking from point A to point B. No one really thought how dependant our world would be on this newage technologies. Our ancestors certainly didn't have the latest smartphone or a brand new Mercedes in their driveway. So what made our generation so materialistic? The necessity of a brand new car, or any car for that matter is slowly diminishing, and more people are getting back to using other forms of transportation. The limiting use of cars is super beneficial to the environment, your family's budget, and can bring better social opportunities.

The use of cars has both positive and negative effects. Car usage has a massive impact on the environment, not just in your community, but worldwide. As we all know, global warming is an international phenomenon that is nipping at our toes. It is mostly caused by pollution and the dissolvement of the ozone layer, which protects our atmosphere. Gas emissions from tailpipe cause a great amount of greenhouse gases to disperse. In Europe, ""cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions"" Elizabeth Rosenthal: Source 1. In the United States, the greenhouse gas emissions are 50% caused by passenger cars Rosenthal Source 1. That means overtime you get into your car for a ""cruise"", you are harming our environment. Trapped car emissions combine with the warm weather layers in the air to form smog, which is greatly affecting the French capital, and Beijing source 2: Duffer. To help prevent these emissions from getting worse, or causing greater harm to our environment, some cities have started a ""carfree zone"", in which no one is allowed to own cars or use them and even park them in their driveway! source 1: Rosenthal. By creating or participating in a limiting use of cars you can help preserve our beloved Mother Earth.

Every 16year old dreams of waking up to their brandnew car waiting for them in the driveway. But demographic studies recently show that ""there has been a large drop in the percentage of 1639 year olds getting licenses."" source 4: Rosenthal. This decrease is proof that less and less people are interested in owning cars, and even worse, driving them. This doesn't seem like a bad idea, due to the fact that the limited use of cars can save you and your family a great deal of money. New cars are approximately ranging from 25,000 to 50,000, with a monthly payment of about 350. A gallon of gas usually lasts about a week and a half and costs an average of 40 to fill up. In a month, a typical family spends approximately 400 a month solely on car expenses. By choosing to involove yourself in ""smart planning"", which is the seperation of suburban life from auto use Source 1: Rosenthal or by using other means of transportation like public buses, trains, bikes, and the sharing of taxis, your household can save a good amount of money.

In modern families, not only has the overuse of technologysocial media taken over the traditional family interaction, but also the overuse of cars. In most households, where the teenager has a vehicle, heshe mobilizes themselves away and out with friends. Everyone ends up in different parts of the town, the mall, a restaurant, or at home. If the use of cars is limited, either in a town like Vauban Germany, where no one uses cars, or in a city like Bogota Colombia, where families use multiple seat bicycles to visit parks and spend time together source 3:Selsky, your family can make up for lost time and completely forget about going off on their own. Not only will the days without cars benefit your family but also your social life! A date to biketour the city at night is much more enticing and luring then a plain date to the movies. If you need a car, for any reason, whether it be work, or vacation, rental car services are a much better and cheaper option then using your own car.

The innovative programs like ""Smart Planning"", discussed in ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" , and the ""Day without cars"" celebrated in many Colombian cities like Bogota and Cali, discussed in Andrew Selsky's ""CarFree Day is Spinning into a Big Hit in Bogota"" ""The End of Car Culture"" ""Paris Bans Driving Due to Smog"" . Overall, the limited use of cars is beneficial in numerous ways, and hopefully will be exercised much more.",0
8059b7f4,1,"When you think of voting for president, do you think of the white house, your nearest voting station, absentee ballots, or Electoral College? Is Electoral college a good thing or does it leave some states in the dust? In my opinion we need to drop electoral college and vote ny popular vote. In the article ""What is the Electoral College?"" The authors,the office of Federal Register, say that ""you help choose your states electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors"".the office of Federal Register p.6. It states that when you vote you are not actually voting for the candidate you want but his or hers electors, Hereby proving that you are not voting for the President of the United States, but for the hope of your vote counting.

Every state has a certain number of electoral votes. Some have high amounts known as ""swing votes"". An example of a swing state would be California with a whoping 55 electoral votes. States like this are more likely to see the candidates speak and do more campaigning, due to the high number of electoral votes. But what about othe states who have to see their future President through a to screen because they dont have as many electoral votes as larger states. For example a less visited state would be Rhode island with only one electoral vote because of the small population. In the passage ""In Defense of the Electoral College:Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president"" by Richard A. Posner it states that ""They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on averageand for the furthe reason that they will have recieved the most information and attention from the candidates, and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election""posner p.3 swing states. This statement is saying since the bigger states with more electoral votes are the most informed they should be the ones to decide. ""Why are they more informed"" you might ask?, because the are the bigger states and have more attention from the candidates than smaller states. Any state with large Electoral college votes are basically choosing our countrys leader and just because we live in a smaller state means we have very little to no say?

More people would be informed of our candidates and care more about the election if they knew individually they got a say without the rest of the state triumphing over their vote. If a candidate sees that a state with fifty five Electoral College votes is not liking him , and if a state with only three electoral college votes isnt for him, the candidate will go for the higher amount of votes state. How are we supposed to be united and one as a country if a larger state has more votes than a smaller one theefor gets more attention and time from a future President."" Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would if the president were picked by popular vote...""Posner p.5 avoid run off elections. If they have no incentive to pay attention THEN GIVE THEM INCENTIVE! Many people who are the appropriate age to vote complain about people not voting but if they think their vote will not matter than why would they?

Popular vote can insure that every single American can have a vote of their own and not grouped togethe with the rest of the state. I think that knowing your opinion and voice can count and truely make a difference matters in a situation like voting for president. ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the president""Plumer p.10. As it says we are not even voting for our president but for votes.

If the United states president was elected by popular vote then it wouldnt matter what states got more attention and ""how many more states do i have to win over to be the president?"" but a true genuine popular vote for the leader of our country. That is why we need to abolish the Electoral College and get on with the popular vote situation.",0
8085e801,0,"Cars are a part of everyday life. You use them to drive to school, to work, out to eat, or to the movies with all of your friends. But what if you didn't have cars? What if you werent allowed to use them? Many places around the world, like Europe, Colombia, Paris, and even some parts of the United States, have started to end the car culture. This has proven to be very beneficial in keeping the earth clean, safe, and and healthy.

Greenhouse gas emissions from tail pipes in cars have been a big culprit in pollution. In paragraph 5 in the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" it states cars are responsible for 12% of the greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up to 50% in widely used car areas in the United States. In Paris, they enforced a partial driving ban to clear their air after nearrecord breaking days of pollution. Paris has more smog than other European capitals, having had 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter, which compared to other paces like London, who only 79.9, that's a lot of smog. With limited driving, the pollution will decrease and benefit the environment over time.

Not only does the limited use of cars increase the overall health and safety of Earth, it helps keep us safe too. Multiple car accidents happen every single day around the world. As you would know, without cars, there would be no car accidents. Accidents such as these can be caused by traffic. When driving on the highway with cars surrounding you, all going 70 mph, there's a high risk of getting into an accident. During France's partial ban of cars, the congestion, or car traffic, was down 60% than normal. This lessened the chance of accidents and made the roads more safe, for both driverspasangers, and those walking along the streets.

Since cars would no longer be in use, how would you get around? In Columbia, many citizens hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during their car free day. Without the use of cars, Americans and others would actually get up and move to get to where they need to go, which isnt something that's common anymore. America is the most obese country in the world, with most of the top obese cities residing in Texas. Cars give us another excuse to not be active in our everyday lives. If everyone had limited use of cars, everyone as a whole may get the daily exercise they need to say at a healthy state.

Although cars are useful to get us to the places we need to go fast, they are not required or needed. They let off gases that are harmful to our environment, can be hazardous to ourselves and others, and should be replaced to play against obesity and unwellness. The cons of cars outweigh the pros and everyone should be turning off their cars and stepping outside.",0
81977e6c,0,"Limiting car usage could have many advantages on our planet. Many cities, such as Vauban in Germany, have given up on using cars to help the world around them. ""vaughn's streets are completely carfree,except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community."" There is a movement going on called, ""smart planning"" and Vauban is just one example of a growing trend in Europe of limiting auto use. The article says that passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. It seems that the people in Europe are realizing that so much car usage is harming their environment, and they are trying to set a trend for other countries like the United States to follow to limit using cars.

How much people use their cars is very important. Polluted air is a very widespread problem in many regions of the world. Paris had days of nearrecord pollution, and decided to enforce a partial driving ban to try to help clear the air of the city. The article says that almost 4,000 drivers were fined, and twentyseven had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of intensifying smog."" The driving ban helped clear the smog, because it reduced car emissions. Paris has more smog than many other European capitals, which is why reducing how much citizens drive their cars is a good idea.

Some cities have days that are completely car free. Bogota, Colombia is one of them. They have been having a Day Without Cars for three straight years. Cars are banned for the day and buses and taxis are the only exception. The city holds about 7 million people, and had a large turnout. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza. The mayor of Asuncion, Paraguay even said that, ""These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders."" The Day Without Cars has even helped stores and sports center come up throughout the city. Instead of shopping centers along a highway, those stores are now in the city and easy to get to without having to use a car.

Researchers have been studying America's ways of car usage and driving. America is home to the first cars like the Model T, or ""Mustang Sally."" Vehichles have always been a huge part of culture, but it seems now that that might not be the case anymore. ""As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995."" Researchers are actually hoping that the pattern continues because it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions on the environment. Transportation is the second largest source, behind power plants, of emissions. Many changes have now happened in America, which are making using cars not as important. ""With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may find less reason to resume the habit.."" The article says. If we could slow down the usage of cars and emission, maybe we could help the planet become a better place.

Since the percentage of car usage has gone down in America, so has the percentage of getting a license. There has been a large drop in 1639 year olds getting a license, Mr. Sivak's research has found. Older people are also likely to retain their licenses as they age. Mr. Sivak and another man both have children of about the same age, 19 and 21, and live in busy cities where a car could be useful. Neither one of them has their licenses, even though they are interested, but they don't really see the need for one when they can use public transportation or carpool with their friends. The article says that a study last year has also found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. Whether or not this changes as these young people grow older, these decreases in driving are proving that cars might just not be as important as they used to be.

Our planet is just continuing to get worse from emissions from cars. Some countries are starting to realize this and are working hard to limit car usage and have citizens rely just on public transportation, walking, or riding a bike. Bill Ford proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which, ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial, and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions, and improve safety."" Citizens all over the world can work together to reduce car usage and better improve our planet.",0
81acef36,0,"Many places around the world are limiting the usage of cars. If more places created regulations like these, it may drastically change the environment, for the better.

Vauban, a suburb in Germany, made conditions in the neighborhood almost impossible to own a car. While it may seem like an annoyance, many of the residents are happier this way. According to Heidrun Walter, a resident of Vauban, ""When I had a car I was always tense, I'm much happier this way."" While many people may see having to give up or not use their can an annoyance, if they get used to it they might find that not using their cars may be a good thing.

Instead of having to hear car engines and honking horns, they can take a relaxing walk or even a bike ride somewhere.

Limiting car usage would also be very helpful in cleaning up the environment. In ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" the author states, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in carintensive areas in the United States."" Limiting the amount people can drive their cars could reduce a hefty amount of pollution in our air. In France, they limitied the amount of people who were allowed to drive for two days. Paris has more pollution in their air then most European cities, but putting regulations on who could drive significantly reduced the amount of smog in just a few days, according to Robert Duffer.

Putting regulations on car usage can also make the area you live in a much nicer place. In Colombia, a few cities have an annual ""Day Without Cars"", where citizens are fined for using their cars. As a result, things like restaurants and malls have been being built. They are repairing more sidewalks and building new bicycle paths. Parks are being used more often. The communities would be much nicer places with out the frequent use of cars.

Limiting the use of cars is a very good thing. It helps the environment, and it helps make the world a nicer place.",0
81bb8f1e,1,"Dear State Senator, After conducting studies on the American voting system ,I noticed many flaws. Deciding on presidency is one of the most vital processes in any countries,so it should be addressed properly. the fact that voters vote not for president ,but they vote for slate of electors,the electors can be anyone not holding public office,and the fact that 17 states were never visited during 2000 only focusing on swing states are just some facts we must look at when deciding a nations fate.

The fact that voters dont vote for president ,but they are actually voting for electors is should be looked into because the people are not voting for president.The are voting for people to vote for president.which thoroughly explains the idea that the majority opinion of the nation is invaluable to the government and our society.This system is not fair.Nor is this system equal. and nor should this system continue to destroy our beloved countries.

The electors can be anyone not holding public office.This is one of the most gruesome facts about this topic.Bestowing any dreg of society the honor of being an elector is NOT a good idea.This means when one of us votes for an elector trusting him with the fate of the nation. He could mislead us and vote for any candidate making the whole voting system corrupt and misleading.

17 states were unvisited by candidates in 2000. which leads U.S citizens to ask questions like:Is our opinion valuable or even considerd valid ? Do the leaders want to run for the benefit of this countries or do they want POWER?Do our votes even matter or make a diffrence ?Should we just give up on the corrupt system we must live under today?

Thinking about the subject from the prepective of our founding fathers.They would NEVER want a voting system like ours today were people's opinions dont matter,With often and misleading corrupt electors not letting the majority rule.This system should be put to an end ,So our countries can live free again.",0
81ebce31,1,"The electoral college is flawed and in result, worthless. While being outdated and irrational, it is also unfair. Not only that, sixty percent of voters would prefer a direct election than to the kind we have now, as stated in source two. Election by popular vote can really show what president the people really want, not the slate of electors who pick and choose what benefits them most. The system is corrupted and the popular vote is crucial in progressing as a united nation.

The problems grow as we continue to use this outdated and irrational system. The voters simply can't control who the electors vote for, making it outdated and irrational. States that have the most population get the most attention when it comes to presidential campaigns. The smaller states get none of the attention. How will they know who to vote for? It makes the people feel as if their vote is worthless. This just proves that the system is irrational and corrupted. As stated in source three, ""The most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election"". This is not true, swing states are the cause of people feeling disenfranchised. The campaigners focus their efforts in the swing states where voters will listen more closely, not in states where there is less people like that. It clearly isn't ideal for presidential campaigns to be like that. There is no variety. They should be explaining themselves to the people who know nothing about what they are gonna do for the people, instead of for the people who already know. This is why the electoral college needs to go.

Power to the people. Isn't that our countrys core principal? We are losing that right when it comes to voting. All we are doing when we vote is choose some group of people to vote for us. That isn't right it's unjust. The people have a right to express their opinions and beliefs through the process of voting. Where do our votes end up? In the hands of greedy, power hungry electors who don't care about your opinions. As stated in source two, ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters"". The votes people cast are worthless and can cause no change. ""Abolish the electoral college"", in source two.

The point is, the electoral college is outdated, irrational, and unfair. It also infringes on our number one right of freedom of speech. A popular vote cleanses the correctness of the electoral system. This is why we need to thrive as a nation.",0
82131f68,1,"This essay will analyze, discuss and prove one reason in favor of keeping the Electoral College in the United States for its presidential elections. One of the reasons to keep the electoral college is that it is better for smaller, more rural states to have more influence as opposed to larger metropolitan areas that have large populations. The electors from these states are granted two votes each. Those from larger, more populated areas are granted just one vote each. Smaller states tend to hold significant power because their two votes for president and vice president add up more than the votes of larger states that have many electors. This is because of the split of the electoral votes. Some argue that electors are not bound to vote for the candidate who won the most votes nationally. They do not have to vote for their own state's nominee unless their state has a winner take all system. However, there are states that have adopted laws that force their electors to vote for their state's candidate. It seems that, no matter how, electors are not bound to vote for the candidate who won the most nationally. This is not always the case because of state legislatures who can overrule the electors and vote for the alternative candidate their citizens have selected for them, even if the voter lives in a state without a winner take all system.",1
82196b38,1,"Most people were raised on fairness what everybody wants. So shouldn't voting be the same way? Thats why America should have popularity voting because electoral voting is unconstitutional, it doesn't give little states a say so and it's plain unfair.

First of all, Popularity voting should be the way we vote because it's constitutional. Abraham Lincoln once stated that ""this is a nation for the people, by the people, and from the people"" its part of the constitution. Also, this is one nation under god and the almighty father believes in fairness wouldn't you agree the people deserve a say so? Popularity voting allows the people to show what they support instead of electoral not serving the people justice. Electoral voting allows segregation because some states don't get a say so, but the question is aren't we one nation? The constitution says all men are equalso what makes a man in California better than a man in North Carolina? So that's one strike for electoral voting.

Furthermore, popularity voting gives little states a say so. Did you know that small states like Rhode Island, South Carolina, and other 15 states sometimes don't get to see candidates? It's unfair that electoral voting only aims for states with high electoral voting. Popularity voting will change that giving little states a say so will heighten the ratio and maybe change the outcome. Popularity voting allows small states to put their opinion in on who they want as president because they are part of the country as well. Electoral treats small states like they don't matter and it's time to change that Electoral voting now has two strikes.

Finally, popularity voting is just fair. Everyone born in America was born into the land of the free, land of the equal, land of the brave, so why shouldn't voting be like that? Everyone deserves the right to pick who they want to represent them, and if not its abusing their rights. Popularity voting is the clear choice because electoral voting is unfair, they obstrain your rights and your freedom of speech you deserve to say who you want in office. They rather put you on mute and say you don't matter we have to stand up. Electoral voting that was your last straw.

In conclusion, America should have popularity voting because electoral voting is unconstitutional, it doesn't give little states a say so and it's plain unfair. Also popularity voting is now the most popular voting style. We as Americans are tired of being treated unfairly and we are sticking to our national slogan three strikes your out so goodbye electoral voting.",0
828f8762,1,"Florida Senators, The Electoral College is an unfair process. With multiple presidents winning the popular vote and losing their presidency, it is undemocratic. Myself, along with many other people across the state, believe that elections should be based on popular vote rather than the decisions of 538 electors. Although the Electoral College has its advantages, I believe that a majority vote by the people of the United States would be more accurate as well as fair.

The Electoral College is a winnertakesall system, meaning that candidates spend lots of time campaigning in the ""swing"" states rather than others. In 2000, seventeen states didn't even get to see the candidates. This means that almost 34% of voters didn't get a real feel for who they will be casting their votes for. Even though presidents should focus their time on big states with larger populations, it is unfair to the smaller states who don't get any visits from their candidates.

With the Electoral College system, voters vote for a slate of electors, rather than the presidents themselves. This means that when you cast your vote for Barack Obama ,for example, you are not voting for him. you are actually voting for a certain number of electors who contribute to the candidate's electoral votes. Electors can be anyone not in public office and they are usually chosen by the state. This is a corrupt system because the electors could be anyone, and change their ideas to not reflect the views of the people. In 1960, Louisiana legislature segregationists almost replaced all of the Democratic electors electors with new Kennedyopposing electors. The errors and problems in this system could be much greater, and government officials must be monitoring it at all times.

In the event of an Electoral College tie, the president election decision would be given to the House of Representatives, and the vicepresident decision to the Senate. This doesn't seem too terribly bad, but one representative from Wyoming would be representing 500,000 voters, and would have as much say as the 55 representatives representing 35 million people inhabiting California. This is not fair because of the widespread views of people in each state. There cannot be one candidate that the whole state agrees on, as people's ideas differ across the states.

There are many reasons to keep, as well as dispose of the Electoral College. The negatives outweigh the positives and a popular vote would be more democratic. We are supposed to be a democracy, and democracies thrive on the views of the people instead of electors.",0
829e720d,0,"Automobile accidents are very common in suburbs and in cities. Car reduced communities would not only help help us us a world financially but also help when it comes to our health. Robert Duffer and Elisabeth Rosenthal explain and inform the advantages of limiting car usage.

Cars in this day in age seem like a necessity when it comes to transportation but cars being the main source of transportation isn't always a good thing. Many countries are beginning to promote the philosophy of car reduced communities. According to David Goldberg, "" All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change "". Cars being the main focus of transportation is not good. The gases from the fuel produces pollution which eventually leads to harmful diseases. We should take more advantage of our technological advances and come up with a safer, effective, and more economical way to transport our everyday citizens. Imagine if we stopped using cars. The air we breath in day by day would be cleaner, we would all have more money, and their would be less automotive accidents day by day which is one of the main reasons are population isn't increasing as fast as it could. Smog is the main harmful effect of abusing our car usage. Source 2 states that "" After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving bam to clear the air of the global city "". The city of Paris is probably one of the most visited city in the entire world so for them to have to stop car usage due to smog is a big deal. Studies have shown that cars are very dangerous and harmful yet we still drive them everyday unconcontious of the fact that day by day were slowly making it harder on ourselves as humans to even survive. Cars are the main source of transportation now a days but its clear to see that the use of cars opposes many disadvantages.

Carfree days would be very effective when it comes to the conservation of our people. bogota Colombia has come up with the idea of car free days but is this idea more effective them it is ineffective? According to Source 3 "" It was he third straight year cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted for the Day Without Cars in this capital city of & million "". You can only imagine how positive this idea actually ended up being. Many people thought that it was a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution. Having many more of these days world wide wouldn't harm us unless we allow it to becasuse we've become so dependable on these machines but it would would help our planet become cleaner which tends to relieve stress. With the realization of the fact that cars are better helpful then they are harmful many people may stop buying cars. Source 4 claims that "" President Obama's ambitious goals to curb the United States' greenhouse gas emission, unveiled last week, will get a fortutious assist from an incepient shift in American behavior: recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, drving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by "". Many citizens are beginnning to focus and understand that presrving our populaiton is more important then going where they want when they want to. The concept of carfree days seems to be the better route to choose when it comes to survival, living, and a stressless environment.

Automible accidents are becoming very common in surburbs and cities. We as a people need to more contious on healthier and cleaner communities so that we can begin to produce healthier children. Healthier children means focused children and citizens. Children that are focused on having goals and having careers that help our planet.

We should make the smarter decision to be less selfish and more selfless so we as a people should reduce car usage so we can continute to grow as a population, culltivate, and explore together.",0
82a43473,0,"Since World War II, driving has been the center of everyone's mind. Do you really think driving is a necessity? Many people will say yes, but most will argue no. Limiting car usage will be great for us citizens and our very own planet Earth.

To start off, driving causes you a stressful day, but not driving will save you time and money. Gas prices are more than 2 a gallon. One car takes more or less 10 gallons. Filling your tank up will cost you around 60 or more. In my eyes, it's cheaper to take public transportation than to drive. While taking the bus or the train , all you really have to do is wait , pay to get in, find your stop, if your destination is a little farther, there can be another bus and you'll be at your stop. On the other hand, Driving, your worrying more. Your worried about if you have gas, is there a traffic jam, why is this driver driving so slow. You're getting frustrated rather than taking the public transportation. In Colombia there is this program where you dont drive for a day. ""In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams""Source 3. Not only did it cause a less stressful day, it allowed them to get some exercise.

Furthermore, I have a question. How many people like smoggy days? No one. Reason I asked this specific question is mainly because if you enjoy driving, you must enjoy the smog. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city""Source 2. Although Paris has more smog than other European capitals, it isnt good for our very own health, but it isnt good for our planet either. When Paris did this ""No Driving"" campigan, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after 5 days of intensifying smog""Source 2.

On the other hand, driving isn't really important as it used to be. We have all these technological advances, that honestly make driving not necessary. We all have a cell phone, we can all video chat. Some work together, some go to school together. We all can carpool. There was this quote that I read, and after doing some thinking, it made me realize that driving isn't really important as it seemed to be. ""How much you drive is as important as whether you have an hybrid""Source 1. Hybrids save alot of wrong doings that we already do to this Earth. Along with eletronic cars. Driving a hybrid, yes it's saving the world but your still causing traffic, and wasting money. Some people have already quit driving. ""With all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may find less reason to resume the habit."" Source 4. America has went so far into the stopping of driving that on highways there's more tolls. Tolls that we can't pay to another person, tolls where they take a picture of your license, find out you information, and send you the amount you owe through the mail. Each toll is different some can be 75 cents or a 1.50. From your home to the mall, depending where you live, you'll pass by more a less 5 tolls. In total thats around I'll say 3.75 or 7.50. Public transportation saves you more money. Mall's have buses where it picks you up from a specfic location to the mall and back. That's saving you time and your money.

In conclusion, limiting car usage can be an advantage to both young, old and even to our very own planet Earth. It can help our economy, save our pollution rate, but also help us lose the weight.",0
82bb53f6,0,"BOOM! CRASH! BANG! ""911, what's your emergency?"" ""HELP! we've been in a terrible accident, please get here fast!""Sirens and horns is what you hear after a terrible car crash. By limiting car usage, we could prevent less car accidentstraffic jams, pollutiongreenhouse gas and we can get more exercise.

To begin with, pollution and the greenhouse effect are really bad to the environment. Car exhaust and other gases are a big contributor to that. How do we do something to help that people ask? Well you can drive less and maybe walk or ride a bike. It will limit so many big issues if you just dont drive as much. Source 3, paragraph 24 business man, Carlos Arturo Plaza says ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" You know what he did after he said that? He rode away in a 2 seater bike with his wife. Thats a business man, and even he doesn't have a problem riding his bike to work with his wife. You can do so much to save the earth. You, can make a difference. You don't have to be the hero, but you can sure do your part to help save the day.

In comparison, car accidents? They are the absolute worst. It not only affects 1 car but it could affect 2 or 3. Maybe even more. Limiting car usage could prevent so many accidents and that means no more hospital visits. Source 2, paragraph 4 says ""congestion was down 60% in the capital of Frnce after 5 days of intensifying smog."" That means that there was 60 percent less traffic jams and accidents in 5 days! That's an amazing improvement. I always wished that people couldn't get hurt or that I could save someones life, so that what I will try to do. Drive less, or drive only when it's needed. Don't leve your car running. A big negative is don't speed and watch all around you. You can prevent killing someone, not just that, but you can decrease the amount of accidents that can happen. Don't make an asamine choice and drive because you feel like it. Help save this earth. It's really all we have left.

Lastly, you can get more exercise. Riding a bike and walking is a great source of exercising. Everyone always talks about how obesity is a big problem well this can decrease the amount of body weight you have and you wont put gases into the air. That's 2 problems solved in 1. There are so many things you can do to solve this issue and these are only a few. I see a lot of people riding bikes or walking to school. Teachers especially which shows you that they arent always asking teenagers or new drivers to do it. Don't be the reason the earth is getting worse. Be the reason its getting better.

In conclusion, pollution is bad and so are accidents. But there is always a soulution to the madness. You yourself can make a change. This earth can't take care of itself, it needs your help, so help it. Limiting the usage of your car is a great start. Yes, cars are great and they get you from point A to point B and they can warm you up when it's cool outside or cool you down when its hot, those are all true statements and that's fine it really is. Just limit it and things will start to get a lot better, trust me. It all starts with one person willing to make a change and that person can be you.",0
82cfed5c,0,"A world without cars is a world we should all want to live in.Participating in this worldwide fad has been known to benefit the lives of those among us. Thus, causing a decrease in the amount of stress one inhabits, as well as a decrease in pollution, and beneficial effects on carbon emissions. The advantages of limiting car usage are increasing daily, and cutting your time spent driving may have a positive effect on not only your life but your families, and those surrounded by you.

Traveling across the world to Germany, you will find Vauban. A wellknown, upscale community where more and more soccer moms and commuting executives are giving up their cars. This experimental, new district has generally forbidden street parking, driveways, and home garages. Therefore seventy percent of the residents in this community do not have cars, and fiftyseven percent sold a car to move to this ecofriendly habitat. One resident, Heidrun Walter says, ""When I had a car, I was always tense, I'm much happier now."" The atmosphere of this residence has a positive effect on stress, meaning it decreases it! The vibe of walking down a street filled with the swish of bicycles passing by, and the chatter of wandering children has lowered the stress of nearly all residents. This ecofriendly, and stressfree environment is a trend that is growing and being adopted by many countries, including the U.S. From Chicago to Shanghai, this residential area may be the place for you.

Paris, France, home to the famous Eiffel Tower even has its pollution problems. After days of uncontrollable smog, the ruling French party enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of thiis wellknown city. They ruled that on Monday's evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their vehicles at home, and on Tuesdays, oddnumbered license plates were to do so as well. After this first trial, the congestion was down sixty percent in the capital of France. This was a huge success since Paris typically has more pollution that other European capitals. Temporary laws like this have a huge effect on reducing the amount of pollution in crowded cities. Even the city of love has unclean air, how romantic is that? Limiting the usage of cars benefited this society immensely, and it could benefit our world as a whole if all of us chose to cut back our car usage at least twice a week.

Automobiles are the Beyonce of suburbs, where families from California all the way to Sydney tend to make their homes. Experts have concluded that this is a huge impediment to current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes all around the world. Passenger cars in Europe are only responsible for twelve percent of these emissions, while America is responsible for up to fifty percent. President Obama's goals to drastically curb these greenhouse gas emissions will be assisted by a shift in American behavior: Fewer Americans getting their license. Studies have shown less and less of Americas youth are prioritizing getting their license. If this pattern persists, it will have a beneficial effect on the reduction of carbon emissions being released into the environment. This calls for less pollution, and a more ecofriendly, healthy society for us all.

In conclusion, limiting car usage in your daily life can cause a drastic change. These changes include a decrease in the amount of stress one inhabits, to less pollution, and a beneficial effect on carbon emissions. Our society as a whole has the opportunity to reduce car usage, so why not grab it while we have the chance. A healthier environment calls for a healthier you.",0
82ed3eab,0,"Cars are an integral part of many peoples lives around the world: they provede transportation to work and home, they cater to social lives, and for some they even provede a home.

However, it's becoming a trend to limit car usage, particularly in Europe. Residents in Vauban, Germany have given up cars almost completely, with the exception of a 40,000 parking garage fee that over half of the residents have elected not to use.

While it may make getting places harder, the effects of cutting down on car usage are mostly good ones.

First and foremost on this list is global warming. In Europe, cars produce around twelve percent of greenhouse emissions, while in the US, the number can be as high as fifty percent in cities. This is not good. Global warming is destroying the ice caps and the ozone layer of Earth, leading to a temperature increase that is damaging many environments around the world. This, in addition to pollution released by cars and the oil industry, could permanently cripple our planet. Any way that we can cut the effects of global warming should be implemented.

Secondly, crowded cities benefit in many ways from a lessening of driving. Some cities, like Paris, have already had to enact a partial ban on driving due to a heavy smog layer. Other cities, like Beijing, is even more polluted, and cities in this country suffer as well. If less people drove, the air would be clearer, as was the case in Paris.

Also, there is less crowding when less people are driving. Anyone who has driven through or lived in a large city knows just how bad congestion and traffic jams can be. Less driving would mean less congestion, making it easier for people to get to work, school, or other locations on time. When Paris enacted its driving ban of those with evennumbered licence plates, congestion went down sixty percent.

Finally, using an alternative to cars can save money.",0
83585d45,1,"To begin , i think that the electoral college is not working. Because under the electoral college system voters dont vote for the president they vote for a slate of electors. And from source two it says that the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational , and that many people think that the electoral college should be abolished.

Additionally, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because the winner takes all the systems in each state because candidates dont spend time in the state they know they not going to have a chance to win. And also they dont get to have their ads every where in every state because in Rhode Island and South Carolina voters in 25 of the biggest media markets didnt get to see a single campaign ad.

Plus ,I think that the electoral college docent work because voters can not control whom their electors vote for. And sometimes voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate because this system is so confusing and bad that its to the point that the electoral college needs to be abolished. Also i think that the that electoral college does not work because it is very outdated and things have changed in this world and that we need a new system so our citizens can choose on how they want the worlds or government system to be like as years pasts bye. Plus many have said and argued that the Electoral College method of selecting a president may turn off potential voters for a candidate.

Why should the Electoral college be abolished ? Because we as people should have a choice to select a president without having someone to select for us after we selected the president we want to control our country. And we shouldnt have to worry about if i electors choose the right president for us because it states that ""Some electors use your votes for them so that either choose who they want to become president or use your votes to support them if they want to run for president"". And to be honest i really dont think this system is organized correct because for this system to be good they would need for all elections to be equal and for electors not to use our votes and pick who they want like some do because they have no proof that electors are choosing the people that we want to be come president and to protect the United states.

To conclude , i think that the electoral college is not working. Because of lack of equal rights and votes towards who should be the president of the United States Of America.",0
837b6339,1,"Walking into the voting booth ""...every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November"" Office Of Federal Register 6, the people of the United States of America expect their vote to count. Although, the president is elected in a more indirect way, by the electoral college, which does not represent the people, and is not fair. The president should be elected by popular vote from now on.

The first problem that the electoral college faces is the fact that it does not truly represent the opinion of the people. First, voters can walk into the booth and ""...get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate"" Plumer 10. Not every voter is educated on exactly how the electors and candidates are represented on the ballot and that may lead to an accidental win. On top of this misconception, almost deceitfully, an elector promised to a candidate can change their vote at a moments noticePlumer 10. Even Posner who writes for the electoral college admitted that it is possible, and he claims that it is ""rare""however, it has happened before in 1960 Plumer 11, and not even Posner can control the actions of an elector, legally anyway. Also, when a candidate wins a popular vote, which is the true mind of the people, that candidate still may not win the electoral vote, overall, loosing the election. This happened just a few years back in the 2000 election between President Bush and GorePosner 16.All in all, the electoral college does not represnt the people.

Looking deeper into the subject, elections by the electoral college are not fair. The first example appears in the method of the ""...""winnertakeall"" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate""Office of Federal Register 7. Because of this system, Presidential candidates may not feel the need to campaign to all people, just those of the states with the highest amount of electoral votesPlumer 13. This goes against the american concept of ""all men are created equal"", leaving voters feeling undervauled and not important. Second, ""A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes538 is an even number.."" Posner 18. Although this tie is claimed to be ""highly unlikely"". However, an election by popular vote would make the conundrum even further unlikely by the general logic of the fact that it is a lot less possible for the opinion of an entire nation to be split down the middle than that of 538 electors. Another issue with a tie in the electoral college lies in how that draw is resolved. The tiebreaker is left to the representatives in congress, and ""Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming...would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California..."" Plumer 12. This simply does not give all the voters equal say in who wins the election. All of these topics and more compressed together represent how un fair the election truly is.

Entering the booth next election day, dont only think about who you are voting for, but also how you are voting for them. It makes all the difference, and, ultimately, the popular way is the best way.",0
8390d932,0,"Cars have become an important part of our world. From their rising fame came consequences that effected our daily lives and our environment. Limiting car use can have advantages, like reducing greenhouse gasses and making ones community better to live in.

By limiting car usage, the amount of greenhouse gasses gasses produced by exhaust, carbon dioxide, etc. would be reduced. Greenhouse gasses effect the ozone layer of the earths atmosphere and that in turn effects the health of everyone breathing in the earths oxygen. Greenhouse gasses, albeit the healthy sounding name, is not good for people or the environment. By limiting car usage, people can put a dent in the amount of greenhouse gasses being produced. ""Passenger cars are responsible for for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" 5 This means people can change the world by simply reducing their car usage.

Changing the way one lives can change the way they look at life. Some people in the community of Vauban have found happiness just by reducing their car usage. ""when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way.' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two"" 3 In this community people get to experience walking down the street, hearing people instead of the constant sound of a running car. ""In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway."" The people living in the community don't have to go out of their way to buy something when they can just walk down the street and purchase it. The town of Vauban entertains the choice of efficiency and health over inconvienence and unsafe air.

Limiting car useage can have many advantages, like reducing greenhouse gasses and making one's community better. Although cars are convienent the people in the town of Vauban would rather live in a reduced car community.",0
83db5f29,0,"Nowadays does everyone rely on cars frequently, and as of late has this practise begun to show its numerous negative effects, of which shall be discussed. The articles presented by Elisabeth Rosenthal, Robbert Duffer, and Andrew Selsky portray the effects of such frequent use of cars and effort many areas are already making to limit car usage the articles also explore the many benefits of limiting car usage such as reduction of pollution.

Some large and global cities, such as Paris, are known for the substantial amount of pollution present in their air. According to Source 2: ""Paris bans drivin due to smog"", Paris already has more smog than other European capitals in general with one hundred fortyseven micrograms of particulate matter per one cubic metre. In comparison to brussels one hundred fourteen micrograms and London's seventynine and seven tenths, Paris' pollution is clearly more concentrated. According to Source 4: ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, the United States features broad expanses and many suburbs, being one of the places in the world where cars are greatly centred upon by the people. Thus can one imagine the exceptionally negative impact that cars most likely have on the air quality of the urban and suburban areas throughout the United States. Elizabeth Rosenthal's Source 1: ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" states that the widespread use of automobiles worldwide are one of the greatest obstacles to overcome in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. Twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe are from cars and even up to fifty percent are from cars in the United States. This furthermore leads on to the many benefits that limits on car usage have to offer and the efforts certain areas are making to create these benefits.

Source 1 provides some useful insight efforts on the possibilities and advantages of limiting car use over continuing the mainstream automobile trend. Vauban is a community in Germany near France and Switzerland, on the outskirts of Freiburg. Here is where parking areas in streets, driveways, and home garages are infrequent to find or are outright forbidden. Only two places are available for parking, which are the large garages at the edge of the community, with parking spaces going out for forty thousand dollars. In Vauban, only thirty percent of the population own cars, and fiftyseven percent of people sold their cars in order to move here. Apparently, the lack of automobiles seems to have a calming effect as is professed by Heidrun Walter, who is quoted from Source 1: ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Source 2 show how Paris had to create a driving ban temporarily due to smog. Car traffic was lowered to sixty percent in Paris after a week of the smog and the ban helped to clear this outbreak so commuting could resume to its regular ways without impediment from the heavy pollution. Andrew Selsky's Source 3: ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", Bogota of Colombia had a day imposed where cars were banned and only buses and taxis were permitted. This was imposed to support alternative transportation as well as to reduce the amount of smog in the city, similar to the ban Paris has imposed. Although there was rain that same day, it did not stop people from participating, and similar to Heidrun Walter's comment in Source 1, businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza states that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" The campaign for these Days Without Cars began in the mid1990s and has resulted in construction of one hundred eighteen bicycle paths and major public work repairs of sidewalks and blooming of parks and sports centers. Restrictions imposed during rushhour have reduced traffic greatly in a positive way and new shopping districts and restaurants are appearing constantly. Even in the great urban automobile centres of America, vehicle use seems to be reducing, as presented in Source 4. Acording to an analysis by Doug Short, a member of an investment research company called Advisor Perspectives, miles driven in the United States has slowly fallen since 2005 it is apparent that if the pattern continues, carbon emissions and the environment will be positively impacted to a substantial extent. Even Bill Ford, CEO of the Ford Motor Company, has porposed a business plan for a world in which ownership of a vehicle is undesirable, a place where walking, biking, low use of private cars, and public transportation is woven together to conserve resources, decrease emissions, and increase the level of urban safety.

As shown, such a level of car limitation would be highly beneficial to everyone as a whole. There would be less pollution, driving would be safer, and the urban economy would spring as more people walk or bike to transport themselves. Bill Ford's idea of a world where owning a car is impractical would be highly viable, and the city of Vauban has already begun the move. Areas without choking pollution, congested traffic, and a simpler and more tranquil life overall result from the restriction of car usage.",0
8414217a,1,"Abolishing the electoral college would be the best way to go for everyone. Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the president. source 2, Plumer Some wonder, are the people in the electoral college even reliable? Many also believe that the electoral college is an unfair way of deciding whom the president will be. The electoral college is also flawed in a way that it makes the smaller states feel less important than the bigger states.

Are the people in the electoral college always reliable? Who even knows who chooses our electoral college? Voting citizens can't even control who the electoral college votes for sometimes, this is unjust and an outrage considering us citizens do the moral duty to vote and may not even get a fair outcome anyways. And, there are some cases in which voters get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate. source 2, Plumer This ""winner takes all"" system is a big mess and highly unnecessary. Not to mention, it is also a very unfair way of deciding.

Some question if the electoral college is a fair way of voting. Which it is not. The electoral college can cause an unfair vote to the presidents which also upsets us citizens. What if say, 5,000 people vote in Florida, 3,000 for president 1, and 2,000 for president 2, and the electoral college sends it off as president 1 gets the vote for that college. But then, that 1,000 vote difference could have changed the vote for president country wide. A scenario like this may be unlikely, but it is possible. It has already happened once, it would be a shame if it did again. Chance of a situation like this draws a lot of people away from voting for president. Another unfair scenario was in 1976 when a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. Source 2, Plumer The electoral collage is bound to cause a catastrophe and we should stop it before it does.

The elctoral college is also unfair in a way that smaller states votes do not feel as important. Some people in the smaller states even say they haven't seen a campaign poster throughout an entire election because candidates feel as if campaigning isn't important in places that only have 3 or 4 electoral colleges. If we had a popular vote society, people in smaller states would feel like their vote is as important as those in the bigger states.

Overall, the electoral college is higly unfair way of deciding anything. It should be abolished before it turns into a problem. Many can agree that the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational.",0
845a8af0,1,"What If i told you that instead of having the electoral college vote for us we can change the vote to popular vote. The American people and past presidents have all come to one conclusion, that the electoral college should be removed and instead move on to popular vote. Many people have had this thought but it has never became an actual reality and I personally believe that the electoral college should not decide our presidents.

The electoral college is a wide variety of people from different states who gather together and decide who becomes the president of the United States. The electoral college doesn decide who are president is, but they do so in a terrible manner such as they take the popular vote inot a miniscule amount of consideration and completely make up the decisions without taking inot consideration the american people who perfer popular vote over electoral vote. In 2000 the electoral college had something called the disaster factor where there was a giant election crisis. As stated in the article "" the system allows for much worse"" and that the american people should call them selves ""lucky"". The electoral college is a very risky way in order to elect our president What people dont realize is that each state gets a certain set of electoral votes and the three major states with the most electoral votes are California,Texas, and Florida. What most presidents do is cater to the states that have the most electoral votes which means all the other states with not as many electoral votes get excluded from giving their opinion as it is taken over by the bigger states. This is also awful because most states might vote for one president but get ruled out because the majority of electoral votes are taken over by the bigger states. Agriculture states such as Idaho might not get appealed as much by presidents and don't get the supplies and support some states deserve. Even presidents such as Nixon, Bob Dole, and Jimmy Carter all belived that the electoral college should be abolished and move on to popular vote.

Another opposing view is that we should keep the electoral college for a couple of reasons to avoid run off elections but with popular vote that would almost never happen as people choose the candidate they perfer as run off election would be very unlikely. Another debate is that presidents would go after states with bigger populations but no matter what with electoral and popular vote presidents are always going to go after states with more people it's a problem we can not avoid.

I personally and storngly believe that we should abolish the electoral voting system and start using popular vote as it seems like our best chance to ever get the right president but even then we still make mistakes but us as the american people need to learn from our mistakes in order to make the future better for voting and many more things.",0
84e6a412,0,"There are so many ways that limiting car usage is good for me, you and just everyone in general! Yes cars do have their advantages but like everything else they also have a few disadvantages. People should limit car usage more all around the world and heres a few reasons why..

Auto mobiles help in many ways they help you get to where your going faster and in a comfortable sitting condition, but although your body is comfortable are you really relaxed? i presume not! Having a car is a big responsibility which can also be very stressful. Think about it when you didnt have a car as a kid and young adult you didnt have to worry about if the insurance on your bike is payed , or if there was any mechanical problems with your legs. cars are expensive to buy and they continue to be quite the hefty financial load after youve bought the car too especially if no well maintained. In the article ""IN GERMAN SUBURB, LIFE GOES ON WITHOUT CARS""' paragraph 3 sentences 46 Heidrun Walter says "" When i had a car i was always tense..."" This quote proves the point that having a car is quite stressful , but thats not all she goes on to say ""i'm much happier this way"" Why is she so much happier? cause not having or needing a car lifted a huge load off her shoulders thats one less thing to worry about on a daily basis.

Also lets not forget one of the biggest issues in the world POLUTION! Pollution is a huge problem that we constantly see on the news , hear on the radio , and we see every day. One of the worst forms of pollution is the kind thats in the air we breathe to live and cars play a role now lot of people may say ""my one car cant possibly cause that much pollution"" but if millions.. billions of people think the same way then thats billions of air polluting cars driving around the world polluting the air we breath to live! Paris made a great arrangement as stated in the article ""PARIS BANS DRIVING DUE TO SMOG"" they talk about how paris banned certain cars driving from one day and other cars the next. All the cars with even numbered liscense plates were to not be driven on monday and vice versa for the odd numbered liscense plates the next day. this was good because it only allowed about half the amount of cars that usually drive on a daily basis to drive. In time this should make quite the noticable difference in the smog and the overall experience of breathing the "" fresh air"".

In conclusion we should all limit car usage because it is less stress not having a car helps financially and lifts a great load of responsibility off of our shoulders and also if less people drive on a daily basis then there will be much less polution in the air and i dont know about you guys but id rather live longer than drive and die young, but thats just me.",0
84ea705b,1,"The Electoral College has been used for years. I agree that we must keep it this way. Yes, It is possible that the outcome of the popular vote that the people have chosen is not in agreement but it has been the best way of selecting a President. It is highly unlikely that when the people vote for certain selection of the candidates group of electors will change their mind. It has happened before but It's rare. I suggest that the electoral college stay, and not change the election because It has not only been used for years, but also some of the citizens may make a mistake in who they vote for, and atleast with the Electoral College we can make sure we have the right President.

Each Candidate has their own electors and it take 270 of electoral votes to choose a President and since they are from the same group, they wouldn't choose someone else. It has happened in 2000, as it says in the excerpt. This system has been used for years, why change it now. The Electoral college has worked this way for years, the founding fathers came up with it as a good process. It is completely fair to all. The people get to select their candidate and the electors know what their responsibilities are. The citizens aren't completely able to control the electors ideas but they might have a bit more knowledge on the subject.

some citizens may get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate excerpt from passge. This refers to the fact that we may have chaos if we let the people decide directly who is our President. We need an insider to review our peoples choices and make sure that it is the correct one, and what better way than to have the Electoral College do it. It depends on the state and the candidate's political party, In which you chose. The People will get what they asked for, their has been times In which it that is not always the case, but the electors usually make the decision the people has asked for.

As said in the passage ""In defense of the Electoral Collage"", Each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee, and the trust is rarely betrayed, This system is the best one yet. Our people are well informed but not always, If we take out the Electoral college, we are leaving our country in their hands and people make mistakes sometimes, with the electoral college we have various people making the right decision.

It's like when an author writes a book, they don't get it published right away, they have people to make sure their spelling is correct and they make many other different corrections. It's the same with the Electoral college and the way the president is selected. As my state senator, I suggest we keep this system.",0
84fbf660,1,"Dear Senator, The Electoral College is unfair to not only the state but everyone in the country. If only a few people are allowed to vote as electoral and then the rest is individual whats the point of having both? It does not make sense for the fact that the electoral votes are more important then the peoples votes. Its not fair because maybe the person who received more individual votes would be a more better president than the person with more electoral votes. The Electoral College should be changed and who ever wins by the most popular vote should be president because that person may be better off.

To start off with, the electoral college shoudl be changed because in soure 2: "" The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenes of the system are wrong"" the author Bradford Plumer states ""voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" paragraph 10. What Plumer is saying is that the people who vote dont vote for the president, but for the people hwo come with him. Even though it should be the president you should be voting for. He does control our country and our future of what might happen. So why should the electoral college be voting for the slate of electors? Also in source 1: ""What is the Electoral College"" the author statea ""election of the President by vote in congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" paragraph 1. The author is saying that the candidates have electoral votes and individual votes. Why have both though? Shouldnt a citizens vote matter more than a electoral because we know who might be best for us? The electoral college probaly doesnt even listen to the candidate, only their electors slate which is not fair. It should be the candidate who seems to be best for us instead of who works best for the president.

Also, shouldnt the person who wins by the most popular vote be president? In source 2: ""The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" it states ""Al gore received more individual votes than George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election, receiving 271 electorl votes to Gore's 266."" Plumber is stating the fact that even though Gore won buy individual votes, Bush still became president because of his electoral votes. This is completely unfair though because Gore had more of the countries attention than Bush since he won by more votes. Bush only got the attention of the Electoral College because of the elector slate he had. Isnt that wha the electoral college looks at? The electoral slate? How about the public, they know what is best for their country and if the person with the most individual votes is it, then let it be it. Furthermore, in source 1:""What Is the Electoral College"" the authore states ""Most states have a ""winnertakeall"" system that awards all the electors to the winning president."" paragraph 7. This is unfair because the candidates dont actually spend time in states they know they wont have a chance of winning in, but shouldnt all votes count? They never know if that state wants to pick them so why not show them who you are? In 2000, the candidates doing the campaign didnt send it to seventeen states. They didnt send it to Rhode Island and South Carolina including voters in 15 of the largest media markets didnt get to see a single campaign ad. Now thats not fair because everyone vote should count. If a person doesnt get to see then they wont vote but the person with the most votes should win. So why think that no one would vote? You never know.

Although these reasons state that switching the electoral college is a good idea, there are some benefits of it being there. In source 3: ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president"" the author Richard A. Posner states ""The electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states by population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution...""paragraph 21.This states that despite the fact that not a lot of people like the electoral collage they help balance the votes of the states and help continue the rights of the Constitution. This helps with th popular vote of the states and gets the most attention than smaller states. On the other hand, even though the electoral college evens the votes of the oublic, what if they choose the other candidate then the one that the public chose? It wouldnt be fair not only to the state but the other people who choose that candidate and the candidate him or herself.

Furthermore, the Electoral Collage should be switched so that the candidate with the most popular vote wins instead of the candidate with the most electoral vote. They should win because the person who has the most votes is better off with the public.",0
8519059c,1,"Why does electoral college still have its defenders, Abolish thee electoral college!... Electoral College was a compromise between election of thee president by a vote in congress and election of thee president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. I am writing to thee state senator of florida to argue in favor of keeping thee Electoral College. I am certain theat we should keep thee electoral college because of theree simple reasons. The Electoral College is a way of certainty of outcome. Swing states, and to Aviod runoff elections.

To commence I say thee system of electoral college should stay because it has a certaint of outcome. A dispute over thee outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible. This has happened before in 2000. In 2012 election, for Obama he received 61.7 percent of thee electoral vote compared to 51.3 percent of thee popular votes cast for him and rodney, thee Republican nominee for president in 2012. electoral votes arenon a winnertakesall basis. A tie in thee nationwide electora vote is possible because thee total number of votes 538 is an even number.

To continue thee second reason why I theink the electoral votes should stay is because of sing states. The winnertakeall metheod of awarding electoral votes induces thee candidates. Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to thee campaign to really listen to thee competing candidates knowing theat theey are going to decide thee election. The most theoughtful voters should be thee ones to decide thee election.

Last but not least electoral voting should stay because to aviod runoff elections. The Electoral College also avoids thee problem of election in which no candidate receives a majority of thee votes cast. Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 are good examples, theey bothe only a had 43 percent plurality of thee popular votes. Some potential voters who have no hope have less in centime to pay attention to thee campaign thean theey would have if thee president were picked by popular votes.

To briefly wrap up I argue in favor for thee Electoral Votes to stay because of thee certainty of outcome, swing states, and lastly to aviod runoff elections. In some people's opinion's theey would disagree, but theey will not have enough facts to support why theey disagree, because honestly Electoral Votes is always thee way to go.",0
8524c360,1,"Dear State Senator, After experiencing the dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote in 2000 I realized that the Electoral College is an old fashioned and unfair voting system for our next presidents. The vote of all United States citizens should be taken account but with each state only getting a single vote it is highly unethical for a state with 500,000 voters like Wyoming and a state with 35 million voters like California having the same amount of votes.

The candidates who of course want to win will want to spend there time campaigning in states they think they have a chance of winning over but what about states that they do not think will vote for them? States like South Carolina and Rhode Island during the 2000 campaign didn't even see the candidates at all. This all because of the winner take all system established in the Electoral College.

There are people who still support the electoral college but on what end? They say it has a more certainty of outcome but there have been past cases where the electoral college almost hit a tie. In my opinion the odds of default outcome in Electoral College is the same as the odds there would be in popular vote for the United States Past presidents like Bod Dole, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter even agreed to destroy the Electoral College. If even presidents want to abolish the Electoral College then what is stopping us from doing so. It's time we make a change to this irrational way of voting and start valuing the opinions of each United States citizen. The only way to do this is to start having direct elections and stop using the Electoral College way of voting. I am positive that this will have a positive affect on how people look up to the government because it will finally make them feel that the government values there opinions.",0
8525c905,1,"Dear Senator, People have different opinions on the Electoral College. Some feel that it should be changed, and the president should be elected by popular vote. To explain what the Electoral College is, the Office of the Federal Register writes What is the Electoral College?.

The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong, to explain the problems with the Electoral College, and lastly, Richard A. Posner writes In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President to explain why we should keep the Electoral College. It has been made clear that we should not change the Electoral College.

It is true that the Electoral College may be confusing Plumer, but it has worked for all these years, thus we should just leave it the way it is.

To start, The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by vote in congress, and it also considers the popular vote of qualified citizens Office of the Federal Register. The founding fathers wanted us to use this system. They knew it would succeed.

Next, Plumer writes, ""It's official: The electoral college is unfair..."" This is not true because the number of electorals each state gets is always decided by the number of members that state has in the House of Representatives, plus two for the senators Office of the Federal Register.

Additionally, Richard A. Posner says that ""There are five reasons for retaining the Electoral College despite its lack of democratic pedigree all are pratical reasons, not liberal or conservative reasons. He then goes on and says, ""A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible...but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote."" In the Electoral College system, their will always be a certainty of outcome. Plumer goes against that and writes, ""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote."" This cannot happen. Posner also writes that ""The electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal."" The north, for example, does not have enough electoral votes to elect a president Posner. The president is everyone's president.

Also, The Electoral College considers swing states and big states. Plumer writes ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters"". This is not true because of the idea of swing states and big states. Swing States, also known as tossup states, are the states that pretty much decide the election. They could go either way Posner. ""The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states by population lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senete decreed in the Constitution. "" This means that the larger the state in population, not size, the more their overall vote weighs.

Lastly, by using the Electoral College, we are avoiding RunOff Elections. A run off election is when no candidate recieves a majority Posner.

In conclusion, you and I both know the Electoral College has some flaws, but overall, it makes sense to keep it the way it is.

Yours truly, Emily.",0
85410ec2,1,"Keeping the Electoral College is not smart for the united states voting system. First, many citizens all over the country don't agree with the voting system. Second, the Electoral College may be swayed by bias. Third, citizens do not really have control over their vote. The Electoral College system should be changed.

Many American citizens do not agree with the voting system. Citizens have grievances about the system being unfair and unreasonable. The Office of the Federal Register states, ""It's official: The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality"" source 1. If American citizens are persistent with the issue, and continue to argue, then why is the government keeping the system? Why doesn't the government come up with a more rational voting system?

The Electoral College's vote may be swayed by bias. How can we trust total strangers with our vote? Bradford Plumer states, ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner take all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in the states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the 'swing' states source 2. Voters do not get the full effect of voting because they are voting for other ""qualified"" people to vote for them. How is that possibly effective?

Citizens do not have control over their vote. Once citizens vote their vote is out of their hands. The Electoral College chooses the president for them and there is nothing citizens can do about it. Bradford Plumer states, ""Your states certificates of Ascertainments are sent to the congress and the national archives as part of the official records of the presidential election"" source 2. The government has full control over how the election goes, not the citizens who voted.

The entire Electoral College system is completely irrational. The government needs to come up with a new way to vote for future presidents that is more fair. If we find a solution to this problem the government will not only gain favor of the American citizens, but also keep the balance that is established by the constitution. The American citizens will have control over their vote. The Electoral College should be abolished.",0
854499ef,0,"I think that limiting car usage is great for the environment. There are a lot of benefits that come from it. If we use car less then greenhouse gas emissions will decrease and thus cleaning the air of smog. Some of the benefits that limiting car use is that: 1. it decreases poisonous smog, 2. lots of cities in the world are doing it, 3. and last but not least it could promote other ways of travel. Its about time that the world start changing some harmful habits.

To start of, Reducing car use is very effective when trying to get rid of smog. In some cities such as Paris, smog is a big pollution there. In Paris they even went head to head with Beijing,China which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world. Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of this globally known city. by enforcing this, some days cars with even numbered license plate could drive. The next day odd numbered cars could drive. If you were caught then you were fined. so by paris doing this congestion was down a whopping 60% in Paris after just 5 days.

This would cut down greenhouse effects tremendously. So far reducing car use sounds pretty good.

Furthermore Paris isnt the only place in the world to do this. Bogota,Colombia in a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians either hiked, bike, skated, or took a bus to commute around the country to their destination. This is known as a car free day. This carfree day left the streets of the capitol void and empty of rush hour traffic. Even the U.S. government is considering the international event that is also helping the environment at the same time.

Another thing to reduce greenhouse gas is if people would find a more alternative way of transportation. City buses could count as an alternative,because think if a bus could seat 30 people. Think if all 30 people had their own car, then the emission amout would substantialy increase 30 vehicles rather than 1 vehicle. Other ways of transportation are things such as bikes, skatesskateboard, or just walking. none of those alternatives release any type of emissions.

In a way not using cars sounds great in many ways,but there are those people out there that rely on the usage of cars to transport themselves such as anyone with physical handicaps. Maybe this is the start of something new but what happens to this earth is all on us so it what we dicide to do with it rather we wont it to last or we can just let it go and lose the one planet we have left.",0
8545f014,0,"A ""car free"" community has many advantages. They will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases. They will also help you save more money by not having to pay for a car, and if you do, you can park it in a garage for 40,000. This will also expand other transportation and will have a new sixyear federal transportation bill. There is no disadvantages for having a ""carfree"" community. Many countries and cities are participating in limiting car usage to make the air better and cleaner.

First, and most important, is that reducing cars also reduces the greenhouse gas emission. People that participate in this are most likely doing it to make the air we breath better. In some overpopulated cities, the amount of smog is crazy. After just one day without some cars, the amount of smog disappeared. London had the idea for evennumbered license plates to be banned to drive one day, even though some people still used their cars. So more than half the cars are still on the road, and it reduced smog so much, they didn't even need to ban the odd numbered cars. This is the most important reason why people are limiting car usage.

Next, if you live in a car free community, you will never have to pay for your car. You can sell it to make more money because you will never have to use it. This is much better than owning a car and having to park it in a garage for 40,000. If you ever need to take the bus, you will have the money. With the extra money you can buy a bike also. The stores will be walking distances, so there is no need for a car. I think this is a great idea for not only a better community, but it would help people socialize with neighbors and it saves money while doing it. After World War II, the cities would start reconstructing around the car, but now that is beggining to change in Vauban, Germany.

Last, the cities are trying to expand public transportation, such as taxis and buses. It would promote these and play a much larger role in a new sixyear federal transportation bill. In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have gone to highways by law and 20 percent have gone to other transportation. If the city bans cars, you can either walk, skate, bike, or ride the bus or taxi. In America, the amount of cars being bought and license plates being bought are decreasing since 1995. President Obama has an ambitious goal on which he unvieled last week and he wants to get rid of green house gas emissions.

In conclusion, I think you would agree that limiting car usage has its advantages. It reduces greenhouse gases and also smog. After one day, Paris was clear of gas and smog in the air. The gas gets caught under the atmosphere and is dangerous. Limiting car usage also will help you save money because you no longer will have a car to pay for. Also, it would boost other forms of transportation, such as buses and taxis. This is a great idea to limit cars.",0
85726ac5,0,"Cars may be a good source of travel, but, unknown to some, are dangerous to Earth and it's inhabitants. Limiting car usage to bicycles, walking, or any other option is a good idea. The reasons for this being that it makes traffic safer and, more importantly, reduces pollution.

To begin with, limiting use on cars makes traffic less of a hassle. For example, in the text, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota,"" the author of this source reports that the effects of not using cars is, ""leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" Source 3 Selsky Notice how, even in a big city, the effects of not using cars are extremely noticeable. If that carfree day makes it to EVERYWHERE in the planet, no more trafficrelated nonsense will occur. Furthermore, in the passage, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" a citizen by the name of Heidrun Walter states ""when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way.'"" Source 1 Rosenthal Even she finds that the lack of a car makes life easier for her. This statement, though some would prefer not to admit that they were tense drivers, is true, as being behind the wheel in a large amount of traffic could be stressful. It is agreeable that the effects of not using cars shows how much better life would be if they were removed permanently.

In addition to reducing traffic, limiting the use of cars could decrease the amount of pollution. To illustrate, in the excerpt, ""Paris bans driving due to smog,"" Robert Duffer reports that, ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" Source 2 Duffer It is shocking that the amount of driving in that city caused so much pollution that they needed to enforce a law banning driving, a TEMPORARY law. It is baffling how Paris didn't keep that law intact. To add insult to injury, according to ""The End of Car Culture,"" Obama plans to curve the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, seein how ""transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants."" Source 4 Rosenthal Wow, driving causes such a large amount of emissions to the point that it is near the amount of power plant emissions. It seems rather unbelievable, and some would wish that the article wasn't true, but the use of cars is practically killing humanity. The point is that car usage is damaging Earth and preventing use would reduce the damage.

To wrap things up, reducing car usage would make traffic less of a risk and decrease pollution. Perhaps it will make the planet a better place, or fail in the end and continue to hurt the land some would call ""home"". Just remember this, when you continue to use whatever car you use, remember the dangers it may bring.",0
85811631,0,"Although we rely on cars as a primary means of transportation for our busy lives there are many advantages to not using as much or even having them at all. Now driving in a car is very useful. It gets us where we want to go much faster than just biking or walking there. But there are many benefits and advantages to a world without cars. One advantage is that there will be less polution in the world. Another is that people will be just a little less lazy. And even more is that the world may be just a little quieter and safer with the lack of cars.

Thousands and thousands of people today are either driving a car or some other motorized means of transportation. And though yes they do provide a fasts way to get around, they give off so much exhaust into our relatively clean air and pollute it that its almost toxic to breathe in some places. In the article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" it says that ""After days or nearrecord polution, Paris enforced a patial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" Cars polluted the air so badly that in some places people completly banned them all together just to rid their air of the filth that the cars had created.

Many people in the world today have gotten lazier and cars have helped them get this way. Rather than ride a bike to their destination or even walk people decide to be lazy. They drive their car there or take a bus or taxi. But if people have to get up and walk to their destination rather than just walk to their cars it will make the world just a little bit better of a place to live. There may even be less stress in the world. No waiting in traffic and no yelling at others when they cut you off or drive too slow. The only problem or stress you may have to worry about is the crowd of people you may be walking with.

Now yet another advantage to a life without cars is that it will be quieter and safer. There won't be any honking of horns in your ears. There will not be any more roars of engines. No more yelling at other drivers for their ""lack of skill"" at driving. The world will be safer as well. No more people getting hit by cars while walking and no more car accidents. No more police car chases that put innocent civilians in danger of getting hit.

There are many advantages in life with no cars. A world without cars is less polluted. A world without cars is less stressfull. and it makes the world quieter and much safer. Cars are a basic part of life and we have grown used to them but the world may be a little better if they were no longer here.",0
85a5c9c2,0,"The culture of the cars is a easier way of transportation for the people, yet do the people know that these cars are space consumers and cause smog in most areas of the world. By just reducing the amount of cars invarious locations the amount of space would increase the therefore make town or city more accessible for the large population. this change of culture may benefit the population by just having the public transportation and biking.

To begin with the space consuming in suburbs makes it hard most people make a living in the tight area and having the certain parking areas may be the only way to have the space needed to get to where they need to be, yet its all timed. this makes people more tense when they had to worry of a parking spot. The people in Germany weren't allowed to park the sides of the road and have drive ways unless they payed an extra 40,000 along with a home. As said the text vayan, had completed a trend of separating the car use from the suburban life, this is what they called the smart planning. also to include that other areas of the world such as Beijing, China, has to worry more the amount of smog polluting their air and making people ill. In Paris, France, diesel fuel was blamed for the pollution because most of the cars were made up of this fuel. they were rank the most polluted area compared other locations. Therefore to reduce the amount of the complaints of the lack of space and pollution the want to either rid of the cars or just buy more plugincars and hybrids for cleaner air.

Not to mention, that in Bogota, Colombia they completely banned the cars from their country for a day to promote an alternative transportation and reduce the smog. the violators are faced 25 fines. As said the text, the stress level has dropped and therefore has made easier for the people to more around and not get so aggravated. The authorities from other countries came to the event to see what they had in store for the this program, and as said in the text the authorites say that ""these people are generating a revolutionary change and this is crossing borders. And in the United States, President Obama has ""ambitious goals to curb the United States' greenhouse gas emissions"" Americans are buying fewer cars and are getting fewer licenses. By creating a new network that has the pedestrians have bicycles, private cars and commercial and public transportation. this to show time saved, conserved resources, lower emissions and improve safety. by not just completly getting rid of cars but just reducing it, it may help them to have more smooth system.

To conclude this, the culture of cars has been a issue for someyears and in some areas very diificult to handle therefore they have created a more effiecent way to make life easier for most people. the world has to reduce the smog and increase the space for more compact living and larger populations. By not to get rid of the culture car completly but to just reduce it can be benificial to the people and the world.",0
85b29439,1,"Dear The Florida State Senator, In our nation, we use a process called the Electoral College to be a deciding factor in presidential elections. I firmly believe this system has become outdated as our country has grown. This nation says it is all about the people and what's best for us it even says so in the U.S. Constitution, ""We the people.."" And what the people want, and need, is a fair presidential election, which can be established by making the popular vote the deciding factor.

When you think of any differentiation between two groups even back when you were a young child, how did you solve it? You vote. For example, say you and a group of friends are undecided on whether you want to go to the movies or the mall. So, you vote! Voting always has a fair outcome. It's simple. Whatever party has a higher number of votes wins and in this case becomes president. I certainly respect the idea and goal of the Electoral College, but it simply isn't quite effective. It does not make sense why we would get someone to be elected by people who have similar attributes to go represent them and vote for the president. It isn't very effective being that the voted Electoral College member could change their mind and vote for whomever they want instead of the candidate the people thought heshe was going to be voting for.

Think about this. Does it make sense that ""We the people"" voted for one candidate to win, but he still loses the presidency because the Electoral College overturned it? No, it does not. This is exactly what happened in Al Gore's place according to Bradford plumber's book, "" The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong."" Also, according to the previous cited book, due to the mishaps in Al Gore's case and others, ""over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have know."" And similar to what was stated in the first paragraph, voters can't always control whom their electors vote for and sometimes vote for the wrong elector. All of this confusion could easily be eliminated if we eliminated the Electoral College.

Direct voting is way easier and way more accurate to whom the nation wants to be the president. It eliminates the confusion some voters may get if they are unsure which elector feels similar to how they feel about each candidate. It eliminates the hastle of electing electors in the first place. It eliminates the uncertainty voters have about each electoral candidate, being that they could change their mind whenever they please. And best of all, it eliminates the unfair, irrationality of the Electoral College.",0
85f8f19f,0,""" All of our development since World War 2 has been centered on the car..."" Now and days alot of countries are limiting car usage to go into a day of free car day, which basically means that no one is allowed to drive their motor running cars for a day. If they disobey the law they will be charge a fine. Its like a when a police officer stops you for passing a red light or for speeding on a no speeding zone. Still these countries are getting advantages over these days because there will be less smog, less traffic, and more people buying bicycles rather than a expensive car.

"" Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog."" one of the advantages for limiting car use is there will be less smog to deal with in the air. this can harm not only us but our environment we live in, which is the air we breath. In france they decide to do a car ban day. The result of this event was that the "" Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions"". If someone was brave enough to drive a car than they will be fined 22euro which is 31.

"" Almost 4,000 drivers were fined according to Reuters, people had their cars impounded for their reaction to the fine"". Less traffic was on the streets due this ban of cars, which allowed the people with bicycles to go on the streets and ride them. In Bogota,Colombia they also did this ban but they gained more advantages over limiting car usage, only buses and taxis were permitted to drive on the streets. their goal was to promote alternative transportation. Due to this event, parks and sports centers were packed throughout the city, and pitted sidewalks have been replaced by smooth sidewalks for the skateboards and bikes.

"" What most intrigues me is that rates of car ownership per household and per person started to come down two to three years before downturn said Micheal siva"". As a result of car ban people have stop buying cars which is atrocious for car companies but at the same time there is a up side to this also and is that people will now walk or ride bicycles to get to where they need. Which also leads to people being more athletic and less people being obese or overweight.

These countries are gaining alot because of these car ban which is good for removing these dark clouds in the air, less traffic, and people riding bicycles rather than cars. Its obviusly that some people think that this rule is selfish or not needed but its helps more than you think it does. And some people are just mad because of what they are getting charged or fine for driving in the streets even though you can't due to the law.",0
85f97618,1,"Dear dumb Republican , The Electoral College is stupid and we should not use it. I have many reasons to believe that this is an unfair system that is adulterating our country's wonderful ways.

The first reason for why I despise this system is because we have had people with more than half of the country voting for them not be elected President. This is due to winning by just enough in certain states that you get their elector votes. If you win by 51% in a state with 4 electoral votes, but someone else wins by 99% in a state with 3 electoral votes, you will have more electoral votes, but less popular votes. In the system that we are set up with, electoral votes is how you will get elected for President. This happened during the presidential Election in 2000, when Gore won the popular vote, but Busch won the electoral votes and was elected President. It also happened several times before, most recently in 1888.

With the Electoral College it is more likely that a tie will happen. This is beacuse there are only 538 electoral votes, which is a lot less than 300 million popular votes, for every U.S. citizen. If there is a tie, then the Senate and House of Representatives has to do all this stupid stuff to figure out who wins.

In the process of the Electoral College, the voters in the smaller states are given more power than those in the larger states. Every state gets a minimum of 3 electoral votes, and then more are added depending on the size of the state's population. WIth 3 votes for a population of 500,000, Wyoming has more votes per citizen than the larger states do. Large states with ten of millions of people may have only a few more votes than Wyoming does, giving it's individual citizens more power in choosing the President.

Because of the Electoral College, Presidential candidates spend a large portion of their time in ""Swing States,"" like Ohio or Florida, and little or no time to states with predictable outcomes. A swing state is a state that could go either way in the election, so the candidates spend a lot of time convincing it's populants to vote for them, because of the winnertakesall method. This is unfair to the states with predicted outcomes.

In conclusion, the Electoral College is old, useless, irrational, and hurtful to our country. This is why we should abolish it.",0
8605b836,0,"If you were told on some days of the week that you are not allowed to drive your car to work, or even use your car at all, would you be glad or happy? Many people don't like it at first, but then grow to like the changes and outcome of not using your car as much, or not having a car. Some people say they are less stressed by not driving, or owning a car. Also people are happier that they are saving money. And they are helping the environment because it is not so polluted and smogged.

First off, when you have a car and drive it around all day, and sit in it all day, its stressful. When you are rushing yourself out the door in the morning so you're not late to work, and then you have to sit in traffic for 30 minutes or so just to get to work, is very stressful. Then on your way home from work is very stressful too. You are coming home in what is called ""rush hour"" where everyone is getting off work around the same time 5am and you just have to sit in more traffic every day! It is less stressful to not have a car, or use your car that much because you can then walk, or ride a bike. So its more relaxing and you get more time outside and excersizing. Also when you are not using your car, or do not own a car, you become more responsible and have a better track of time. So that just helps out with not being as stressed out!

Another reason why people like not driving or owning a car is that people are saving money. If you are not driving as much, then you dont need to go out and pay for gas as often. If you don't own a car at all, then you don't have to pay those monthly bills of owning that car, plus you don't have to pay for gas at all! Also by not driving as much or not owning a car does not tempt you to go out and spend the day at the mall, or always go out for lunch and dinner with friends. In todays society, many people want to save money. Many people try to save money, but don't know where to start or how to start. And with this way, just may be a helping hint to it.

With not driving as much, actually helps our planet and environment. It may not seem like it, but it does. Your not polluting the environment, and youre just being one more person to help make it a healthier environment and planet. If we had atleast 50 maybe 100 people from each city across America to not use their car 3 days a week, can make a big major difference in todays society in the multiple ways. It would help out in ways like not being as stressed, saving money, and helping our environment too.

There is many reasons as to why not driving as much or not owning a car can help out yourself, and the environment. Just by not driving as much or owning a car can make you a better person by not being as stressed out, you save lots of money by not driving so often or owning a car, and you are also helping our environment and planet by becoming a better and healthier place.",0
8606e0bc,1,"The president of the united states is one of the most powerful political leaders in the world and controls the faith of one of the wealthiest country on the planet. There have been many discussions on how to elect the president of such a great nation. The Electoral College, the founding fathers established it in the constitution as a compromise between election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. If its worked for over 200 years why change it. The Electoral College provides certainty of outcome and avoids runoff elections and should be kept as the form of election of the U.S. president of our state.

To Begin With, the Electoral College has been used for more than 200 years and our state is fighting for another 200 years of electoral college. In an article by Richard A. Posner called ""In Defense Of The Electoral College:Five Reasons To Keep Our Despised Method Of ChoosingThe President"" he states ""there are...reasons for retaining the Electoral College despite its lack of democratic pedigree: all are practical reasons, not liberal or conservative reasons."" Amongst these reasons one of them is the certainty of outcome and in source 3 paragraph 18 it states that ""A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possibleit happened in 2000but its less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reasons is that the winning candidates share of the popular vote."" Richard Posner is stating that Electoral College is more effective because it causes less trouble and does not need to be disputed unlike popular vote which needs to be disputed because the winning candidates share of the Electoral college invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote.

Furthermore, The electoral college avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. In an article by Richard A. Posner called ""In Defense Of The Electoral College:Five Reasons To Keep Our Despised Method Of ChoosingThe President"" he says ""nixon in 1968 and clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College 301 and 370. There is pressure for run off elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast the presidential election process, is reduced by the electoral college, which invariably produces a clear winner.",0
8608381d,0,"Cars are becoming a must in today's society. In some places, people live and survive without a motorized vehicle. People don't have to stop using cars altogether, but should be able to limit themselves to save of world from pollution creating a better environment to live in.

Some people don't understand the severity of pollution and how much cars contribute to that. Pollution is said to become Earths demise, with cars producing and letting out so much smog, it seems as if the Earths demise could be near. According to Robert Duffer, Paris has ""enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" This evidence of Paris giving a partial ban shows how detrimental cars can have on Earth environment. Further examination reveals, a situation where Bogota has even issued a "" carfree day"" stated by Andrew Selsky. This source shows us that with even one day without using a car could be a useful plan for all places. People of today don't need to not use their cars, just use their cars either less per day or per week.

Although some may say, we need cars to get to work or to go to the grocery store, they can always just use public transportation. Buses are already running even if you are in a car so why not use them instead of polluting the air even more. In Bogota, when they have their carfree day, most people either ""hiked"",""biked"", ""skated"" or ""took buses"" as a mean of transportation. More evidence shows a scenario where the Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging a ""car reduced"" community, stated by Elisabeth Rosenthal. Resources such as this one shows that if the United States environmental Protection Agency is concerned about our pollution rate why shouldn't we? If we cut down on our use of cars, pollution rate can drop extremely down causing a better living environment.

When you stop to think why cars have become so prevelant, there is no exact reasoning. If we don't even know our exact reasoning for having a car, in a case that we can't rely on buses or our own two legs to provided why are we risking the safty of our Earth in order to use them? Cars aren't the slightest bit the problem, how and how often we use them is becoming the problem, if we limit our use of cars our advantage would be the single best thing in live, happiness and peace of life.",0
86209d86,0,"In Vauban, Germany, citizens have made the decision to not use cars. To some people, this may be something that they could never imagine themselves doing, because it would make life more complicated. However, these people are pleased with their decision and would not have it any other way. Furthermore, there are many advantages to making this change. By limiting car usage, citizens can improve their own health and economic state.

By making the decision to stop using cars, one can become healthier, both mentally and physically. One citizen who has already taken this step said,""when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" Rosenthal 3. Many people who chose to limit their car usage, decided to walk or ride bikes instead. By chosing the alternative, they are less stressed. There is something soothing about walking down the road in a quiet and peaceful environment. Walking gives one time to reflect and think, while driving requires concentration and can be stressful. In addition to improving one's mental health, limiting car usage can also improve one's physical health. Pollution from the air can take a toll on someone's physical health and the environment around them. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" Rosenthal 5. Pollution poisons the air of most cities where people live and breathing the pollution is not healthy for an individual. In cities like Beijing, inhabitants wear air filters over their mouths in hopes fo escaping the pollution. Limiting car usage can help improve air quality quickly. For example, after having multiple days of intense smog, Paris decided to ban cars with evennumbered plates for one day. After this one day of limited car usage, ""the smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday"" Duffer 19.

Another advantage to limiting cars is that it could mean economic improvement for individuals and countries. The banning of cars can mean improvement in the appearance of cities, which can have positive impacts on the economy of cities. ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have beeen replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks"" Selsky 28. These improvements in the city can draw more people to them and stimulate the economy in places that have had difficulty before. In addition, individuals can save money by carpooling, biking, walking, or using public transit as an alternative optopn to driving. During the 2013 rececession, people were forced to sell their cars due to lack of money. However, after they recovered from this, they decided not to return to car usage due to their content in the lifestyle they had chosen Rosenthal 32 In conclusion, limiting one's usage of cars can have only positive impacts on one's life. This decision can have lasting impacts one's happiness, the environment, and the economy.",0
8656ffec,0,"For years, the United States has been mass producing and using cars. It may sound surprising, but America has already reached its peak when it comes to buying cars source 4. More and more people around the globe have begun to realize the benefits of using alternative means of transportation. Places such as Vauban, bogota, Paris, and even New York have implemented programs to encourage the limited use of cars. The idea of giving up such a comfort may sound tragic at first, but reducing car usage has many advantages.

We use cars everyday for pretty basic purposes. To get to work or school or to run errands are just a few examples. Now, imagine what would happen if a car were not available to you. It probably would not be the end of the world. You could catch a bus or ask for a ride from somebody. If you really needed to, you could even ride your bike or walk to wherever you needed to go. People in the past tended to fear using alternative transport, for varying reasons. Maybe friends or family are not willing to give rides. Maybe the sheer thought of walking a mile may seem terrifying or ridiculous. The most common reason is probably that having a car is just too covenant, it seems that there is no need for any other way of transportation! But life can and should be adjusted to fit into these sources of transport. In Vauban, Germany, for example, residents have given up their cars in favor of a life without them source 1. I just proves that contrary to popular belief, cars are actually not a necessity!

Citizens in Vauban, Germany walk or ride bicycles when they need to go someplace source 1. It's almost needless to say this, but they have a much healthier lifestyle than most carowners in the United States! They are not afraid of walking or riding a bike a bit to get where they need to. Not only are these people in better physical shape, but one mother, Heidrum Walter, tells us that when she had a car, she was always tense, but now that she has given it up, she seems happier source 1. Carlos Arturo Plaza, in bogota, Columbia, says that using his bike on their annual nocar day reduces his stress levels. There is a direct corrolation between physical activity and mental wellbeing. The more activity, the better you feel. By limitting car usage, we are also encouraging the physical exercise that comes in place of it, making us a happier, healthier community.

Maybe the most important reason to reduce car usage is to protect our enviroment. By obtaining and burning fossil fuels, we are both running out of this resource and posing the threat of spills and air pollution to our environment. The gasoline we use to fill our cars certainly won't last forever. It won't even last for much longer at the rate we are burning it at. Also, spills can be devasting to the ecosystem it impacts, as we have seen in the past, for example the BP oil spill. Perhaps the biggest disadvantage to the gasoline we use to fill our cars is the air pollution it leaves behind. Transportation is the second leading source of emissions in the US, behind power plants source 4. Also, in Paris, the smog from automobiles got to be so bad that they set laws to ban cars on certain days source 2. Just by reducing car usage for a few days, the smog cleared tremendously. It wouldn't be hard at all for each individual in this community to cut back on the amount of time they spend driving in their cars, if for no other reason than to keep our Earth clean.

Over the years, we Americans have grown accustomed to relying on cars for our every need, but we can't do that anymore. As a community, we need to open our eyes and see the changes happening around us. Cars are not a necessity. We don't even need to completely get rid of them, but it is neccesary for us to cut back, for the sake of our health and our environment. It may take some getting used to, but I promise, it is more than possible. In the words of Bill Ford, we can soon move forward to a world where ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions, and improve saftey."" source 4.",0
867c38f2,1,"Dear Florida senator, this letter is to discuss my opinion about the voting system for how the new president of the United States of America should be elected or for how the current president should serve another term. The main topic for this letter, is wether or not we should keep the Electoral College or disregard it and go to popular vote. Giving this topic into consideration, it should be best if we switch to popular vote. Candidates not focusing their attention on all the states and that the outcome could be a tie are the different aspects on why we should abolish Electoral College and bring forth popular vote.

To begin with, candidates don't focus on trying to get all the states to vote on them in Electoral College. The explanation for this is because since its the ""winnertakeall"" system, the competitors disregard the states where they know they're not going to win over the majority. They don't even show up to the states or try to win them over. ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad"" quoted from ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer. Some might say that this is not a huge issue, but it is to the states that are being ignored. They want equality and a chance to be recognized by each of the rivals. It is clear to see that the candidates give no sign of importance to states that have slim chances of them voting for himher.

Continuing on further, the Electoral College's outcome could end up in a tie. In a result of this mishap, the state delegates, from the House of Representatives, start to vote for the president. The vicepresident is chosen by the The Senate. Each state has one vote to choose which side their rooting for. The silver lining in this decision is that, different states have different amount of population, so it's unfair for all the states to have the same amount of power in choosing the president. ""Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters"" taken from ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best bestlaid defenses are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer. People doubt that there will ever be a tie but they're were close ones in 1968 and 1976. There's no doubt that, if a tie happens in the Electoral College, everything would go down south.

To sum it all up, reasons why we should switch out of Electoral College is because candidates don't focus on every state and that the final outcome might end up to be a tie. The Electoral College should be abolished due to these reasons. Popular vote is the best for our country. It'll help the voting system by an abundant amount. Please take this into consideration senator and make the correct decision.",0
86c74c7e,1,"In today's society there is neverending controversy over a million things. surprisingly, a lot of these controversies are centered around one single topic: Politics. One of the most prominent arguments is the one surrounding the Electoral College and its possible abolishment. How the process works is when a state votes on their candidate the state is actually electing the Electors. Most states take a winnertakeall system where the majority of votes for a candidate would determine that all the electors will vote for that candidate. Only a few states split up to Electors based on votes, and then delegate a certain number of them to one candidate and a certain number of them to the other. The electors vary in amount by the number of members in its Congressional delegation. The Electoral College is made up of exactly 538 electors, and a majority of 270 is required to elect the president.

Personally, I would argue in favor of the Electoral College and keeping it for numerous reasons. One of them being that whomever is elected, will be everybody's president. What I mean by this is that no one region can overwhelm any other regions through popular vote and elect the candidate of their choice. If you took the southwest region of the United States, there would be California, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, etc. Texas and California alone hold a great amount of America's population, and could possibly overwhelm the other states with popular vote and vote in the president of their choosing. With the Electoral College in place it allows to even the playing field and avoid runoff elections providing a more fair representation of the United States votes.

Another reason is that, the candidates can then be elected honestly, by people who listen thoughtfully. With the Electoral College, there are swing states. These states use the winnertakeallmethod, and are normally a toss up. Most competing candidates focus on these tossup states to try and secure the vote for them, and as some would argue, this prevents candidates from visiting smaller states, all because they want the most votes, but in truth, the candidates are visiting the swing states because they are thoughtful voters. The positive thing with swing states are that the voters within them, know they are a part of the deciding vote of the president. This means that they pay much closer attention to the election and things happening within it, and the candidates stances on many different topics. This allows voters in swing states to vote fairly and informatively, without over bearing politcal part bias.

On the other side of the argument are those who want to abolish the Electoral College. They pose many reasons for why they want this such as what is often called the disaster factor. This reason is based on the election of 2000 between Al Gore and George W. Bush, when Al Gore had recieved the majority of the individual votes but once taken to the Electoral College, Bush won with 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266. This incident angered many people, who wondered how and it brought up the question: Can electors defy the will of the people? The answer is yes, but it's high unlikely, and very rare, if ever. Electors are made of a parties committee, and sometimes the candidates themselves. They are picked by the State Legislature, so they obviously contain knowledge in politics and are trusted by the state government to do there duty as appointed. Some argue that the incident in 2000 between Gore and Bush was a freak accident. It's quite rare and, although it has been quite close before, no such incident had occured since 1888, when the Electoral College was created, or anytime after.

In Conclusion, in favor of the Electoral College staying as it is, it would keep the country voting fairly. It would also avoid runoff elections and a region overloading the popular vote, due to the vast quantity of population. Keeping the College intact would keep citizens in swing states interested during the election, becasue they know they are the deciding vote. While aruments against the Electoral College are many, they aren't substanial enough to completly abolish a process that has worked successfully for over a hundred years and counting.",0
86fe4f18,1,"I strongly believe that the Electoral College should remain the way it is or, better yet, that we should elect the president by popular vote. This is due to the fact that the Electoral College does not accurately reflect the will of the people. For example, in the 2016 presidential election, an estimated two million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump however, Trump won the Electoral College vote, 304 to 232. This means that a candidate can win a majority of the Electoral College voters while losing the popular vote! Furthermore, voting for President should be an individual citizen decision, not a state decision. The Electoral College works by awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the winner of the majority of votes in the state. This means that a candidate can win the majority of votes in a state and still not receive any of that states electoral votes. This goes against the concept of onepersononevote, since a candidate can win the majority of votes in a state and still not win any electoral votes. By eliminating the Electoral College and electing the president by popular vote, the votes of every individual will be counted, and the candidate who wins the most votes nationally will win the election. In conclusion, the Electoral College does not reflect the will of the people and votes in state are not equally weighted. It is time to elect the president by popular vote and to finally give the votes of individual citizens the weight they deserve.",1
87394b51,1,"Dear State Senator, Many people go back and forth whether or not to keep the Electoral College or switching to popular vote to decide on who our President of the United States will be. The Electoral College just isn't a fair way in deciding who the President will be. Just because that canident won the Electoral College and not the most popular vote out of the whole country, does not mean that should be President.

The picture provided in source 3 shows a map of the ""breakdown of the number of electoral votes given to each state."" Throughout the map you can clearly see that each state does not have the same number of electoral votes as all the rest. When people go out to elect the President they have to understand that they might not be in control of that vote honestly counting. We basically aren't choosing the President we want. We are choosing the electors for that President who will be voting for you and the state. It's sad to see that even if a President does win the popular vote out of the whole country that they still, may not become President because of the electoral College. It even says in source 2 paragraph 9 ""over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" If more people are against the Electoral College then there must be a change.

Along with people feeling as if their vote doesn't matter, there could be a ""disaster factor."" A disaster factor is when you vote for the candidates electors that then go and vote for the President of the opposite that you wanted. Yes is happens ""rarely"" but it still has happened. It says in source 2 ""back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors withnew electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy."" They were going to do this so that the popular vote whould not be counted for Kennedy. People have to keep in mind that if we vote for who we want as the President we are voting for electors that at any point in the election can change their mind and not vote for who you originally voted for. If electors do, do this then we have no control over it. It's like we've been told that our opinion doesn't matter or count in our country that is supposed to be free, we also have rights that prove our voice is allowed to be heard.

On the other hand like stated in source 3 people may argued that ""each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee"" but then it goes further on to say ""it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote."" That statement proves that it is unfair and not right not just to the candidate but to the people who overall voted for them. It also says in source 3 that ""no region Soth Northeast, etc. has enough electoral votes to elect a president."" But it sure does play a big role in deciding whether or not the President you want to win, will win or not. Also because of states being more popular than other states the Electoral College might as well say that those states are better than others, which is not true.

Overall, the Electoral College voting method should be changed to popular vote. It will make people feel like their vote actually matters and by having a popular vote the voting throughout the whole country would be more accurate than the Electral College way. With the amount of electoral votes given to each state it isn't fair to say that each state is even. Also with the chance of a disaster factor happening, people would feel more comfortable with knowing once their vote is in it will stay that way and not be changed by something that they can't control, especially by someone else. Our voting method must change and change quick.",0
876a2523,1,"While there have been presidents that have run without earning the popular vote, it does not mean that the Electoral College is inefficient, bad, or unnecessary. The Electoral College, chosen by our founding fathers, is a process in which people elect for electors. Then the electors vote for the president. Each state gets a certain number of electors, or electoral votes, depending on their population. This way, no single group of people can sway the voting largely. Instead, only the state would be effected. Without a doubt, the Electoral College has been working well for centuries, and I see no good reason to change it.

For starters, it is much easier than a popular vote to decide. Yes, the chance for a tie is there, but to count each state rather than each and every single vote is much easier nowadays. Counting such a plurality of votes is already a difficulty, even right here in the Sun Shine State. Imagine counting all the votes right down to the last one! Even though a tie is more likely this way, the odds of a tie are so rare, what does it matter?

Another truly great thing is the fact that any president must have appeal to all states, or at least most. Having the favor in the south and concentrating it there will not give you more votes. In fact, it is more likely you will not be president if you yield strongly to any one region. Doing so may lose you many votes in other areas that may be difficult to recapture. If a president was for say, leaning towards big old California and Florida, but not going very much for the other states, then yes, he may win many, many votes from California and Florida and possibly win the election, if it was a popular vote. But this is not the case. In an electoral votes, winning all votes in a few states is hardly useful. That, of course, plays majorly into elections, which is a reason why some of your favorite presidential candidates didn't win.

Another great thing I am to mention is loss of plurality. What if my buddy and I each got only 40% of the votes. The other guy in Tex. got the other 20%. Who would win? In the Electoral College, the Tex. dude may win a few votes in each state, but rarely will he win any. With the Electoral College, other minor candidates are less likely to screw the whole thing up.

It is true there have been faults. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO have all antagonized the Electoral College. One reason is that electoral do not have to vote for whom ever they chose in the beginning. If my vote gets some Bob McShnuffle into the electoral voting system, but he votes for someone other than my choice, then there is going to be major pandemonium. Is it fair that your vote and so many others gets flipped just because Bob McShnuffle was unhappy with that president? Perhaps, but this does not happen often. Usually, it does not cause too much of a balance tipping. But the true problem is the word of the people. We have so many speakers for us, but they don't always say the right things that we want. Fortunately, these incidents do not happen all the time. To fret over such things only offers you more problems and less solutions. By having an elector, a representative, someone can't say something stupid and pull the whole country down with him. Instead, this is the best way to address the majority of the people without conflict.

On that happy note, I must mention the electoral college is not perfect. Nothing is. But it is easier than popular voting, counts all states and regions, and naturally avoids runoffs. Of course, its still got its flaws. But you have to admit that those founding fathers did pretty good. Arguably, it has been the best way for the presidential election, and it still is...",0
8780d07e,1,"arguments on whether the state senator should favor in keeping the Electoral College or change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States are occurring today. Each favor has its advantages and disadvantages, but we should favor in keeping the Electoral College. This is because less disputes are likely to happen and not voting will not effect the election.

On the other hand, changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States has some advantages. In ""Source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"", author Bradford Plumer claims ""the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational"" because ""candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning."" This means that the candidates focus on the ""tight races of the swing states."" To continue, Plumer also argues that changing to election by popular vote makes every vote counthowever, changing to election by popular vote will cause many disputes and it is not the right way to keep everyone satisfied with voting for a new president. Keeping the Electoral College is more realistic.

To begin, the Electoral College is fair to the states, leaving fewer disputes. In ""Source 3: In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"", author Richard A. Posner explains that the Electoral College ""restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution."" The Electoral College gives larger states more attention from presidential candidates as opposed to a smaller state. Posner continues the idea with ""the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election."" To break it down, voters who pay close attention to the campaign will be the most thoughtful voters and they will receive the most attention from the candidates. This reduces the amount of disputes because the presidential candidates will decide on who to give the most attention to.

In addition, the Electoral College method does not get affected by the ones who chose not to vote. In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"", author Richard A. Posner states that ""knowing the voters vote has no effect gives them less incentitive to pay attention to the campaign."" But, ""voters in presidential electons are people who want to express political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide and election."" This means thatchanging everyone to a single vote will have no effect, too because people will not put thought into who to vote, but they will just vote for whoever.

To conclude, the state senator should favor in keeping the Electoral College rather than changing to election be popular vote for the president of the United States because less disputes will occur and not participating will not be effective.",0
87901eed,1,"Dear Senator, If one could sum up the definition of the Electoral College in a few words, those words would be unessasary and room for error. The Electoral College was established by our fore fathers in the constitution. Paragraph one in What is the Electoral College by the Office of the Federal Register states ""A compromise between election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" It is more than possible that a change in our voting system could better america in all kinds of ways.

I believe that the electoral College takes away the peoples opinion in a way just discreet enough to still call it a democracy. The people still vote and determine the overall outcome of the election, But with an electoral college, there is more then enough room for error. One argument against the Electoral College is in the very purpose of the system. The people votes go to an electors slate that share the same view as you, then they vote for a candidate. This is opposed to the peoples vote going directly to the candidate. This method of voting is if not purposeless then problematic. Electors can betrey your trust and vote for the opposite candidate. A statement from bradford Plumers' The Indefensible Electoral College says ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always."" In America our society is based off of freedom and the electoral college is not promoting it. Please keep in mind that the legislature is nearly completly responsable for choosing our electors. At any election they could defy the peoples choice. excerpt from The Indefensible Electoral states ""back in 1960, segregationists in the louisiana legislature neary succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy."" Electors have occasionally been know for simply refusing to vote for their party's candidate. If this is freedom to vote then there undoubtingly needs to be a change in the near future.

candles like the one thay occurred in 1960 rarely happen, but whos to say that it could not happen in the future. Our presidential election is practically based off of trust in our government. The Electoral college does recognize voters from each region of the county but due to the way the system is set up, it does a poor job interpreting the votes of the people.

A quote from In Defence of the Electoral College by Richard A. Posner states ""It is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popluar vote"" This happened as recently as the election of 2000 Then ask yourself what would really be the harm of ignoring the Electoral College. It only would make the outcome clearer.

The American elections differ from most countrys in the way that we are a democracy. we the people can vote. we the people have individual voices that are the composition of the country. The elector college does not oppose this. But rather is opening the doors for corruption. Taking away the Electoral College and replacing it with popular vote, is simply clarifying the peoples decisions, and the peoples decisions is nothing less then America itself.",0
88220e4d,0,"Many cities and countries are starting a new trend that is not using cars at all. Vehicles can cause many problems such as air pollution, congested roads, and injuries due to wrecks. Some cities have started some type of way to promote how bad vehicles really are and advising people on what to do to stop driving.

For three years in Bogota, columbia, the city has a day called, ""Day Without Cars"" where in this city, home of seven million citizens, nobody can use a vehicle unless they are willing to pay a 25 fee if they were get caught. Columbians greatly support this cause by hiking, biking, skating, and taking the bus to work. This caused the roads to be clear and not congested like they usually are.

Paris has a system to help support limiting car use as well. They take even and odd numbered license plates and designate a day that's either even or odd. On the even day, car owners that have an even license plate are ordered to leave their car at home, and vice versa for odd. If they have drive their car on the day they were ordered to leave it home, they have to pay a fee of 31.

The United States has reached a point to where cars are starting to become unpopular. In 2005, the amount of miles driven peaked, and in April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was down approximately 9% below the peak in 2005. That is equal to where the U.S. was in 1995.

Another advantage of limiting car usage is that some companies that are in the computercell phone business are making more money. In the United States, many people are using the computer and telephone to communicate with people because it's faster and easier to access than having to drive around town to meet with someone. This means that computer websites are making more money and the phone companies are making more money since people are using their phones more often.

Next, cars can cause major stress to some people. Traffic jams, animals running across the road, not being able to see due to smog, and car accidents stress people out because they are either too busy to deal with it or being scared that they might hurt someonesomething or may even get hurt themselves. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter in an article written by Elisabeth Rosenthal.

Also people's health could improve tremendously as a result of limiting car usage. Walking to work could burn the calories that people ate at breakfast. Hiking, running, skating, and biking to meet up for lunch or for little kids to go to the play ground could greatly increase people's health. Since people would be technically exercising while going to places, they would be more proned to drinking water to rehydrate themselves which would make them a healthier person in the process as well.

The process of limiting car usage has started or has already taken over cities and countries. It can reduce stress, increase the health of people, and increase the profit for business. The advantages of limiting car usage may seem small, but in the end they will have a huge impact on societies.",0
8841c96f,1,"Dear Senator, ""The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens""Office of the Federal register. Thus, the Electoral College is a balance of votes that includes many different sources for which the President is elected. For this, the Electoral College should be retained due to its contribution to successful elections even though there are some instances which occur and to help the elections remain fair and equal. Additionally, this process should be continued, but there are certain aspects that would argue for changing the aged process.

In Richard poster's, ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President,"" he incorporates in his defense, that the electoral votes are awarded in a winnertakeall basis, which means that the states play an important role in the deciding factor of who will become the next President. Posner explained theoretically, ""In 2012's election, for example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and rodney... even a slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state"" Posner 1. With this, this shows that the state votes are important and essential to the candidates who are trying to obtain electoral votes in the states. Thus, this method or process is successful in ways many people do not acknowledge. The citizen's votes do matter, when every aspect is put into a big picture and taken into account. Furthermore, the Electoral College allows for everyone to have the chance to be apart of the elections. The Office of the Federal Register explains, ""The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress"" The Office of the Federal Register 1. This adds support that at the end of the election, almost every part of an election including votes, is taken into consideration, thus making the election a successful one.

In The Office of the Federal Register's excerpt, ""What Is The Electoral College,"" there is certain reasons that further divulge how the Electoral College is fair and equal to the candidates and the citizens who are voting. This is reiterated when The Office of the Federal Register statees, "" Your state's entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional Delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators...Office of the Federal Register 1. In addition this means that each state will receive an opportunity to have a meaningful vote to the elections because every state has the same kinds of members being awareded to them. Each state will have a different number of members due to the size, but they will all be of equal value to the candidates. To add for support, Posner says, ""No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president""Posner 1. With this, all the states understand that their vote is crucial to the election and the candidates. Fortunately, the Electoral College is fair and equal to all the state's voting in the election, sometimes even more than some states know. For example, Posner states, "" Voters in toss up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaignto really listen tp the competing candidatesknowing that they are going to decide the election""Posner 1. Ultimately, the Electoral College is the most fair way to decide and vote for a future president who will be our leader of all the citizens.

Lastly, the Electoral College is the best way to determine a president, but there are some flaws. For example, Plumer explains, ""... Thanks to the quirks of the electoral college won the popular vote but list the presidency over 60 percent of the voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now"" Plumer 1. The elecotral college could alter the outcome of an election dramtically. Another issue that Plumer wants people to know is that, "" Under the electoral collge sysytem, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors..."" Plumerr 1. This is true but also could be a little dramatic. Ultimately, the citizens are the ones who are voting for the candidates not the electors. Without the vote from the citizens there would be no electors. The Electoral College process should still be kept even though there are some issues.

In conclusion, the Electoral College is very important to our modern day elections. The citizens and the states determine who the next Presidents will be. The process provides successful elecions which are fair and equal to not only the people, but the states. Posner states, ""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a poltiacl preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election"" Posner 1. The Electoral College makes sure that every person and state vote is accounted for and will be contributed to who the next President will be. One day maybe there will be a process that will exceed the Electral College, but for now, we will trust our founding fathers and keep the process that has been with us since the start.",0
884590fd,0,"Who doesn't have a car now days? It seems like everyone is dominated by these four wheeled creation of technology. On the other side, many places and countries in the world have decided to put a stop to the use of cars. This idea of giving up their cars came with many advantages to everyone, some of this benefits are the following. When cars are used less or left completly unused, this helps stop pollution, people feel better, and it improves the economy of car users.

First of all, the most important advantage is that being carfree can stop pollution. One city that had to ban car use for a few days is Paris. Due to all the smug the action that they took is, as stated in the article titled ""Paris bans driving due to smug"", on monday motorists with evennumbered license plates had to leave their car at home and not use it or else they would get a fine of 22 euro, which is equivalent to 31 dollars. And the same thing had to be done for the oddnumbered plates the next day. As the article says ""The smug cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday"". This shows how much damage the cars cause in the air, in just a day there was a huge improvement in the amount of smug. It's a demonstration of how much we can help by just taking public transportation and leaving our cars for a while.

In addition, another benefit is that people feel better. The source called ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" has this quote that businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza said ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"". And it is true that cars can cause drivers a lot of stress, for example, the simple task of driving to work on the mornings can cause stress because we have to be constantly preoccupied of not having an accident or even hitting a pedestrian. In Bogota this measurements has been taken really well by the community and it has worked just fine. Taking stress away is something we are always trying to do but we dont realize how simple it can be if we just used our cars less, they are a cause of this stress after all.

Another advantage is that it improves the economy of the car users. Based on my personal experience, my parents can spend over 80 dollars a week just in buying fuel for our car. Imagine all the money you can save if you didn't have to spend on fuel anymore! Another very expensive thing than comes with the use of cars is that, when it breaks, you're going to have to spend hundreds and even thousands of dollars on the repairs.

To conclude, there are so many benefits we can recieve by limiting our car usage. Three of those are the ones I talked about, it can stop pollution and smug, it can make people feel better, and it can improve our economy.",0
885329a4,1,"Dear state senator, I'm writing to you today regarding my concerns on our voting method for the president of the United States. Although we've been voting by the electoral college for how ever many years, I don't think it is the most efficient and fair way of voting. Our Chamber of Commerce, former vice president Richard Nixon and many more would have to agree with me when I say that abolishing the electoral college could only be beneficial to us. The electoral college system is unfair, confusing and forces people to compromise.

The electoral college is unfair, being that voters don't always control who their electors vote for, opposed to election by popular vote. One reason why America strives is the fact that we are a democracy, where every one gets a say and we are not ruled by a dictators or communist. The electoral college in no way follows our democratic system, the people are not voting for our president our electors are the ones voting for us.

Not only is the electoral college unfair but it is also confusing. For new voters they may be confused by the electoral college. New voters may wonder why can't I just vote for the candidate I most prefer. Think about it like this, in the electoral college the electors are the middle man. Why not cut the middle man out? And as a result make the voting system much simpler.

People may agrue that the electoral college system stops a majority vote. So let's say, you're a democrat living in the state of Texas with the electoral college system in place. You might as well not vote for an elector cause the majority of the people in texas are going to vote for the republican elector. On the other hand, there is the election by popular vote, gives everyone a say in whom they'd like to vote for. There is always the possibility of the disater factor.

After sharing my concerns with you state senator, I hope you understand where I am coming from.",0
887ae67a,0,"What is the one thing a citizen of the united states sees just about everyday of their lives, vehicles. Vehicles are one of the most important creations America has ever had to offer but sadly there is a catch its killing this planet we call Earth. But there is a simple way to stop this atrocity from going any further. Its quite simple really all we need to do is limit our time driving. The advantages of doing this will help stop air pollution, reduce stress, and help urban and rural areas feel more like a community.

its incredible how with time communitys stopped being what they used to be. What happened to everyone knowing everyone in their community. Well if we limit the time of driving not only will we need to find people to carpool with, Americans are going to start meeting new people and start becoming more of a community again. study last year has shown that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. They either biked everywhere or carpooled with friends and family becoming dependent on other people in their communitys.

The danger and stress that comes with driving is unmeasurable. overtime you drive on the road you are putting your life and everyone your driving with lives in danger. Its only reasonable to say the less amount of people driving the less stressed Americans are. In the passage carfree day spinning into a big hit in bogota, by andrew selsky he states ""Its a good opportunity to take away stress..."" and many other articles state that as well such as In German suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars written by Elisabeth Rosenthal ""when i had a car i was always tense. im much happier this way"". Driving less stressed will also lead to less accidents and less deaths per year.

Pitch black sky, every breath you take is killing you, and you wonder why did this happen, and you think back to all the advice people gave to you about driving. The future is sometimes hard to think about when your living in the present but the future will come and what it is will be based on what you make it. Air pollution is one of the biggest risks to this earth we have. To help stop this pollution well have to give up on using gas but for now lets take a baby step and just limit our time driving. Many communitys have stopped and or limited their time driving. Bogota located in colombia, paris, Vauban located in germany, why not just limit time spent driving in America.

Let us be the last of a dying breed and the birth of a new generation by being role models and start acting as americans worried about this planet. Out of everything asked for us to do this is only a tiny portion of it. This change will not only help us altogether it will change the outcome of the future for the better.",0
88a15627,0,"Smog. Gas. Pollution. Many countries dont allow for people to have cars because they destroy the air that they are breathing. People and animals become sick from there being an abundance of pollution in the air that they are breathing. Another factor that can be taken into consideration is that it can reduce the amount of traffic jams as well. Do you think that the community that you live is effected by the pollution from cars.

To start off, many districts are forbidding people have cars. In places near French and Swiss borders, citizens are forbidden from parking on streets, driveways, and home garages. Citizens say that they feel less tense and happier without having their car. Source 1 states that "" Vauban is separating suburban life from auto use as a component of ""smartplanning."" In Elisabeth Rosenthal's passage it says that ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12%percent of greenhouse gases emissions in Europe..... and up to 50% in some carintensive areas in the United States. In Europe forbidding car use it is drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe. Over the past couple of decades, maybe even centuries we have been centered around the automobile that has effected out health and daily lives because of the increase of pollution.

Also, the streets in Europe are not as crowded as the streets in the United States. Paris, more smog than any other European capital, has began to enforce a partial banning of cars to help clear the cities air. Cars that run off of diesel gas tend to create more pollution than cars that run off of regular gas. Sixtyfive percent% of France's vehicles are fueled with diesel gas. By limiting the usage of these cars they will be contributing to the decrease of gas in the air. The increase of pollution has created a solution to help and decrease polluted air by making plugin cars, hybrids, and cars that are able to transport more than one person at a time. Records and studies show that Beijing,China is one of the many polluted cities in the world.

Another fact that is an advantage of limited car usage is little to no traffic jams. In Colombian millions have began the day without cars where they use alternative forms of transportation such as walking, biking, skating, and riding buses. ""Day with out Cars"" has promoted the use of alternative forms of transportation and smog reduction. Since adults children and teens have reduced the limit of car usage the Mayor of Mockus has began the construction process of an 118 miles of bicycle paths, new parks, sidewalk, restaurants, and upscale shopping districts have been created for them to go to on their free time.

Many people have began to not be as interested in driving because gas prices, as well as pollution. Their are many advantages to not limiting the usage of the automobile. It has reduced the amount of money that we spend, pollution and much more is also has helped us notice that there are alternatives to driving a car such as walking, riding the bus, and bike riding. You are also able to interact more with friends because the topic of car pooling has became very important and noticable. Those are just a hand full of ideas and ways that limiting the usage of cars is effective.",0
89226977,0,"The Automobile Industry has done nothing but grow since World War II. The Car has begun to implement itself into our culture, becoming a part of sporting events, TV shows, and even video games. Recently, however, the automobile industry has been experiencing a shift in interest. Countries around the world are implementing ""Car Free Days,"" or even carfree cities into their laws and cultures. The new laws and ideas are seen by some as irrelevant, or pointless, and some have even resisted these laws. While car lovers and enthusiasts may not enjoy the laws very much, when implemented on their daily lives, studies have shown that the new ideas are extremely important, maybe even revolutionary.

The car free environment begins in the German suburbia, where residents of a large community called Vauban live their daily lives CarFree. Vauban is free of street parking and driveways, and full of cyclists, skateboarders, roller blades, and any other emmision free means of transportation you can imagine. Because of this, nearly 3 out of 4 families in Vauban do not own cars. ""When I had a car, I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter, mother of 2 and resident of Vauban, Germany, mentioned in source 1. Car owners in Vauban park the vehicles in garages at the edge of town, to make commutes to nearby developments. Car free cities like Vauban are believed to be the next step to a greener, better world.

More efforts like Vauban are being made in large cities like Paris, France and Bogota, Columbia. According to source 2, Paris recently enforced a law to reduce emmisions, where even number plated cars may drive on Monday, and odd number plated cars my drive on Tuesday, and so on. The laws soon proved ineffective after a short time, for Paris to recind them. Paris, being one of the most polluted European cities, will certainly be making more efforts against pollution. An improvement campaign in Bogota, Columbia calls for one whole day without cars, according to source 3. Citizens are urged to take other means of transportation, like bikes or busses. Violators faced a 25 fine. The dark gray rainclouds didn't stop the citizens of Bogota from taking away stress and air pollution. This year, for the first time, two other cities, Cali and Valledupar, joined Bogota in the event. Cities around the world like Paris and Bogota are making efforts to reduce air pollution and leading better lives in cleaner cities.

Driving in America hit it's peak in 2005, when the number of miles driven in relationship to population was largest, according to source 4. Since then, the stats have dropped steadily, now sitting 9% below what it was in 1995. Many sociologists believe that the biggest decrease in milage is shown in young people between 16 and 39. Studies show that driving by these people decreased 23% between 2001 and 2009. Many experts now believe that America's car culture has hit its peak, and is now on the decline.

There are many advantages of limiting car usage. The people of Bogota, Vauban, and Paris know that in most cases, cars cause stress, and that even a day without it can refresh your mind. The citizens of Vauban, who do not use cars in their daily lives, are living comfortably, and happily, without producing carbon emmisions into the environment. Even Americans are jumping on the band wagon, where young people are now using cars only when public transport is unavailable. Cars make moving easy, there is no doubt in that. But can the emmisions of the vehicles be avoided, without sacrificing the quality of our daily life? According to Vauban, Bogota, and Paris, it can be done, and it will be done.",0
8957bae6,0,"Cars have been a huge advancement in technology in the past 100 years. Although they make traveling much easier, cars are a big reason for economical displeasure. Limiting car usage can help us in many ways. It will reduce pollution, more building space, and death rates will decrease.

Initially, limited car usage can play a major factor in pollution for the world. In ""Paris Bans driving due to smog,"" it says that 147 micrograms of particulated matter was fount in London. This is causing sickness and illness in lot of countries. If we would reduce car usage there would be lot less smog and greenhouse gases in the air that we breathe every day. Who wants to live in a cloud of dust?

More so, cars are contesting the roads and towns of almost every city. In France they had a day where they didnt allow you to drive your vehicle a certain day, and the congestion rate was down 60%. With less vehicles on the road, it gives more space for buildings to be built. Parks and sport centers will be built, giving more kids the chance to grown up being healthy and fit. As you can see limiting car usage can help in more ways than you thought. Also the less cars being bought and made, the more money we can have to better the lives of the sick and poor in the world. to use the money for events in the world swell. The jobs that would become available to people for building more bicycles and sidewalks would increase tremendously.

Therefore, the limitation of car usage will drastically change the rate of death in America and throughout the world. A study shows that driving by young people has decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. If there are less people on the road then there will be less devastating fatalitieson the road. The road is a path to your next door, not soppose to be the last path that you take. I dont want to be remembered as a statistic in this world, so less people driving and more people living is a great thing. Maybe we can see more good news than bad news whenever we turn the television on on sunday mornings after all.

In conclusion, The reduced limitation on car usage in the world can drastically improve our pollution problem, help with more buildings, and the death rate. Now let me ask you, if you had to choose wheither to drive that Mustang or to walk. After reading this passage, which would you choose? Like i said, i dont want to be remembered as a statistic.",0
89b19618,1,"The electoral college is how presidents get elected. But when people vote for president they do not directly vote. The electoral collge does not work and is irrational. It does not help anyone and can cause a candidate to lose the presidential election. It just does not work anymore.

The electoral college does not work. ""The Indefensible Electoral college: Why even the bestlaid defense of the system are wrong"" By Bradford Plumer says "" The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor"". They are talking about how Al gore got the popular vote yet George bush won. This is a prime example how the electoral college doesn work. The voters were cheated into there win. This just shows how unfair it is. ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defense of the system are wrong"" By Bradford Plumer says ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always."" This basically says it is possible for u to have no input in what u vote for. If your vote does not count then why should u vote. The system doesn work and needs to be tossed. The whole point of americas government is that your voice matters but apparently the electoral collge is free from the rule.

The electoral college is out of date according to the article. ""In defense of the electoral collge : Five reasons to keep our despised method of chhosing the president"", says "" The electoral College is widley regarded as an anachronism, a nondemocratic method of selecting a president out to be Overruled by declaring the candidate who recives the most popular votes the winner"". This article speaks the truth. Being a democratic like america the people rule and if this method is not democractic then off with it. It does not benifit us and will do more harm then good. ""In defense of the electoral collge : Five reasons to keep our despised method of chhosing the president"", says"" The electoral collge avoids the problem of elections in which no candidte recieves a mojority of the votes cast."" But that should be the reason one is elected. If they are most popular than why do they not get the vote. If they did the best campainge they should get the victory.

The electoral college is old and illogical. It is tired and needs to be replaced. AMerica is a new country and americans like new things. Change may not all ways be fun but it may be right. WHy should americans go through this hell anymore. Elctions are you as an individual trying to get the one who you approve into office. This is wjhy the electoral college is old and needs to retire. For america.",0
89c49ee9,0,"Ever since it was first invented, the automobile has proved to be very important and practical for people all over the globe. In the current century, however, the demand for the car has begun to see a potential disappearance, as people are beginning to discover that there are advantages to minimizing their dependence on their vehicles. Limiting car usage has several very influential advantages, such as increasing mental health, reducing air pollution, and eliminating problems associated with traffic.

First of all, studies have proven that the use of automobiles is linked to the levels of stress and unhappiness that people feel. Source one elaborates on this by discussing a city in Germany that decided to give up cars. It quotes a woman who says that when she had a car she was always tense, but living in Vauban the car free city has made her much happier. She is able to walk or bike everywhere that she needs to be in town. This opportunity to increase happiness is also mentioned in source three, which quotes a businessman who says that limiting car usage is ""a good opportunity to take away stress."" The alternative he choses is to ride a tandem bike with his wife. This allows for more bonding with his wife as well as increasing their physical health, which plays a vital role in mental health as well.

As of recently, the impact that cars have on the environment has gained more attention as well as increased concern. All vehicles emit greenhouse gasses, which are very harmful to the environment, causing smog and damage to the atmosphere. According to source one, limiting the use of passenger cars could reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by up to 50 percent. Source two describes how the accumulation of smog in Paris became so bad that it caused official bans on the use of cars. It took an entire week of restricting car usage to get the smog to clear up. Source four also agrees that the results of limiting car usage would have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment. Source one mentions that as a result of all of this, the Enviromental Protection Agency in the United States is promoting car reduced communities.

Lastly, limiting car usage eliminates all problems associated with traffic. Traffic creates many problems for people, from increasing danger to wasting time. Limiting car usage would immidately reduce traffic substantially. This could prevent people from being stuck on their way home during rushhour every day. Having cars speeding by, in residential areas especially, increases the level of danger for pedestrians. There are many casualties that happen every year due to automobile accidents. Limiting car usage would easily eliminate this problem. It would also eliminate the problem of drunk driving and the dangers associated with it. Source four supports this claim by stating that limiting car usage would in fact improve safety.

Limiting car usage has many advantages, and therefore should definately be taken into consideration. Doing this would not only increase mental health and wellbeing, but would also save time, conserve resources, lower emissions, and improve safety.",0
89cfe848,1,"Dear Florida Senator, I can't help but notice the controversy regarding the Electoral College and its role in electing the President of the United States. While most argue that the Electoral College is a violation of freedom, I strongly believe that the Electoral College promotes equality for the candidates and the people.

By using the Electoral College system, we create an equal playing field for the candidates. For example, The Electoral College system serves as ""checksandbalances."" In the words of the Office of the Federal Register in ""What Is the Electoral College?"": ""The founding fathers established The Electoral College as a compromise between Congress and election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens,"" Office of the Federal Register 1. This system of voting balances the voice of the people with the voice of Congress. Opposers might say that our votes don't even matter due to the fact that the popular vote doesn't directly determine our nation's President. This is far from reality, because the popular vote is vital to the Electoral College. The Office of the Federal Register writes that ""most states have a winnertakeall system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate,"" Office of the Federal Register 7. This means that the popular vote does determine for most states anyway whether or not the candidate receives all of the electoral votes for that particular state.

Not only does the Electoral College ensure equality for the candidates, but for the people as well. For example, in ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong,"" Bradford Plumer whines about how, ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters,"" going on to say that, ""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the 'swing' states,"" Plumer 13. However, Richard A. Posner makes a fair point: ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region South, Northeast, etc. has enough electoral votes to elect a president...If a candidate with only regional appeal becomes President the residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn't their president,"" Posner 19. Moreover, Posner also writes that ""Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign to really listen to the competing candidates knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average...and the most thoughtful votes should be the ones to decide the election,"" Posner 20.

Overall, the Electoral College is a symbol of our freedom of speech. I do hope you take my thoughts under consideration. The Electoral College may be called ""outdated."" But as the saying goes, ""If it 'aint broke, don't fix it.",0
89ec813f,1,"The meaning of a democracy is that the people vote for their leader or president. The electoral college denys that right and that is why the state senator should change that. Not only do the popular votes barley make a difference but, with the electoral college in play the representatives vote for our president, not us. If popular vote was the way the president was elected the elections would be fair.

To start with, how can we live in a democracy were the people do not pick their own president but, some representatives we supposedly chose can. If we were allowed to choose our own president then we could at least feel right in what we chose and not what the representatives did. according to Bradford Plumer the electoral college is unfair due to the winner take all method which basically states that if you are a big state and have many representatives then you will have a majority of a say when it comes to voting. I it were only up to the people to vote then every single vote would count more towards the winning president and not towards the representatives. If the electoral college would keep on then even if the popular vote went for one of the representatives the electoral vote would decide the actual winner.

Also, according to the Office of the Federal Register a total of 270 or more electoral votes are needed to elect a president. The total amount of votes consists of 538 electors, meaning there could be a tie in elections. This imply that the system is not fool proof and can have errors. However, if the popular votes were counted more than the electoral votes there would not be any chance of a tie and a president will always be elected. Most Americans do not know that they are voting for representatives who in turn vote for the president making this unfair. Thats just another reason why the electoral college is outdated and not needed.

Although the popular vote system is a little bias and favors the president the citizens like the most, it can also prove more effected for the fact that there will always be a winner no matter what. The popular votes system cant be represented by most states like the electoral college does but, it does have the vote of the entire country as opposed to a few states with more representatives.

In conclusion, the senator should change the voting system for many reasons. First, the popular vote is more reliable and there will always be a winner. Second, the electoral college has an even number of votes meaning there could be a tie therefore ruining the election. Finally, most people would like to personaly vote for there president rather than someone else to do it for you. These simple reason suggest why the senate should change the system.",0
8a0ce899,1,"Dear Senator, I believe that the United States deserves someone who will lead this country to do the right thing, to make independent choices, and to be the best version of ourselves we can be every day. Now, how do we know when choosing a leader to represent us if thats what we will achieve when voting? We don't for sure, but we can make judgements and calls that will give us a better understanding to whom we are choosing. One of the biggest fought over rights was the right to vote, in which everyone wanted. Now that we have that vote, we should be able to use that freedom and have a say in who we want to represent us. Therefore, I think we should change the election to popular vote for the President of the United States rather than relying on the Electoral College.

The Electoral college consists of 538 Electors and a majority of 270 electoral votes are required to elect the president. Each candidate running for president in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party and given their own says and responsibilities. That being said, I think that getting rid of the Electoral College will eliminate all biased decisions and will create more freedom and responsibilities for the people of the U.S. to use their own judgement and choose who they think will best represent the country. Being in the electoral college and being selected to have a heavy say in who will be chosen is a big responsibilty and in that responsibility are duties to not only look at each candidate with one mind set and one point of view but to make an unbiased judgement. To make an unbiased call would mean to put away all your own thoughts and judgements and really get a good understanding of who the people truly need. Back in 1960, it states that segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. How can we tell that something like this will not happen again? Well if we choose to keep the Electoral College it very well could and the people of the country would not be making decisions for themselves as well.

Most worrying comes from the fear of a tie, in which the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. Because each state casts only one single vote. That single vote from Wyoming representing 500,000 voters could have as much say as the 55 representatives from California who represent 35 million voters. So therefore the election is really only a few swing voters away from a disaster. Because of the winnertakeall system, candidates really dont spend time campaigning in states they think they have no chance of winning, really only focusing on the bigger states with more votes. This is also unfair because then the people with the right to vote do not get a say in who they want to represent their country. The Electoral college really takes away many rights and freedoms to the people of the U.S. and doesnt give us the chance to have a say. Studies even show that 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now!

As well as having such a biased voting system, this is such an unfair system due to the fact the the popular vote winner could loose because of the Electoral College voters. This would be a very bad decision to keep the Electoral College especially if these Electoral voters have had their decision swayed by something. Then we will have a president that is only the president because of some voters biased and unfair judgemented calls. If one Electoral College voter has a certain view on a candidate, they could very well share that and somehow persuade the other voters decisions due to one persons thoughts and points of view on the candidate. One person can easily influence many peoples own judgements, which would cause them to choose poorly and only go under the pressure of that persons thoughts. The Electoral College has so many cons which would make it such a bad decision to keep this system and go by a biased and unfair advantage. So I believe that the best thing for the U.S. voting system would be to abolish the Electoral College and to keep the popular vote system so that everyone has their own say on who will achieve great things for our country.",0
8a471a4a,0,"Ford, Volkswagen, Kia, and Chevy's... while these car brands may have been a massive part of the American culture, its significance in our lives may be declining. According to recent studies and stories from around the world, car transportation popularity is decreasing dramatically. Some advantages of limiting car usage that the United States will benefit from include: reducing greenhouse gases emitted making for a better environment, and less usage of cars can lower stress and is safer.

By limiting the amount that the citizens of the United States operate their vehicles, the condition of our environment's atmosphere will improve. As stated in Source 1, ""and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" This passage is referring to the amount of greenhouse gas emitted here in America because of passenger cars. By not using car and taking advantage of other methods of transportation such as buses, walking, and riding a bike that number can be reduced significantly. In the United States we are also learning from mistakes made by other countries and cities. ""After days of nearrecord pollution,"" Source 2 says, ""Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" A lesson can be taken from Paris of how we do not want to end up in a situation like that. By limiting our driving currently we can avoid having to take major steps to clean and clear our environment. ""It will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants,"" a sociologist predicts in Source 4. Environmental advantages of reducing greenhouse gas is a major way we can benefit from limiting car usage.

A decent amount of stress comes with owning and operating a motorized vehicle. You are constantly worrying about if you will be late, or if you have enough gas to make it from point A to point B. Children are another concern and trying to keep them safe around roads and driving by themselves. Limiting the use of cars can create a less stressful, and safer society. In Source 3 it explains that, ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" Lowering the use of cars can make life a little less busy because it is one thing less that you have to worry about throughout your day. Heidrun Walter said, in Source 1, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Reducing the usage of cars can promote a less stressful and safer lifestyle here in the United States.

Although the use of cars may be convienent, the benefits of limiting the usage may be beginning to outweight the inconviences. Between reducing the greenhouse gas creating a cleaner environment as well as lessening stress and making the roads safer, the advantages of limiting car usage in the United States are major.",0
8a53964d,1,"After reading a few articles explaining the Electoral College system and reading arguments for and against it, I have decided the system is not worth keeping in place. The system does not take every voter into account, and our electors are not always reliable. Also, this system of voting can discourage citizens in nonswing states from voting, which may be it's greatest crime. The Electoral College is worn out and ready for retirement.

The Electoral College, although seemingly based on the people's votes, is really dependent on whoever the chosen electors want as president. It does not seem very fair for voters to spend months listening to drawn out debates, campaign commercials, and becoming educated on the candidates, just to have their vote essentially thrown away if they did not vote for the majority. No, they do not even get to see their vote in action. It is simply erased and given to a slate of electors who stand for the majority of the state, even if the majority is only 50.1%. To the new generation of voters who really want to make a difference in the government, the idea that unless we pick the right candidate for our state, our votes really do not matter is absurd.

In the electoral college system, even the majority voters in each state can not count on having reliable electors, according to Bradford Plumer, the author of an antiElectoral Collegearticle. Electors can be anyone who does not hold a public office, and these people can be swayed or loyal to their own party as well Plumer. These are the people our votes are really going towards, not the actual president as many uneducated could be led to believe. Although the trust of these people is rarely misplaced Richard A. Posner, In Defense of the Electoral College: Five Reasons to keep our present method of choosing the President, there is always a possibility of the electors being swayed at the last minute, which is a bit of a scary thought. Imagine if segregationists in the louisiana legislature had succeeded in replacing Democratic electors with ones who would oppose John F. Kennedy, one of or best presidents Plumer.

The final reason keeping the Electoral College system in place is a bad idea is that if you are a voter in a clearly defined state, that is, nonswing, you are more likley to decide not to vote at all. When candidates can clearly define states in which they know they will win, or have no hope of winning, they don't bother spending time there to educate voters. Voters in these states do not get all the information they might want in order to make an educated decision. This would lead to a biased, uneducated state in which voters don't care to vote because of a mindset that almost everyone in the state is of a certain political mindset and their vote is just another piece of paper that will not matter. These voters could also make rash decisions because they did not get to truly hear all of the campaignes. In swing states where there is not a clearly defined political opinion, voters will be bombarded with information, and although they may be educated and well versed in their opinions, the votes, no matter how close, will not really matter because of the nature of the Electoral College system.

In closing, the Electoral College system is not worth saving. Although some may argue it gives a certainity of outcome or restores the balance to heavily populated states Posner, it does not give everyone's vote a fair chance. Nor does it guarantee the electors will be reliable. The Electoral College system even dissuades voters from excercising their Constitutional right to vote. Please take this into consideration, Mr. Senator, next time the Electoral College comes into question. Thank you for recieveing my most humble opinion.",0
8a9126df,0,"We cuiiently live in a woild dependent on machines becoming moie and moie enveloped in this idea of ieliance. Howevei, now we have ieached a point wheie that ieliance is haiming us and oui planet, and it will continue to do so if we don't adjust oui lifestyles. Seeing as that we've iecently ieached that point of iealization, we aie staiting to limit ouiselves to the things that do haim oui planet, including limiting the usage of cais. Living in the twentieth centuiy almost inevitably means ielying on cais foi tianspoitation. Although it may seem impossible to convince so many to puisue this act of limiting the usage of cais, it is suiely not impossible, as we've seen fiom the iecent effoits made aiound the woild. It will take time to adjust to the diastic change, but the benefits aie woith the while. A few of the many advantages include, the conseivation of oui valuable space, impioving the quality of oui enviionment, and allowing foi the oppoitunity of new ideas, developments, and change.

The fiist of the advantages may not be the fiist you would think of, yet it is ceitainly an impoitant one. By limiting oui use of cais it would save and ieplenish oui amount of space that we cuiiently have available. It's not only the cais themselves that take up space, but it is also the space left foi stieet paiking in the big cities, the massive paiking gaiages used at shopping malls, and the diiveways and gaiages at the houses in laige subuiban neighboihoods. This method of limiting the use of cais as been successfully applied to a town in Geimany, known as Vauban. In Vauban, "" iresidents of this upscale community aie subuiban pioneeis, going wheie few soccei moms oi commuting executives have evei gone befoie: they have given up theii cais "" "" In Geiman Subuib, Life Goes On Without Cais"" . The town of Vauban, has given up theii aieas of stieet paiking, diiveways, and home gaiages to limitalmost entiielytheii use of cais. With the iemoval of all tiaces of automobile usage, some may be conceined about how they aie expected to ieach theii desiied destinations, but in Vauban and many othei places piepaiing the follow this plan, stoies will be placed "" a walk away, on a main stieet, iathei than in malls along some distant highway "" "" In Geiman Subuib, Life Goes On Without Cais"" . Although some may be conceined with the potential limit on theii cai usage, they must be ieminded that the space oiiginally used foi cais will ceitainly not go to waste, and will be used foi biggei and bettei puiposes that will not haim oui planet.

This second advantage is the one most associated with the limit put on oui use of caisthe impioved quality of the enviionment. The enviionment can be impioved with the deciease of gieenhouse gas emissions, which in tuin impioves the quality of the aii that suiiounds us. Oui Piesident, Baiack Obama, has "" ambitious goals to cuib the United States' gieenhouse gas emissions "" "" The End of Cai Cultuie "" , but that can only be done with the coopeiation of the citizens. Foitunately, that coopeiation has been seen with the "" foituitous assist fiom an incipient shift in Ameiican behavioi "", in which "" iecent studies suggest that Ameiicans aie buying fewei cais, diiving less and getting fewei licenses as each yeai goes by "" "" The End of Cai Cultuie "" . It is undeistood by piofessionals, that if the pattein continues, "" it will have beneficial implications foi caibon emissions and the enviionment, since tianspoitation is the second laigest souice of Ameiica's emissions "" "" The End of Cai Cultuie "" . Although some may be ieluctant to puisue the path of limiting theii use of cais, they should be well infoimed that by doing so, they aie impiovong theii oveiall state of living by not pioducing these haimful piopeities that aie being ieleased into the aii that we bieathe.

This last advantage is most likely the most consideiably accepted by the public, because of its simplicity on theii pait and the benefits they iecieve fiom it. With the limit put on the use of cais, that allows foi the oppoitunity of new ideas, developments, and change. The idea of limiting the use of cais has gone global, fiom Geimany to Colombia to Fiance, this idea is quickly becoming one widely accepted by the public and theii officials. The idea of a caifiee dat has spiouted fiom Colombia, in which the citizens of Colombia aie encouiaged tohike, bike, skate, oi take the bus to woik iathei than using cais foi tianspoitation "" Caifiee day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota "" . The public has iesponded positively to these iecent changes, saying, "" ' It's a good oppoitunity to take away stiess and lowei aii pollution ' "", which was spoken by "" Cailos Aituio Plaza as he iode a twoseat bicycle with his wife "" "" Caifiee day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota "" . Not only have new oppoitunities foi the public been intioduced, but so have new developments. The new developmets include "" paiks and spoits centeis...uneven, pitted sidewalks have been ieplaced by bioad, smooth sidewalks...and new iestauiants and upscale shopping distiicts "" "" Caifiee day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota "" . The citizens of vaiious cities can also expect to see plans in which "" ' pedestiian, bicycle, piivate cais, commeicial and public tianspoitation tiaffic aie woven into a connected netwoil to save time, conseive iesouices, lowei emissions, and impiove safety ' "" "" The End of Cai Cultuie "" .

Theie have been many advantages associated with a limit put on the use of cais, including the conseivation of oui valuable space, the loweiing of the gieenhouse gas emissions, and the oppoitunity foi new ideas, developments, and change. All of these advantages can be fulfilled to theii entiie puiposes, but it is a gioup effoit as a planet. We can continue to live in the luxuiy of these advantages, as long as we do oui pait to limit oui use of cais.",0
8ae493f2,1,"The elector college is a controversial subject today in america, based on many questionable policies that leave many americans confused and cheated. This is why I argue in favor of changing to election by popular vote for the president of the united states.

With the electoral college way of electing a president voters arent actually voting for the president, they are voting for a slate of electors who will then vote for the candidate. There are so many things that can go wrong when electing like this. Voters can't necessarily control who their electors vote for, you may vote for a certain slate of electors but they may still go ahead and vote for someone else. Sometimes voters get confused and may vote for a slate of electors who are for the wrong candidate. For example, in 1960 segragationists in the Louisiana Legislature almost succeded in replacing the democratic electors with new ones who would oppose John F. Kennedy, so a popular vote for Kennedy would not actually go to him. Although these things dont happen all time their is always the possibility and why take that chance on such an important event, choosing our president the person who will lead our country.

In an election their really is a process of voting and voting again. Instead of couting the number of people who want a certain president and so on. We are viewed as a state and some states having more say than other even if the votes are in the same margin. This is the reason why some states are focused on more by the candidates and are heavily educated on the topic and given more attention than smaller states whose votes wont change much. an even bigger problem is te fact that most states operate on a winnertakeall basis so even a slight majority vote one way will give that person all of the votes. A very worrying prospect as expressed in source two is the possibility of a tie. in which the election would be given to the house of representatives. Each state only gets on vote so a representative representing 500,000 people would have as much say as representatives representing 35 million people. Why not just cut out all of the extra processes and focuses on the decision of the people directly.

Although there are many arguments against the electoral college there still are people who argue in favor of it. There is a certainty of outcome with this process. There will less likely be a run off election with this process. All in all the major arguments against this process outweigh the pros of it, which are few.

With all of the reasons to go against this process I think it is necessary to change the election to popular vote for the president. We need to give the voice directly back to the people of our country so we know that we really do choose our fate in these elections.",0
8b0cee45,1,"I believe we the people should be able to vote for who we want for president. We have always been told we have a freedom of speech, yet we cannot truly vote for who we want for president. The votes are all taken and used to see who is more popular with the people. But who decided who gets to be president is not us. It is the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a group of people in each state who decide the president for us. I think everyone should get to vote on who they want as president, and i think it should actually count. The Electoral College is unfair and I believe popular vote should decide who we get as the president of the nation that we have or rights to vote in.

In the words of Bob Dole ""Abolish the electoral college."" It is unfair, outdated, and irrational. It is unfair because of the winnertakesall system there is in each state. With this in place the candidates take no time in the states they know they have not of chance of winning in. Instead they spend all of their time in states they may have a tight race in. for example, during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states did not see the candidates at all. Twentyfive of the largest media markets did not even get to see a single campaign ad. Under the Electoral College system they do not vote for the president, they vote for a slate of electors who then turn around and vote for the president they want. Is that really fair. That we are putting our nations future in the hands of only 538 people.

Popular votes should be what decides our president. Therefore we actually have a say in who we want to be president. For example, in the 2000 U.S. presidential race, Al Gore recieved more individual votes then George W. Bush nationwide, but because of the Electoral College Bush won because he had 271 electoral votes while Gore had 266. Also in the election in2012 Obama recieved 61.7 percent of the electoral votes comparing to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes. Sure he still would have won but at least individual people actually had a say in who they got as their president. Also in 2012, the popular vote was very close in Florida, but Obama won the electoral vote with 29. But in Wyoming the same thing happened and he only got three electoral votes. This shows a large state gets more attention in presidential candidates than a small state does. If presidency was decided by the individual votes then it wouold be more fair and more poeple would have a say in it.

If this country really gave us the right to vote then we would really have a say in who we want as our president. But the Electoral College is not letting us do that. Only two states do something a little differently, but it still does not make that much of a difference. If we had more of a say in our presidency i believe we would be a better nation more people would actually vote cause there would be a better chance of them actually having a say in what they want for this nation.",0
8baf0811,1,"Dear State Senator, we should not keep the Electoral College. I'm in favor of changing to election by popular vote for the president of the united states. The electorsal college is unfair. It's outdated and irrational. Many people prefer election by popular votes. Voters should be satisfied with their vote directly towards the president. They shouldn't have to be upset if they choose candidates and those candidates choose someone else as president.

One of my reasons is because under the electorsal college system, voters vote not for the president, but for the slate of electorss, who in turn elect for the president. The electorss can be anyone not holding public office. Depending on the state, the electorss are picked by state conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, and sometimes the presidential candidates themselves. The electorsal college isn't the best way to handle elections because it is the electorss who elect the president, not the people, which to me sounds unfair. Voters can't always control who their electorss will vote for and voters do get confused sometimes about the electorss. So if you really agreed on one president, chances are that might not be the president who's gonna be elected because the electorss can choose the other person running for president instead.

The electorsal college is unfair. The electorsal college consists of 538 electorss. A majority of 270 electors votes is required to elect the president. Richard Nixo, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO all agreed on abolishing the electorsal act. According to a gallop poll in 2000, over sixty percent of voter would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency. Voters don't want the popular vote winner to lose the presidency but because of the electorsal college it can happen. When you vote for a presidential candidate you are actually voting for a slate of electorss.

Lets say that the state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electorss. Those electorss can always defy the will of the people. Faithless electorss have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whoever they pleased. Why on earth would they do such a thing. They should care about what voters believe in. In 1960, people who favored separation based on race in the Louisiana legislature nearly actually succeeded in replacing the Democratic electorss with new electorss so that they would oppose John F. Kennedy. This means the popular votes would not have actually gone to Kennedy. That is not fair. Candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning. They focus only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states.

State Senator, I'm in favor of changing to election by popular votes because it's fair. The electorsal college should stay in the past and should'nt be used anymore. The best way is for the election by popular votes. Voters should be satisfied with their vote directly towards the president. Electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and decided to vote for whoever they wanted. Selfish much? People shouldn't have to be upset if they choose candidates and those candidates choose someone else as president. These electorss should consider what the people want. I believe Elections by popular votes for president of the united states is the best option.",0
8bb38441,1,"Dear Senator PROPER_NAME, The purpose of this letter is to fight for the cause of removing the Electoral College and voting simply by popular vote. With evidence from ""What is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the Federal Register, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer, and ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President,"" by Richard A. Ponser, I will elaborate on this subject. Now, since I am only fourteen, I do not claim to have all knowledge and be an expert on this method of voting, but it is not the way to choose our country's leader.

The Electoral College is a compromise between who the people of America chose and who Congress has chosen. This is an incorrect method of selecting the President. The Constitution states that we the people have the choice to select our government not Congress. Yes, the constitutions founding fathers also established the Electoral College, but it is a thing of the past. As Richard A. Ponser writes, an ""anchorism"" In Defense of the Electoral College, par. 1, if you will. Moreover, the Electoral College does not belong in this day and age it is something that is outdated and in need of replacement.

The Electoral College also does not allow citizens to exercise their right to vote for their President, since Congress also has their say in the matter. The voting process was created for the citizens not the people who are in the government. In fact, Bradford Plumer states that ""over 60% of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" The Indefensible Electoral College, par. 1 This process of voting for President is undesired and despised my many people, by over half of the voters in America. The Office of the Federal Register writes that the Electoral College is ""a compromise between election of the President by a vote in congress and election of the President by popular vote of qualified citizens."" Why does Congress have any sort of influence or say in this matter? The people choose their government not the governemt itself!

Alright, the Electoral College is something that should not be used, by I can see the point of its purpose. The popular vote of the citizens can be infulenced by others, or advertisements and propoganda from political parties. Some voters are biased and overlook the negative things of the candidates because they do not wish to believe that this person does not support or believe everything they do. The Electoral College helps to balance that out. ""No region... has enough electoral votes to elect a president."" In Defense of the Electoral College, par. 5 Richard A. Ponser asserts this in his article, as well as the fact that no region or place has any reason to go about ""increasing his plurality"" par. 5 to make sure that a candidate will win. The Electoral College prevents this, resulting in a compromise between the popular vote of the citizens and Congress.

To come to a conclusion, I have stated that the Electoral College is not a method that should be used to choose the President of the United States. It is outdated and does not allow citizens to choose the leader of their country. However, is balances out the popular vote and the Congress's vote.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.",0
8bbe0854,1,"I believe that disbanding electoral college would be in favor of most peoples decisions. This way everyone has a chance to vote decisively and not having electoral college decide who should be the president of the united states. Electoral college docent let the people decide who they want to be president. It lets the lets the slate of electors decide which is totally un fair in my decision. People are the ones who elect which president they feel will make the United States a better country. Maby the slate of electors have a different decision in mind than what the people of america think about who should be president.

Popular vote would be much better in my decision because it gives everyone a chance on picking there president and not having other people pick it for them. Say there was a tie in the electoral votes, than they would be passed onto the house or reps were state delegations vote on the president and not the people of america. There is a greater quantity of people than there are slate of electors and house of representatives. The electoral college is completely unfair to voters because in each state candidates dont spend time in states they dont think will help them win presidency. We the people dont have the ability to choose who we want as a president and we want our freedom of being able to do that. There will be less conflicts and anger from the people if they disband electoral college.

But in many eyes electoral college are in favor to those people. They think its right to have the slate of electors vote for who they think would be a better president. The electoral college does avoid the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. But it could lead to more pressure in the election process, which could greatly complicate the presidential elections. There for saying that electoral college isint a good decision to have. People should decide what they want to have for this country. They should be able to take a mark and say we dont want electoral college anymore for the United States.

It would have to be weighted in an election of the people to decide what they want to have. Electoral college method of selecting a president may have a big impact on people by not choosing the president they want. Saying in the peoples minds that Electoral College should be disbanded and gotten rid of because it depends on what the people of the U.S. choose, not the slate of electors.",0
8bc6abda,1,"Dear State Senator, The Electoral College has been an election process in the united states sense the constitution was created. But it has come to the time where it no longer has a valuable position and is beginning to deteriorate. Over 60% of voters would prefer to only have a popular vote for Presidential elections, rather than the Electoral College. Recently it seems as if every election has been very tight and the winner of the popular votes loses due to the turn out of the electoral College votes. The electoral College system should be abolished and banned from our election process.

In the Electoral College voters vote for a slate of electors who in turn elect the President rather than them directly voting themselves. Source 2 States ""The Electors can be anyone not holding office."" Therefore anybody can put herself in the position to be in the electoral College, even if they are unqualified for the responsibilities it requires. Also voters can't always control who their electors vote for so the efficiency of the election has already decreased.

This system allows for disaster. The electors could always defy the will of the people. Source 2 brings up ""Segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy."" ""Faithless"" electors in the past have refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whoever they would like, and there is no guarantee that this will not occur again.

When it comes down to the core, the Electoral College does not provide an equal election to all voters. You will not find candidates dedicating their time in states where they believe they do not have a chance of winning. In effect, the representation and campaigning is not equally distributed throughout all the states. Some states may get no campaigning at all. Source 2 includes ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" All the focus is centered into the tight races of the ""swing"" states.

It is said that rarely will the electoral college voting come out as a tie but it has happend. In the situation of a tie the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, and the Houses selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people.

The Electoral College is out dated and irrelevant to our modern society and it is too indirect to present the true votes from our country. It is time to leave the vote to the people and only the people, and it is time for our country to mature and abolish the electoral College.",0
8be389a6,0,"Limiting car usage would be great for both you and the environment. If we didn't use cars as much, we would get more exercise, save more money, and limit the amount of air pollution we produce. We would start to notice changes for the better in our health, our budgeting, and the condition of the environment. I have gathered evidence from a few different sources to back up these claims. ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Botogta"", and ""The End of Car Culture"" all go into detail about the benefits that did happen or could happen while we limit car usage.

One advantage of limiting car usage is the increase in exercise it will give you. Did you know that 70% of America is overweight? An advantage to walking or biking places that driving doesn't have is that walking or biking will get you active. It will help you burn calories and it will give you the selfconfidence of being in good shape. Sure, it might be hot out when you walk or bike places, but this problem can be solved by simply dressing appropriately for the activity. Wear something that you know you'll be comfortable getting exercise in. One business man riding a two seat bicycle with his wife instead of driving, said, ""It's a good way to take away stress and lower air pollution"", Source 3. Walking or riding your bike to get places rather than driving to them will give you more time to think. If you think too much on the road, something dangerous is bound to happen. Walking to places is a great alternative to driving not only for your body but for your mind, and this, to me, is a strong advantage of limiting car usage.

Another advantage to limiting car usage is you will start to save money. Gas bills start to add up, especially considering the constant inclination of prices. Not only gas, though, but other costly needs such as getting your car's oil changed or tires replaced can also turn out to be expensive. Cost plays a huge role in whether or not teens and young adults will get a car when legally eligible. ""There has been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39yearolds getting a license"", Source 4. A large amount of teens just now getting their licenses are unemployed, making the car expenses impossible for them to pay on their own, making them rely on usually a parent or relative. Money has always had a significant effect on how people transport from one place to another. Limiting driving all together would save you gas and repair money, and saving money could never be a bad thing.

Finally, a significant advantage of not driving as much is that it would limit the amount of air pollution on this earth. ""...a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Europe"", Source 1. Though we may not notice it, air pollution is constantly contaminating the earth. Air pollution is extremely harmful to inhale, almost like how smoking is extremely bad for your lungs. Reducing the amount of driving that we do would reduce the amount of air pollution we produce with it. Walking or biking does not pollute the earth the way driving can.

Advantages of limiting car usage are not only good for the environment but are good for us both physically, mentally, and financially. If everyone started to limit the amount of time they spend driving per day, just imagine the change we might start to see in the community. We could start by walking to the grocery store or our friends' houses instead of driving, and then maybe bring on a longterm change, such as walking to school if it's close enough, or walking to the bus stop so you can ride the bus with other kids instead of driving your own car, creating more air pollution. There are other advantages to limiting car usage, but these are the top three advantages we will begin to notice if we act soon enough.",0
8c5ba94a,0,"Although the usage of motorized vehicles such as cars and motorcycles still remains at large, there is a significant amount of the global population that have realized the advantages of limited automobile usage. Cars and other diesel or gasoline dependant vehicles emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, which eventually lead to the progression of global warming. Not only this, but whether we notice it or not, cars and the spaces that are required to house cars take up valuable space that we can use for agriculture, the stimulation of the economy through the purchase of goods, even for progression of our education. The using of motorized vehicles is not something that should be banned by suburban life, but it, like its predecessor the transportation means by horse hauling has started to become obsolete.

As shown by Vauban, Germany, a community in which the usage of cars is virtually nonexistent, the extinction of car usage is something to be welcomed like a weight being lifted off the responsible shoulders of your average driver. Driving is not only a what is now viewed as a necessary activity for daily living, but it is also a hazardous chore that we as common citizens must place on ourselves on a borderline daily basis. When driving, we are subjecting our safety to the hands of chance, leaving our lives susceptible to being taken from us by an irresponsible driver, someone who we will most likely never cross paths with again.

""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" says a member of the carfree community Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two. Aside from health related deaths, death by car accident is not something that is unheard of, it is actually one of the top theives of life found in the United States alone. It is estimated that a death of a teenager ages 1620 resulting from a car accident happens every 16 seconds. Without cars to drive, there would be no way these accidents may occur.

Within the last century, the rate of global warming has skyrocketed in an almost terrifying way. The natural process that would normally take several millennia to take place without the interference made by humans has been nearly cut by threequarters with the technological advancements that we as a species have made. In three of the four sources, it has shown that the emissions made by fossil fuel dependant vehicles have been the biggest contribution to the advancement of global warming. It is even shown in the article written by Robert Duffer that even a partial ban of car usage in Paris was able to reduce the amounts of smog there significantly.

In two of the articles, it has been shown that with the reduction of car usage, the space that was once consumed completely by these motorized psychological traps can be used to further flourish our enviornment with shopping malls, schools, parks and health centers that are readily available to us. Although we may not notice on a regular basis, but the amount of space that is used to give drivers a place to drive and to give cars a place to inhabit is more than likely bigger than the amount of space that we give an average citizen to live in. In Vauban, Germany 5,500 residents are able to live within a rectangular square mile, whereas a majority of that space in a place like Miami, Florida would be made vacant in terms of living, but prosperous in terms of space taken up by cars. In Bagota, Columbia as a result from their yearly ""Carfree day"" has increased their amount of publicly availabel park and sports center, and have also improved the sidewalks that are readily available to its citizens.

Physical activity has always been promoted, since we were small children who are incapable of driving. Some would say that we were conditioned to view exercise as the best alternative to driving, and it turns out that our conditioning has been proven as fruitful. Within the last several years, the amount of miles driven per person has decreased by nine percent as shown in the article written by Elisabeth Rosenthal, the amount of those looking to receive their driver's liscense has also decreased. This is not because the generation of millennials has viewed driving as something not to their interest, but because we are conditioned to not want to partake in it. Even if our conditioning was not intentional, it has proven fruitful in terms of the improvement of our awareness of both human lives and the enviornment. Both cars and driving are making their way to ineffeciency, and that is not a bad thing. The lack of cars on the road is something to look forward to, both for our ability to look forward to new technological advancements in transportation and for our longevity as a species.",0
8c92619c,0,"Cars have been an important part of transportation in society for many years. However, in some communities that is changing. Many young people are not getting their licenses and some are giving up their cars. The streets of Vauban, Germany, are mainly ""carfree"" and the suburb only has two places to park cars, at the expense of 40,000. Limiting car usage results in many advantages.

One of those advantages is helping the environment. The article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer explains Paris, France, put a driving ban into effect because of smog rivaling that of Beijing, China. The ban was based on license plate number, only allowing certain numbers to drive on specific days. Eventually the ban was lifted because the smog had cleared enough. Limiting the number of people that used their cars resulted in cleaner air, which is healthier for everyone. If limits were put into effect into other places, that could reduce air pollution, helping the environment. Americans are also buying fewer cars and driving less than previous years. The article ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal says, ""If the pattern persists and many sociologists believe it will it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants"". That is another example of environmental benefits from limiting car use. By utilizing other forms of transportation, the impact a person has on the environment is greatly reduced.

Another advantage that comes from limiting car use is lower stress and better mental health. In the suburb of Vauban, Germany, fiftyseven percent of families sold their cars to move there and seventy percent do not own cars. In the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, Heidrun Walter says, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"". By not owning a car, a person has less stress and can relax when traveling. There is probably less focus needed when traveling without a car because there is no worry about other drivers. Bogota, Colombia has started the Day Without Cars, the goal being to promote alternate transportation. Violaters recieve fines of twentyfive dollars. In the article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky, Carlos Arturo Plaza says, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"". People could enjoy the outdoors, without the constant noise and pollution from traffic in the city. That could lower their stress and increase their happiness.

Limiting car use has many advantages, some of which are helping the environment and lowering stress. Some suburbs, specifically Vauban, Germany, are mostly ""carfree"". A trend of buying fewer cars and driving less is also growing in America, which is beneficial to the environment. Plus, the stress of driving a car is taken away when their use is limited.",0
8c964bb2,0,"Many countries world wide have gone ""carfree"" due to either smog or other areas has simply banned them. Not only is banning cars good for the environment it is also good for the well being of the human race. In the following passages ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", ""Carfree day is a big hit in Bogota"", and ""The End of Car Culture"" mention the finner points about why being ""carfree"" is beneficial.

By far, Europe is once again ahead of the United States due to the fact that many countries dont use cars, but they travel to their next destination by train, tram, bus, and walikng. Unlike America, almost every one is using a car to get to their next place, and barely use a bus. According to the passage "" The End of Car Culture"" our own president of the United States is making goals to help improve the ""greenhouse gas emissions"" but just like the title suggest the end of cars are near. "" The United States, with its broad expanses and suburban ideals, had long been one of the world's prime car cultures"" researchers are noticing a decline in the buying and selling of cars nation wide. ""Demographic shifts in the driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate.""It has already accelerated in Europes biggest capitals the world has come to know and love.

Paris. The ""city of love"" or the city of smog, has banned driving due to record high reports of smog. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"" according to the passage "" Paris bans driving due to smog"" smog in the ""city of love"" is not quite romantic as a city without smog. Paris alone ""... had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter..."". Banning cars and fining people is one way to help clear the air of pollution, so their is more room for love, laughter, and happiness. ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals."" well maybe the smog and love can share the air. Lets travel all the way back to the Americas to see how the smog is doing there in the countyr of Colombia.

Bogota, Colombia located in South America has had its own little smog problems just like Paris. ""The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog."" a whole day of either biking, hiking, skating, walking,or taking a taxi andor bus, to get to work or school. In the Passage ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" explains to us why we should stop using cars but rather rely on our body than a 3,000 pound peice of machinerery. "" The days without cars is part of an imporvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s."". For almost 25 years Bogota, Colombia once a year celebrates a day to help reduce smog, and produce a happy, healthy, and smog free life style. ""'The rain hasnt stopped people from participating,'"" remarks Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus. there may have been a few gray clouds, but that doesnt keep people form not supporting their own environment. Good Job to Bogota, and see what tricks Germany has up their sleeve.

Picture this: an upscale suburban community in Vauban, Germany where soccer moms are taking there children to soccer practice, and big CEO executives are going to work. They're getting to their next destination not by car, because in this town of 5,500 people, nobody has a car because they have give up the life of ""Car Culture"". The passage ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", well truely they do. Who needs cars when you go to work by bike, train, skateboard, roller skates, or the traditional walking. ""Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to seperate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called 'smart planning.'"" What amkes this ""smart planning"" truely genius, is that everbody is totally cool with it. For ""the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs..."". Vauban may be just an experimental suburb, but the people who live in it seem to enjoy the life without the hastle of smog producing vehicles. ""When I had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" states Heidrum walter, a resident of the green suburban town Vaubran.

Many countries world wide have gone ""carfree"" due to either smog or maybe even banned them entirely. Countries all over the wolrd are seeing a difference in their community every day when they don't drive a car. not only is going ""carfree"" great for the reduction of smog, but you can live a happier, healthier, and stressfree life style like most people have noitced from Bogota, Colombia to the small suburban town Vauban, Geramny. Next time when you leave your house for work, just think how stressfree you'll be if you biked, walked, or take the train.",0
8c9f39da,0,"Cars are used for transporting from place to place, but is it really the best way to get somewhere? There are many factors that are being affected when using cars. Many people believe cars are the best way to get somewhere but the only good thing about a car is the amount of time it takes to get somewhere. Even time isn't a good reason for why cars are being used. Limiting car usage would have so many advantages that people should take advantage of.

To begin with, some people use alternative transportation rather than cars. For example, Germany, Paris, and Columbia don't use cars on a daily basis like most people do in other countries. Those specific countries have either banned cars or they just don't need cars to transport from one place to another. Source 1 states, "" Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up their cars."" In my neighborhood, most people walk to the public right near our community because they either don't have a car or they just prefer to walk. Although it might be quicker to go in car, it is environmentally friendly to ride your bike or walk. In Source 3 states, "" 'It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,' said the businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as her rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife."" Taking a walk somewhere or riding a bike can be a great workout or just creates calmness if you are stressing. Alternative transportation are a good because then people wouldn't cause any harm to the environment or affect anything else.

In addition, smog is an issue that should be reduced which would limit car usage. Some places like Paris have already reduced smog so they could clear the air in their city. Source 2 states, "" Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" When the smog arose in Beijing, the amount of cars reduced which cleared the streets of France. Smog could be seen as a good thing because once it arouse, the amount of cars used decreased. Limiting car usage is a good thing, and people should realize that.

To conclude, there are so many advantages for limiting car usage. People have many other options instead of using cars and they should take advantage of that. Smog has created cars to be banned in many cities. Alternative transportaion makes many people not use cars and that is a good thing. Next time think about whether you want to use a car or just use something else.",0
8cab98a9,1,"In 2000 when Al Gore got more individual votes then George W. Bush nationwide he did not win the election. It is because of the corrupt prosses of the Electoral College that he did not gain presidency. It is this among other things we must do away with the Electoral colleges we want to run a true democracy.

There are many people who would argue that the electoral College should stay and be apart of how we elect our president. Richard A. Posner author of Defence of the Electoral College claims the candidate for president must have a transregional appeal source 3 paragraph 18. This however is not true. According a map that shows the breakdown of the number of electoral votes each state gets heshe could very well just get the votes from two regions and win the election. Yes you could say that two regions are transregional but this idea is based on collection of states from each region. Not one or two. Ponser also asserts that, ""...the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election""paragraph 20. Here he is saying that only the Swinging Statessuch as Ohio Hawaiiwould determine who the president is for the whole counrty. How is letting a handful of people decide who the president will be a representation of the counrty as a whole? Short answer, its not. It would be foolish to put the choice for president into the hands of few, its like puting all our eggs into one basket and then throwing it off a roof.

There are a numerus amount of things that are not good about the electoral college. Bradford Plumer from the foundation for National Progress and author of Mother of Jones says that if there was to be a tie everything would be up to the House of representativessource two paragraph 12. That means each state gets one vote. One! The representative from Wyomingwho have 500,000 voterswould have the same amount of power as the representative from Californiawho has 35 million voters. This is in no way to run a country with fifty people representing about 250 million people. Plumer also states that the vorters can't always pick who their electors are paragraph 10. While the electors cannot be someone in office, who is to say that they may say one thing about who they will vote for but infact they vote for someone eles? It has happend before. Every one should get one vote and that be that non of this winner takes all stuff.

Finally we get to the part about the District of Columbia or Washington D.C.. The Office of the Federal Register wrote an article on the Electoral College and it says that D.C. is given three electors and treated like a statesource 1 paragraph 4. In one way this could be a good thing but in this casse it is a bad thing. The District of Columia is not a state and holds many goverment officials. Infact many people don't live in D.C. they live in one of the neighboring states. So why are we letting them have as much of a say as Vermount or Alaska or even one of the Dakostas?

To wrap this all up the corrupt system in which we elect a group of people to do what we want is not a very effective way to run a counrty in stage four of the Demographic Transistional Stages. Although president George W. Bush was an adiquate president there is still unfair that Al Gore had not become our president when he hat the popular vote.",0
8ce83065,1,"What is your point of view on this argument that we are discussing today here in the Sunshine State? The Florida Senator should consider keeping the Electoral College voting system to choose our President because the founding fathers of the United States established this system. The popular vote is terrible because in some cases it might be teens or young people that don't know about politics or what they want to give to this country or state. They vote on the things that interest them, not the country. When you vote for anything, your main priority is ""Does this make the country a better place and will bring more benefits to the people in this country or state""?

The Electoral College voting system is much easier to count who won because its a ""winnertakeall"" system. This can be seen when "" The popular vote was very close in Florida in 2012 nevertheless Obama, who won that vote, got 29 electoral vote""Source 3. This example shows even tho the popular was very close, Obama still won Florida and got those 29 electoral votes. There is a another way people view theElectoral College and they say that the ""Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational""Source 2. They also say the best argument against the Electoral College is the disaster factor.

Each person has their own point of view about each thing but mine is that we should stay with the Electoral College system because it benefits the people in Florida and the United States.

For example, ""In 2012's election, for example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and rodney.... Because almost all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state""Source 3. This shows a certainty of the outcome for that state. This also cause candidates to not spend their time in states ""they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states""Source 2.

Therefore, we should consider keeping the electoral College for various reasons. The Electoral College has been the voting system of our country all along. Why should we change the tradition that our founding fathers left for us? Eveything in life happens for a reason, I would appeciate it if you could the the Electoral College in this beautiful Sunshine State, Florida.",0
8d34ca8c,0,"In years past, the number of people interested in, and using cars around the world has dropped noticeably. A marked shift in the ""car culture of the world has occurred, leaving many wondering what is tocome. Limiting car usage has many positive aspects, such as saving money, that people tend to be less stressed when they do not drive as much, and reducing pollution and greenhouse emissions.

One of the many positive aspects of reducing car usage is that one will save money if ones car usage is reduced. In an article by Robert Duffer called ""Paris Bans Driving Due to Smog,"" he says: ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were orderedto leave cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31."" In Paris, carowners were charged money for using cars on certain days. This was done in an effort to reduce traffic in the city. Another article that addresses this is ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elizabeth Rosenthal. She says: ""Part of teh explanation certainly lies in the recession, because cashstrapped Americans could not afford new cars..."" Cars are a costly thing, and many people cannot afford to put the money in to having and maintaining an automobile. Car cost so much,so reducing,or even eliminating usage will save anyone a great deal of money. This is one of the many advantages to limiting car usage.

Antoher reason to limit car usage is that people tend to be less stressed,and more happy when they do not have a car to worry about. In ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elizabeth Rosenthal, she talks about Heidrun Walter, who say thatshe is actually much happier no w that she does not own a car,and that owning a car was very stressful. No one wants to be stressed,so why would people want to put themselves through the trouble of owning a car? Lowering car usage has been shown to reduce stress, which is a good thing for people, mentally and physically. Andrew Selsky also addressesthis in ""Carfree Day is Spinning Into a Big Hit in Bogota,"" where he says ""'It's a good opportunity to take away stress.'"" As is outlined here, reducing car usage lowers stressing many people, which is definitely an advantage.

Reducing polution and greenhouse gas emissions is another advantage of limiting car usage. carscreated emissions dangerous to the environment, so reducing usage will have a positive effect on the environment. In ""Carfree Day is Spinning Into a Big Hit in Bogota,"" Andrew Selsky discusses the mayor of Bogota, colombians decision to have a day free of cars in the city. ""The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog."" In Bogota, as in most cities, smog from car pollution is widespread. Lowering car usage lowers the levels of polution and dangerous emissions in cities. A similar situation is outlined in Robert buffer's ""Paris Bans Driving Due to Smog,"" he says ""After days of nearrecord polution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" This gives further evidence that reducing car usage will lower pollution and smog in cities around the world. Concurrently, Elizabeth Rosenthal, in her article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" she says ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gass emisssions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" This provides further evidence that cars release an enormous amount of pollution, and usage must be lowered.

Limtiting ones car usage has many positive consequences, some of these include saving money, reducing stress, and lowering polution levels. These are all great reasons to limit car usage, and many people are beginning to take hold of these advantages around the world.",0
8d81b828,1,"As we should know, ""the Electoral College is a process not an actual place. It serves as a compromise of the presidential election in Congress and by popular vote"" paragraph 1. It can be good at times but most times it has its downfall. The Electoral College doesn't allow for a direct election compared to popular vote. Also, there isn't a fair number of votes for each presidential candidate per state. If there is a tie in the electoral voting process it can cause a big disaster. I don't believe that anyone wants constant problems when choosing a leader. To avoids all of the problems why not take the Electoral College out overall?

First of all, the Electoral college isn't a direct election. ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" Paragraph 10. In actuality, voters don't directly vote for the president when it comes to the electoral college. Although the Electoral College ""restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of malapportionment"", paragraph 21 voters don't have the right to control whom their electors are said author Bradford Plumer. Voting for a group of electors doesn't always mean that they'll vote for the candidate in which you favor. This can have a huge affect on the reputation of the Electoral College itself.

It's not only an indirect election but it's also an unfair election. The number of entitled electors per state is based upon the members of the state's congressional delegation. ""One for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your senators."" paragraph 3. This is unfair because the number of ""House"" members is based on the states overall population compared to the amount of senators. It may somehow be good for the residents who believe their votes doesn't count because of the candidate's regional appeals but what about those who fear that their electors won't choose the candidate in which they favor.

Not only is it indirect and unfair, but it can cause disaster to arise if there is a tie within the electoral voting process. If there is a tie in the in the electoral vote ""the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives"" paragraph 12. This is an unfair method also because now there's only one vote per state and some states have a higher population than others which can and will cause controversy in the public. ""The pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, may be redcued"" patagraph 22 but it still doesn't reduced the fact that swing voters can cause catastrophe within the electoral voting process. This is because they are the most targeted voting areas due to their reputations as the ""most thoughtful voters"".

All in all, the Electoral college has both its good things and their downfall. As can be seen the bad out ways the good in this situation. A voters vote isn't necessarily direct because they aren't voting on a single representative, they are voting on a group of individuals in which they believe will vote for the candidate in which they choose. Also, being that the number of electors is based on a state's number of congressional represenatives it is an unequal and unfair number of electors per state. The electoral college can even cause an uproar if a tie ever falls in place because the ""tie breaker"" is left in the hands of the House of Representatives. Basically ""the electoral colleg is unfair, and irrational"" paragraph 14 and it should be abolished because there is a great amount of mix ups and failures within the system itself.",0
8d88bbd8,1,"When it comes to voting citizens from all over the country wonder if the Electoral College , ""winnertakeall"" system is the best way to choose our president. The obvious answer is yes. The Electoral College system was established by the founding fathers years ago and its been working perfectly fine untill present date.

Electing our president through electoral votes takes care of minor problems such as favorism of regions.Each state is giving electoral votes based on their population , no region such as south, north, east, ect.. has enough electoral votes to choose a president.source 3 paragraph 19 "" So a solid regional favorite, such as rodney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win"" A president with a favorite region may make the rest of the country feel like their votes doesn't count and the new president will show no attention to their interests and their problems. Electing our presidents via Electoral College is the best way to make our country feel like our president is everyones president.

Most americans may prefer a direct election over the kind we have now. source 2: paragraph 9 ""... according to a poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency"" Americans think that by choosing our leader by popular vote their votes will be represented more. Americans are also scared of a tie between candidates since the electoral vote numer is a even number 538 in total but they only need 270 to win the elections. They shouldnt be worried about this a tie could happen but is mostlikely never going to happen. The biggest complain about the winner take all system is that it is unfair to voters since candidates campaign in big states or states with a lot of electoral votes , they dont spend time on states they know they have no chance of winning. source 2: paragraph 13 ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" but this isn't completely true , the winner take all method motivates candidates to focus their efforts on the "" tossup "" states. Voters in these states really listen to the competeting candidates knowing they are responsible for deciding the election. ""But of course no voter's vote swings a national election.."" ""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election "" source 3: paragraph 23 One persons vote is not going to decide the election so no matter what point of view yu look at it from , electoral vote is the best way to choose our leader.",0
8dc6d841,0,"Many of us are used to getting somewhere by simply using a car, but should we always use a car. If we limit car usage we can solve most of our problems. We can save comically and collect less polution In source one the German Suburbs are car free, where street parking, driveways, and home garages are forbidden generally. Car ownership is allowed, however where a carowner buys space for their car has to pay near 40,000, along with a home. As a result according to source one 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars , and 57 percent sold a car to move here. Many citizens complain when the gas prices go up, but if we limit our car usage we wont have to complain anymore. We will save money, because when we decrease the usage of cars we wont use as much gas or diesel. Heidrun Walter told Elisabeth Rosenthal that he now lives happier this way. Not only do we save money but we also relieve tension through out our bodies.

However we may not enjoy this new idea of limiting car usage some of us actually enjoy driving but, there are days where after a long day of working the last thing you want to be in is in traffic jams.""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman named, Carlos Arturo Plaza who rides a two seat bicycle with his wife.

In other ways that limiting car usage could help us is by eliminating pollution, of course everyone enjoys breathing in fresh air. By limiting car usage we can help lower polution. According to source two,"" After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city,"" the usage of car produced so much smog that they had to ban driving. Many of use drive to so many places that are near by that in reality we dont really have to use our car not only will we reduce pollution, but we will also maintain ourselves fit by using different alternatives like, walking, running, ridding our bikes. Although some may say, "" what if its an emergency,"" its fine we're only limiting car usage, we aren't goining to ban it forever.

If we limit car usage we can not only save money, but we can also reduce polution, and have a better lifestyle. Although these aren't the only ways limiting car usage can benefit us.",0
8dd606ef,1,"I would say that we keep the Electoral College because it has worked over the past century so why change it now. The people voting don't always know what they want in a president they might be undecided and just choose the best looking one. I mean yeah some have their facts straight and know how the president they are voting is going to help the united states become a better country overall. When people have to much freedom they don't know what to do and do wrong choices so i think choosing a elector is a good thing they have studied the president and have heard countless promises that he has done. I mean he or she most likely will vote for the candidate running for president you did because he or she is a elector he or she gets the people who also voted for the same person as he or she wants.

I mean we people are still voting we still have the vote just that our vote goes to choosing a certain elector instead of just directly leaving it to the people to vote for a certain candidate running for president. By this the number is much smaller since each country is weighed and is worth certain points and decided by electors you choosed to trust to vote for the same president you did. You still are in control just that you choose somebody heher is not likely to change his or her mind and vote for the exact person you want he or she to vote for. It stated in the article that ""Each candidate running for president in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party."" I say that if the candidate political party chooses the electors then they must be good and the party must be sure the elector won't change his mind out of no where.

This does make the candidate running for president try to convience the electors he is the one they need and that he will help our country be better. This also helps the candidate running for president know what states he should go to since some states they already know they lost. It stated in the article that ""A solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the south,has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win.""So this keeps the president from having to go to every state because its just no based of popular vote and want every individual person votes for.

I think the Electoral college is great and well organized the process is good and the only thing is does is make the voting process more easier and ordered. I think we should keep it i mean it has had his troubles her and there but it has worked so good for such a long time. We don't want to change it and create choas since a lot of people are not use to change and don't take it quite well. I hope this is the way we keep on voting i think its great and that changing it would just make things harder on everybody.",0
8e4d538f,0,"Cars have always been used to get from point A to point B. That is how the people in society know what cars are for. However, there are other alternatives when is comes to going form one destination to another. Citizens should limit their car usage. It helps with the terrible traffic on the street. Also, there will be no more pollution in the air. In addition, citizens can be able to enjoy the world.

Everyone has been caught in traffic, whether it is going to work or school or meeting up with someone. Everyone has been in traffic before. People can prevent traffic form happening. There is carpooling, it can help limit traffic on the streets. Just like it states in source three, ""...millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" There are other ways to avoid and stop traffic. Not everyone needs to take their own personal car to work. They can either car pool or take public transportation to save money because gas isn't cheap these days. In addition, traffic sometimes end up leading to accidents. There are several people who died in a car accident due to someone speeding because he or she doesn't want to wait in the traffic. However, if everyone just finds another alternative way to get to his or her destination, then no one has to die. Just like it explains in proclaims in source four, ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial, and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emission and improve safety."" This qoute listed some alternatives way to get somewhere. By doing these things it will not only limit the traffic but the resources and the safety of other people. Traffic isn't a fun place to be in, so find another way to get to his or her destination can prevent traffic.

Air pollution is everywhere we go. Whether someone travels to Japan, India, or South America. There willbe air pollution there. It might not have same amount of air pollution as other countries but there is still pollution. Why? Because there are people who uses his or her personal car not thinking about what happens to the air that they breathe. However, there is a solution to limit the pollution in the air. Limiting car usage or find another way to get to the certain destination. Mr. siva even claims that ""A car is just a means of getting from A to B..."" Cars is just a means of transportation. So are bicycles, trucks, buses, traind. However, all these have one thing in common, they are all going form destination A to destination B. Biking, walking, skating are some way to stop the gas from the vehicles from polluting the air. Actually, by using these methods pollution can be reduced. For example source three states, ""...uneven, pitted sidewalks have bee replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic..."" When people don't use his or her car and decides to find another way to get to their destination it helps reduce the traffic.

There are several people who say that they know what the real world is since he or she travels all the time in their car. However, do people really know the sounds of kids laughter when walking down the side walk or a bicycle bell violently ringing at someone to get out of their way? Not a lot of people know this because they are usually used to their vehicles getting them places. People will argue that they have heard all of those before and that they were happier. But Ms. Walter thinkgs other wise, ""When i had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Ms. Walter has been walking on the streets and she hears the swish of bicycles and the talkative children and occastional a distant motor. These help people better appreciate the world that they live in because not everything will last forever. In addition to this, less cars means more people walking which means that several people will end up walking pass a shop and look what is inside. For instance in source three is explains, ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed through the city uneven...and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" It helps by walking to find new stores or restaurants people never heard of.

Several people believe that the only way to get somewhere is by car. That isn't necessarily true. Skating, walking, biking, car pooling or public transportation can help get anyone from point A to B. Yes, it will take longer on foot than by car but it helps the environment, it stops from the air getting all the gasoline form the cars. It is faster than being stuck in traffic. Someone who is biking to school can be five minutes late while soneone who is took their car and got stuck in traffic can be an hour late. Limiting car usage is a way that everyone can explore the world than being stuck in that four or tw door car. Limiting car usage has its downs but it also have its perks.",0
8e5d1b2a,1,"Dear Senator, Presidential elections are closer than they seem, and your people have a complaint you need to hear. It involves the right to vote directly for a leader, and the ignoring of the vast majority. People have spoken in favor of omitting the Electoral College and sticking to what the people themselves deem acceptable for a president not what one person decides for millions.

It does not make sense for the voters of America not to vote directly for who they want to lead, represent, and protect their country. Especially if the people cannot even choose who the electors are! That is ignoring the 23rd Amendment all together.

But do not get me wrong, I understand that some people are more comfortable with the Electoral College and they prefer to leave it in the hands of somebody politically intelligent and aware, but that usually means that those people need education and knowledge about the state of their country, and need to be aware of how important their right to vote directly is. The Electoral College can go so wrong so fast and we need to go by what the majority millions say rather than the minorities with little to no knowledge. Us as Americans need to be educated when it comes to who is running in order for us to be able to say yes or no for ourselves not depend on an unknown entity who might not even listen to what the people are saying.

So many great people who were voted most popular and accepted amongst the people have actually lost presidency over the fact that the College had the upper hand. This is unfair to those in America who took the time to directly vote and who took the time to learn and watch debates that the opponent won due to the fact that thousands upon thousands did not speak for themselves and left it to somebody else blindly.

In conclusion, Senator, I am asking you to think: is there ever really a happy turn out from ignoring the vast majority or doesn't that lead to an eventual uprising? Letting one speak for all is an unitelligent thought, we are a country where the people have power, have a voice, and are aware. Losing that is losing what makes us free. We all need the vote, we all need the voice, and we all have the right to choose exactly what we want for the future of this country.

Thank you for your time, and thank you for listening.",0
8e65cea9,1,"The Electoral College is not fair and should be abolished. Did you know that 60 percent of voters would prefer a more direct way to vote then what we have now. That is a lot of people who just want a more trustworthy and direct voting process. The Electoral College should be abolished because you can't trust the people you elect, and many states do not even see any electors at all.

Having your trust in people who you only see campaigns for on television is pretty hard to do. Honestly that is quite ridiculous for them to ask of us. In source 2, paragraph 11, Plumer tells us about how sometimes ""faithless"" electors disregard their party's candidate and vote for whomever they please. So is it really worth going through the trouble of electing poeple who might not even do as they said they would. Posner on the other hand explains that the trust in the elector is rarely betrayed source 3, paragraph 16. But is it really worth risking four, maybe eight years of our lives to trust poeple we really do not know. Not to mention how it could affect our jobs and lives at home if this does happen.

Did you know seventeen states didn't see any candidates at all in the 2000 campaign. In source 2, paragraph 13, Plumer talks about how candidates do not visit states they know the can't win or states that they know they will definintly win. This leaves many states who do not get to see any candidates at all. This makes those states feel like their votes do not count and worry if they their new president willl have any regards for their interest. In source 3, paragraph 19, Posner says that this is a good thing that candidates do not visit states they know the can't win or states that they know they will definintly win because then that candidate can focus on the states that may be undecided or swing states. He believes this is a good thing because a candidate with appeal in only a few states is unlikely to be a good president. But you are leaving out a big proportion of the United States population who would love the expiernce of hearing a cadidate give a passionate speech about why heshe should be elected.

We can come to the conclusion that the Electoral College should be abolished because you really can't trust the people you elect, and many states do not even see any electors at all, which then makes them feel worthless. Furthermore, we can say that the new way to elect the president should be more direct and fair.",0
8ea4ad77,1,"Dear me. Senator, ever since the Presidential Election of 2000, the concept of our electoral college has been highly scrutinized, and this is rightly so. The electoral college is undemocratic, unfair, and should be replaced with the popular vote.

Even people who support keeping the electoral college such as the author of In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President , Richard A. Posner agree that ""...the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense.."" paragraph 15. America was founded on democracy and making sure that the people's voices were heard, and not allowing the people to directly vote for the leader of the country goes against that.

The electoral college is also extremely unfair to voters. Because of how the election system is set up, a candidate could win the people's popular vote, but not the electoral votes and would then not receive presidency. This occurred in 2000 in the Gore vs Busch election. Even though a majority of people voted for Gore, Busch still ended up with the presidency paragraph 9. Having the electoral votes take precedence over the popular vote takes away the people's voice and basically tells them that their opinion doesn't matter as much as the electoral college's opinion.

The electoral college is also unfair because it discourages campaigning in nonswing states. A democratic candidate would not campaign in a state like California that is heavily democratic because they know they are almost definitely going to win the election in that state, meaning they will get all of that state's electoral votes. A republican candidate would not campaign in california either because they know they would have almost no chance of winning in such a heavily democratic state, and they would be wasting campaign money with no hope of electoral votes from that state paragraph 13. This means that people in nonswing states like California don't really know much about either candidate because they were never informed. Then the people in these states tend to vote for their party solely because they have nothing else to go off of. It is unfair for voters in nonswing states to be left in the dark just because all of the electoral votes are almost guaranteed to go one way. If the US used popular votes for the Presidential Election, republicans in democratic states and democrats in republican states would have a voice too.

Another way the electoral college is unfair, is the standing procedure in the event of a tie. There are 538 electors in the electoral college paragraph 3 which is an even number, meaning the electoral votes for each candidate could be tied. In the event of a tie, the House of Representatives would have an election and each state would get one vote. That would mean ""...the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters"" paragraph 12. This would make someone from California's vote count for much less than someone from Wyomig's vote.

It can be argued that the electoral college is beneficial in the fact that the winning candidate's share of electoral votes exceeds his share of popular votes. For example, in the 2012 election, Obama received 61.7% of the electoral votes compared to 51.3% of popular votes paragraph 18. Some say this is beneficial because it reduces the chance of a dispute of vote counting. However, this is actually not a good thing. 51.3% of people wanted Obama to be President. Not 61.7%. Yet Obama still got credit for 61.7%. About 10% of voters who didn't support Obama didn't get their opinion heard.

The electoral college has been around for a long time, and it's time for a change. It is simply undemocratic and unfair. It prevents every person for having an equally weighted vote. The electoral college needs to be replaced with a popular vote.

Thank you for your time me. Senator.",0
8ed5b866,1,"The Electoral College has been here for many years. Over the aast years many aeoale think it is unfair to the voters. There are many conflicts that have risen about it. Without a doubt , the Electoral College is unfair and irrational to voters because they voters are basically voting for no reason. The aresident they want to vote for doesnt count and instead the votes of the Electoral College do , the electors shouldnt be the only aeoale to vote just because they are qualified doesnt mean only their oainion and choice should be heard. Also , a direct election would be much better and everyones votes count and its equal.

To begin with , when the first Electoral College was made no one really argued about it. But over the many years conflicts have come. Peoale have realized that was is being done istn fair or right. "" At the most basic level , the Electoral College is unfair to voters. Because the winnertakeall system in each state , candidates dont saend time in states they know the have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" state"". source 2, a. 13. Everyone has the right to vote but if their votes dont count whats the aoint?. Peoale should have the right to voice their own oainion and be aart of the voting. The electors that are chosen have only a little amount of oainions. If the voters would be included there would be a variety of choices of who should win. Every american should be comfortable and certain about who they voted for and if the Electoral College votes contradicts that there can be aroblems.

Furthermore , In a direct election everyone is treated equally. Unlike , the voting we have now , ""If you lived in Texas , for instance , and wanted to vote for John Kerry , you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors aledged to Kerry"". source 2, a. 10. Voters cant always control whom their electors vote for but voters sometimes can get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate. Why have so much going on when you can aeacefully just count the votes of the voters and electors together?. Yes , they may be the electors and might have more knowledge of whats going on but they are just aeoale too and everyone is created equally so definitely their votes shouldnt be the only ones actually counted.

Moreover , Bigger states may have a bigger effect on the votes because of their large amount of aeoale voting. By , not making their vote count some aeoale can feel that their voices are not being heard which can lead to in some cases riots and rebellions etc. Voting haaaens for a reason if gives the world a chance to aick whom they want to see lead them and who they feel like is the right aerson but in the end if there votes cant count and actually go to the electors limits their aower and freedom to saeak. "" Voters in aresidential elections ae aeoale who want to exaress a aolitical arefeence rather than aeoale ho think that a single vote may decide an election"".source 3 , a.23. The Electoral College may have worked in the aast but now its not working as well.

To conclude , The Electoral College arocess should be stoaaed for numerous number of reasons. It limits aeoales oainions and aeoale are voting for no reason if they cant aick who they want. Whoever is running for aresident and everyone who votes for one aerson shouldnt just be heard from a certai groua of aeoale. Everyones oainion should matter.",0
8f0416e8,1,"Some people believe that the electoral college should be abolished and some people believe that the electoral college has helped us throughout the years. But I believe that electoral college should be abolished.

The reason I believe that the electoral college should be abolished is because I don't believe it is benefiting any elections at all. And a lot of people do not believe in it either. In source two Bradford Plumer said ""what have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and the Chamber of Commerce been trying to do, abolish electoral voting."" I think that the electoral college makes the president elections to close to tie, and that could be a catastrophe. However source three has made some pretty good points on the electoral college. Saying that "" if there was no electoral college there would be no winnertakeall system."" this would a terrible problem for the candidates and the voters, and would ruin the whole election.

Therefore sources two and three makes some pretty valuable and good points, but I still think source two makes more sense to me. In source three Richard A. Posner wrote "" it is the electors who elect the president not the voters. When your voting for a president candidate your actually voting for a slate of electors. I dont agree that electors decide what we voted for, because then whats the point of voting for a candidate if your not even choosing at all. America is a democracy and having someone choose your president for you is not showing that we live in a democratic nation. We need to choose so we can learn from our own mistakes and then we won't make them again.

This just shows that the House Of representatives and the government don't trust us at all and that we cant make good decisions. Source one doesnt say anything about being against or with it but it did point out some interesting facts about the electoral college. The office of the federal register wrote "" the electoral college is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" What their saying is that we might not have huge say on the election but we do have a pretty big say on it. I don't that we have any say on it what so ever, and that is because of the slate of electors.

In conclusion, I agree with what source two had to say because of the great points they made and the facts that led me to belive that the electoral college does not work at all. Read the sources and then tell me if you think i'm right or wrong.",0
8f357344,1,"Dear Florida Senator, There is a major problem in how we elect presidents. The electoral College has to be replaced with a direct election because of how misrepresented many voters are, and how a candidate could lose the majority vote and yet still win the election.

The first problem of the Electoral College is that everyone is not represented. According to Bradford Plumer in paragraph 10, ""... voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president... Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes."" and because the voters cannot directly control who they vote for, the electors could choosing a different person than who they said they would, which means that the voters are misrepresented. Another way that voters can become misrepresented is because of confusion. Since voters sometimes get confused about who the electors are voting for, they could end up voting for the wrong person. Also, the Office of the Federal Register states in paragraph 7 ""Most states have a winnertakeall system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of proportional representation"". Due to the ""winnertakeall"" system, many people are not represented in the electoral votes, especially in large, one sidedstates. As a result of this, many of the minorities do not even vote because they know that their vote will not win the state.

Another reason that the electoral College should be replaced with a direct vote is because of how the majority does not get the candidate they chose. In paragraph 16, Richard A. Posner states that ""It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the firs time since 1888."" and because of the fact that the electoral votes are the deciding factor in choosing a president and not the majority, most of America did not get who they wanted to see as their leader and president. Even though this hardly ever occurs, it still hasto be fixed. As a result, Bradford Plumer states in paragraph 9, that ""over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" which would be a true democracy, unlike the Eectoral College. The Electoral College also has an even number of people in it, which means there could be a tie. However, the Electoral College ""requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal"" according to Richard A. Posner in paragraph 19. This is not a good thing because when a certain state or region is struggling, a transregional president will not focus their attention on that area of weakness. In a direct democracy, the voters could vote for a president that has an area of expertise in that region or state and could give them a much needed boost, leading to less weaknesses and an allaround better country.

To summarize this completely, the Electoral College has to go. It is unfair, misrepresentful, and is not even a democracy. Eventualy, it has to change.",0
8f89a4be,1,"Dear Florida state senator, The Electoral College may seem like a great thing to have but I think it may not be the best idea. There are plenty of reasons and one of them is that it is kind of unfair that we really don't get to vote. We vote to see who is more popular with the people but if the Electoral College wants someone else, they can vote for the person they want. People think they are voting and no one else is making the decision for them but they are being lied to. It is an unfair way of voting and is is nondemocratic way in most people's eyes.

Although, most of the time the voters get who they voted for, it happened to not be that way one time. In 2000, Gore had more popular votes than Bush but Bush won because he had more electoral votes and the people were angry. The Electoral College didn't go with what the voters wanted, but what they themselves wanted. People are being lied to that they have a say so in who should be president. Yes, most of the time they go with the voters but at any time they can disregard the popular votes and vote for who they want. If that's the case then no one should vote since they basically only have an opinion on who should be elected.

I said it was a nondemocratic way before and it really is. It isn't really a free way of voting, we give an opinion and the Electoral College votes for whoever. It fits back when America was just becoming America, but it is too old now. When the Declaration of independence was made and a little while after that is what time era I think it should have died out. It is other people voting for us. In America, we have a voice, we can state opinions, we can vote too, but the Electoral College votes for us. It is telling our opinion, it is telling who we want, but why can't we have direct voting? It just isn't fair to the voters because they aren't really voting, just expressing an opinion.

Speaking of unfair, the number of electoral votes each state gets is outrageously unfair! Why is it based on the number of people in the state? Why can't people just vote directly and not have to worry about how many electoral votes they can get? For example, Florida has 29, Texas has 38, and california has 55. They are all big numbers and they can easily make a huge impact on who becomes president. The less populated states on the other hand, don't really do much justice. Maine has 4, Hawaii has 4, and Alaska has 3. It seems really unfair to those states because they have a small chance of actually making any sort of dent in the numbers. Alaska's numbers compared to California's numbers is just really unfair. If people were able to vote directly, then it would be fair game for the states with fewer electoral votes.

In the end, people know the Electoral College is an unfair way of voting. People are lied to about being able to vote because it is not direct because it is the Electoral College decides anyway. The state numbers are really unfair, it is a nondemocratic way of voting, and people think it is way out of date. If the Electoral College were to trade spots with the voters who aren't in it, I'm sure they'd say that it is really unfair. People don't really get to vote, if anything, there should be direct voting like most people believe there is. It would be more fair for states like Alaska and all the other states with really small numbers. I'm sure it is easy to keep track of the numbers with electoral votes, but yet like I said, it is really unfair for the smaller populated states.",0
8fae2697,1,"The Election System should be changed to popular vote. The Electoral College is unfair and irrational. It should be cancelled, and be based upon popular vote with numbers that make since. Many votes have been barely won because the numbers are so close and high. The Electoral College Isn't an amount of how many people voted for a president, its for an elector. And you dont always pick your elector, it could get confused and a wrong elector could get picked.

Many states do not have a fair chance to vote, And one representative can count as too many votes compared to their own value. Sates that didnt have the chance to see the candidates were most likely ignored with docent help because even if the people guessed a vote the electors would give out a large number of votes randomly to a candidate. Some staes didnt even get so see an ad for the candidates once.

""A single representative from wyoming representing five hundred thousand representatives would have as much to say as fifty five representatives from California, who represent thirty five million voters."" "" During the 2000 campaign seventeen states didnt get to see the candidates at all,Including rhode island and south carolinia, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didnt get to see a single campaign ad."" These qoutes from bradford plumber, explain that half of the peoples votes were going to wrong candidates as the pepole were completley confused about who they were even voting for. They didnt even get Ads that could give them at least a look or a hint, basically, the people were clueless. It even seems a little unorganized, the Electoral College docent make much since either based on the information given, but what you should really think about is how the Electoral College has hint of trying to cheat its way into electing a candidate.

In addition, The voters are left with an unfair outcome at almost every election because of the Electoral Collage. The votes can either be very close or the people could miss Ads or campaigns for candidates, leaving the people with nothing and confusion all over. Even if you knew what elector you voted for, you cant necessarily pick who it is your voting for and your vote could possibly get confued giving you a bad outcome. Most elections are just slid by and are just based on what ever the Electoral College thinks should happen. So please abolish the Electoral College its is irrational and is not neccessary, let the people really have a fair chance.",0
8fc3393d,0,"Go outside and take a deep breath, as it is right now you may feel refreshed and may even feel twinge of joy as you just took in a breath of the wonderful natural and clean air. But, as it so happens with the increase of greenhouse gases in the world, in just a few years this may not be the same situation. Instead of enjoying your breath, you may be coughing or choking on the polluted air. In the past few decades, our air pollution has gone up drastically and most of that comes from our cars. According to Source 1, written by Elisabeth Rosenthal, cars in Europe make up 12 percent of its greenhouse gases and up to 50 percent in areas in the United States! That's a whole lot! Rest assured though, there is an easy and crucial way we can begin to cut down those numbers we must begin to limit our car usage.

Already, you may question this and begin to wonder if it is even a possible or logical request. Well, it is in many places throughout the world, communities have begun to forget about their cars and use bikes, walking, and more public transportation options instead of their cars. It can happen, in In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars , by Elisabeth Rosenthal, she informs us about an upscale community in Vauban, Germany where its residents have given up their reliance on cars. It's streets have no cars, except for the tram that runs to its downtown areas. While everyone is still allowed to own a car, and some do, they must park it at one of the only two areas to park in large garages where an owner must buy a space for up to 40,000! You may think that it's crazy but in reality it is not. The structure of the city allows almost everything to be in close proximity to one another reducing the need for a car. Many citizens have reported to be feeling better and happier as they feel more carefree and have the stress that cars bring removed from their lives. This helps to reduce the emission produced by cars and Vauban is one of the most successful cities and have been an influence in many areas.

Now, if you are not up to the idea of completely giving up your car then, there are several alternatives that you can do to help and will still reduce and limit your car usage. In Source 3, by Andrew Selsky, Mr. Selsky brings to us a fairly new tradition that started about 3 years ago in Bogota, Colombia. Bogota is Colombia's capital and one of the most populated cities. Bogota has a citywide day called, ""Day Without Cars."" It is simple enough, buses and taxis are only permitted while cars are banned. Millions of people walked, biked, skated, or found other ways of getting to work and frankly enjoyed it. Other citizens reported it as a fun day to take away stress while helping our endangered enviroment. This day that started only 3 days ago has now spread to other areas such as Cali and Valledupar, and Asuncion, Paraguay. Not only do these days help the enviroment but it also helps the citizens. All throughout Bogota, new parks and sports centers have been built, old and cracked sidewalks have been replaced with smooth ones, and new areas for income such as restaurants and upscale shopes have popped up around the city as well. The reason for the building and new employment of jobs is so that people will have reasons to walk around and allow for it to be more convient for others who work near by the areas. We also notice a similar idea arise in the lovely city of Paris, France. For those who don't know while Paris is known for it's impressive architecture and beautiful sights, it also has a bad reputation of being very polluted. This pollution comes from the amount of tourists it recieves as well as the different and populous amounts of motor transportation. In Source 2 by Robert Duffer, we see he examines several days in which the city of Paris bans driving due to the record amounts of pollution in the air. For those who were driving when they weren't supposed to be were fined and a few even had their car impounded for their reactions to the fine. Unfortunately, the government established in Paris realized that they had to do this after 5 full days of intensifying smog. At first, many were scared, confused, and even upset as to why this was happening but they began to see that it was neccessary. Once their levels of smog began to normalize, congestion is Paris was down about 60 percent! All in all, we need to begin limiting our usage of cars, from the examples provided it shows that in the end, it isn't such a bad thing after all. It increases, activities to do, work opportunities for people, and reduces air pollution. While, they were able to save Paris this time, next time they may not be so lucky. In the United States, according to Source 4 which is very reliable, we actually see a decrease in car usage overall. These rates have dropped for several reasons, and have about the same results and benefits. People have begun getting healthier, emission rates have decreased.

While the idea of limiting car usage may scare some people, it is proved to be extremely helpful. Limiting car usage helps reduce emissions, and increases job opportunities and everything.",0
8fd9033c,0,"Imagine that it's 6:00am, Monday 2026 and you wake up to the smell of gasoline, fuel, and fogged air you look outside and all you see is car after car commuting to one's everyday life and spreading pollution every where. Cars are used way to often by many people who don't even need it most the time. If you do your part and limit car usage only good things will come to the world. Limiting car usage in today's environment sounds like a difficult thing to do since people work, go to school, etc. but in reality limiting car usage is saving the environment around us and by saving the environment you are saving yourself.

The high number of car usage is polluting our environment in numerous ways due to the smog it creates that corrupts the air. Sometimes it takes seeing what one is doing to stop and think about how they are affecting it. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city Source 2, Paragraph 10"". You can see that because of the increased pollution in Paris they putforth a law to limit the car usage in the city. If you limit usage than progress in the environment will occur. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog Source 2, Paragraph 14"". In only ""fivedays"" more than half of congested pollution decreased due to the limiting of car usage in that area. Cars can just destroy the atmosphere but we as people can make a big change by just walking or riding a bike in the times where you don't need a car and just doing that is a great way to decrease pollution by limiting your car usage.

Some places and people in the world seem to thrive without cars in their everyday system. People who don't own cars seem to have less stress in their life. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way... Source 1, Paragraph 3"". In some areas of the world the government has days to support the limiting of car usage by banning them for a temporary time. ""BOGOTA, Colombia In a program... millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took busses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams"" Source 3, Paragraph 20"". Having a day free of cars has a great chance of decreasing some of the modern stresses of life. Living a life without cars even if it is for a certain period of time is helpful in reducing the pressure on ones' life and gives nature a fighting chance on this planet.

Limiting car usage is beneficial to world whether the impact is small or large it all plays a good part in protecting our health and the environment around us. People have made changes some take to the extreme others don't do something about it until they see for themselves what it does. If one limits their car usage then they are being a great benefactor and get to experience the advantages of it. You stop imagining and now you think ""I'm going to ride my bike to school today"".",0
8feb5983,0,"Reducing the amount of cars used would benefit the fellow citizens greatly. Limiting car usage would decrease the amount of pollution in the air greatly, because they are among the main causes of emissions into the air among many countries. A better environment for the citizens would arise because the infrastructure of many cities would improve and the people would exercise more, therefore becoming healthier. Also, congestion would dramatically decrease because less people would be on the road which also leads to less car accidents so less people would be getting injured from a car accident.

Car emissions all over the world are among the main causes for the air pollution and greenhouse gasses. In cities llike Paris the air pollution rose so much that there was a temporal driving ban on the whole city. This ban eventually cleared the air but if this could happen in one city it is more than likely to happen again in another city. These car emissions are clearly a large part of this air pollution as Elisabeth Rosenthal shows the U.S has a fifty percent of greenhouse gas emissions from the abundant amount of cars. Limiting the car usage would clearly diminish the amount of emissions in the air and prevent these large amounts of smog and pollution to form in the air that the people are breathing.

In the city Bogota a carfree day was hosted to promote public transportation, and it had created many benefits to the city's infrastructure. With more money coming in from these public transportation the government has more money to fix and improve upon the city's infrastructure. The sidewalks were fixed, more restaurants were opened, and more people attended parks, and sports centers. If more cities implemented this carfree program for longer than a day the people would be becoming healthier and the environment would be a lot safer with better sidewalks, and better infrastructure in general. Also with these new buildings being created more jobs would naturally also be created therefore unemployment would also be decreasing in the cities that are restricting cars. In Vauban, a city almost no cars, the citizens live happy with a rectangular shape to their city to maintain everything close and a small walk away from almost everything, therefore the infrastructure for the city is clearly well built and no cars are needed.

The restriction of cars would also make the roads a lot safer considering there are less cars to crash into or cause accidents. As shown from the Paris ban on cars, congestion had decreased sixty percent from what it was originally. The only people driving would be the conductors of the public transportation vehicles, therefore a majority of the drivers on the streets would be experienced and not be drunk while driving. The decrease in congestion would also lead to a much more efficient mode on transportation from the busses, and they would travel much faster to their destinations.

With the restriction of car usage the positive benefits created would immensely improve the living conditions and environment that the citizens live in. With a cleaner environment free of pollution the people would live healthier, infrastructure would improve greatly allowing more jobs to be created as well, and less congestion and car accidents would occur in the cities. The restriction of car ussage would improve the citizen's lives greatly.",0
8fef4536,1,"The Electoral College should be kept for the voting of the President. There are many reasons to support this conclusion. When the people vote for a President, they are actually voting for a slate of electors. This can be a good and bad thing. The good thing is that the Electoral College keeps balance. The bad part is that some Americans see that is unfair that they cannot vote for a President directly.

The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance between small and large states as it says in paragraph 21. This means that it makes sure the election is fair, not one person can be voted president just because they campaigned in a larger state more people. The Electoral College also balances out the winners. They are the people who pick the clear winner when two candidates get tied. This happened to Nixon and Clinton. They both had a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes as it says in paragraph 22. In these kind of situations it is good to have a backup plan also known as the Electoral College.

Although the Electoral College is a helpful and fair way to vote, some Americans do not see it that way. In fact,over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now as it says in paragraph 9. There reasoning is that they cannot vote directly. They vote for a slate of electors who then vote for the president. They see this as unfair and think that they should be able to vote for the president directly. Below the 14th paragraph, it says ""lost the presidency: In the 2000 U.S. presidential race, Al Gore received more individual votes than George W. Bush nationwide,but Bush won the election,receiving 271 electoral votes to Gores 266."" Although this may seem unfair, the reality of it is that the Electoral College is just trying to keep the election for President fair. The Electoral College help to ensure that all of the candidates for President have a fair advantage. If the Electoral College wasnt there to balance out the voting, then the candidates could cheat. By cheat, this means that they could campaign in a bigger place of they could be from a different place than another president and have a unfair advantage because of the bigger population. If one president was from Texas and the other was from Florida, the candidate from Texas would have a unfair advantage because hes from a place with a bigger population. Why this is unfair is because if a candidate is from a area with a big population, the people in that area are most likely going to vote more towards that candidates side. In the last sentence of paragraph 21, it says ""Alarge state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than small states."" In the end, there are always going to be downfalls. The Electoral College may pick the opposite candidate that the majority of the people want, this is true. Also, the people may feel that it is wrong to not go with the peoples opinion. If the Electoral College was not there to decide, there would be all forms of chaos. As it says 1822, the candidates would have an unfair advantage. The situations on both ends have cons but the Electoral College staying solves more problems than creating them.",0
8ff3c55e,1,"The senate should remove the Electoral college and make the popular vote system the main way on deciding who's president. The electorsal college seem's to have many flaw's that can make voting a disaster. Voter's aren't truely voting for a president, they vote for a slate of candidates who then vote for president.

The worst part about this type of voting is the disaster factor sourse 2:paragraph 11. It clearly says "" segragationists in the louisiana legislature nearly succeede in replacing the democratic electorss with new electorss who would oppose John F. Kennedy. This shows that the results of an electorsal college can sometimes not be decided by the people, but mostly on the electorss of each state. People say the the electorsal college is an easier,cleaner, and faster method, but when it comes for the people to vote for president The electorsal college system wont suit what the people mainly would like.

The electorsal college is an unfair way to vote for president, During the 2000 caspian program, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad.sourse 2: paragraph 13. These things shows that the candidates dont care about having the smaller states votes, but wants bigger populated states like california and texas. This is often called a "" Winnertakeall"" system since it each state doesn't get to see what there electors is really all about. Also it can show that with the electorsal college, electorss can vote for a president who is regionally favorable and not nationaly. This can often make the voters feel less satisfied with thier president since there president might not show interest in there opinions.

The Electoral college also avoids the problem of elections in which there is little to no popular votes what so ever. Nixon in 1968 and clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes,while winning a majority in the Electoral College sourse 3: paragraph 22.This goes to show that the Peoples votes dont usually matter when it comes to voting for a president but the electorss do.

Once agian,The senate should remove the Electoral college and make the popular vote system the main way of deciding who's president. This will be benifitial to many states that want to be involved in the election but feel that there saying in things wouldn't matter.",0
909637a6,1,"Dear state senator, The Electoral College should be changed to election by popular vote. I say this because, as successful as the Electoral College has been, it has many flaws. In the first sentence of the eleventh paragraph, the article mentions something called the disaster factor. This is an alarming possibility. State legislatures are, in a way, responsible for choosing electors who may ignore the will of the people.

During 1960, in the Louisiana legislature, people titled Segregationists almost succeeded in removing the Democratic electors and replacing them with new electors. These new electors were supposed to oppose John F. Kennedy so that any popular votes for Kennedy would not have really gone to him. If those Segregationists had succeeded in their plan, John F. Kennedy would not have won the popular vote. That was indeed a close call, and it could happen yet again in the near future without fail. On another similar topic, ""faithless"" electors have, from time to time, denied the option to vote for their party's candidate. Instead of voting for the candidate of their own party, they cast a vote for whomever they wish.

Also occurring in 1960, a state sent two slates of electors to Congress. Vice President Richard Nixon validated only his opponent's electors. Thankfully, he was presiding over the Senate at the time. He made sure to validate the slate of his choosing ""without establishing a precedent."", as stated in paragraph eleven, sentence 9. Hopefully, this will not occur again anytime soon.

The most worrying occurrence would be a tie. However, if a tie were to happen in an electoral vote, the election would be thrown towards the House of Representatives. There, the state delegations vote on the president. In 1976, a tie would have happened if 5,559 voters from Ohio and 3,687 voters from Hawaii had voted the other way. This is bad because the election is only a few voters away from a distaster. In conclusion, the Electoral College is not only unfair, but outdated and irrational. It should be shifted from the way it is now to total amount of popular votes for the president of the United States.",0
90c014d0,0,"The articles explain that the limited use of cars or automobiles is to our advantage. Two reasons that support this theory is that one you won't have to stress about buying a car and making sure everyone has one, and second you will help to protect the environment from the harmful gases of automobiles.

The limitation on cars may have its advantages because, among the billions of people on this earth many of them own cars. Many vehicles give off harmful pollution gases to the environment and can cause many endangering problems to people as well. Evidence from source 2: ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" can support the following... ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" This evidence supports the fact that there was enough smog in the air that led to the prohibition of cars for a limited time. This is to the people's advantage because they were now able to breathe fresh air instead of smog. Another piece of evidence also comes from source 2: ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of intensifying smog...The smog rivaled with Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" This evidence shows that smog causes pollution which is harmful in many ways. It also shows just how much of a difference just five days of limitation on vehicles can help reduce pollution. So the sooner people can see what banning cars can do to their health and wellbeing then maybe they will see what the love and cherish so much, can actually be hurting them.

Car limitations may be the best thing yet for America and other places in the world. By banning cars we could reduce a lot of stress and the worry about the payments and supplying the vehicle with gas. Evidence that can support this comes from source 4: "" The End of Car Culture"" ""the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995....recession, because cash strapped Americans could not afford new cars, and the unemployed weren't going to work anyway."" This explains that many Americans cannot even afford cars. So they go about their days just fine taking public transportation or receiving rides from friends. So by banning cars we could actually reduce the stress of not having a car or making the payments on them... plus we would have better health. Out of the estimated 7 billion people on this earth, it is not guranteed that all of them around the ages of 15 and above are equipped with a a vehicel of their own. Evidence from Source 4: ""The End of Car Culture"" can support the following "" What most intrigues me is the rates of car ownership per househols and per person started to come down two to three years before the downturn,"" Thi just goes to show you that not only are cars bad for the enviornment and people's health but, they are bad financially for people to maintain and keep up. The automobile is what changed America back in the day. But it is causing some damae to us now.

Car limitations have some advantages that are probably very beneifcial to us. We may think that cars are our only way of transportaion and that you need them to survive but, that is not necessarily true. Cars are great but up to a certain extent.",0
90c0a8df,0,"We all know that driving makes life easier in terms of getting from point A to point B, but there are also many benefits that come from not driving or maybe not even owning a car. Not driving proves to affect the community in a positive way such as: less polluted air, happier people, and less congestion on the roads.

A study in Paris showed that the less drivers there are on the roads, the less smog there is in the air. France uses diesel and they tend to have more smog than ""other European capitals"" par.17 who use gasoline. So by cutting the amount of drivers on the road, it also cut the amount of smog in the air. People used the roads less due to the amount of smog in the air and when there were less poeple on the road, there was also less pollution in the air, making for clearer skies. Also, in the United states, the percentage of people getting their licenses and of those who own cars has gone down in recent years. ""If the pattern persists... it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment"" par. 34. Just like in Paris, the fewer people driving, the better our environment gets as the years go on. Alternatives to driving could be walking, using ""public transportation"", or biking to get to the places we need to go. These alternatives can help us ""save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety"" par. 43 which are not only beneficial to us, but to our environment as well.

In Germany, there are certain places where you are not permitted to own a car and if you do, you have to pay 40,000 to be able to park it in a garage along with the payment of your house. Obviously, not many people are going to want to pay that much money, so they get rid of their cars in order to live in those parts of town. Not owning a car can even reduce the stress levels of some poeple and make them happier in the long run. A ""mother of two"" stated ""when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" par. 3. So maybe this whole not owning a car thing is not only good for the environment around us, but also for our physical and mental well being. Sure, driving is nice, but it can be very stressful when having to deal with all the careless drivers around us and all the rules and responsibilities that driving entails.

Not only will less driving improve our environment, it will also result in less congested roads. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog"" par. 14. No one likes having a polluted environment around them, and the more pollution there is, the less crowded roads will be. The clearer the roads are, the clearer the skies around us are. In conclusion, driving does have its benefits, but not driving has even more, such as: the ability to keep our environment healthy and clean, less congestion on the roads, and happier people all around.",0
90dd4779,0,"There is many different advantages to limiting car use. The most important advantage to with this experiment is less gas emissions exit the exhaust pipes and cause greenhouse gases. This is a major advantage because our economy is filled with so much pollution and can and has caused serious damage to our health. The Environmental Protection Agency is promoting many car reduced communities. Paris, France enforced a driving pan to clear its air of smog and toxic gases. Any motorist who got caught driving was forced to pay a fine of 31. If refusal to pay the fine came to, The drivers car was impounded. The main cause of this smog in Paris was caused by diesel fuel. Diesel vehicles make up 67 percent of vehicles in Europe.

Another main benefit from car and driving reduction is exercise. Instead of driving people can ride a bike, walk, jog or even run to get to their destination. In Bogota, Columbia there is a program that is possible to spread to other countries. Millions of Columbians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a car free day. In America studies show people are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses each year. This can help stop the obesity rating not only in the U.S. but also in many other countries.

Finally, Another advantage is people can save a whole lot more of money each week, month, and year. People of every country spends hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions on their car. Whether it is for gas or buying a completly new car, People are consistently spending hard earned money on something that can be avoided with a nice relaxing walk. With citizens not spending money on these so called ""necessities"", they will be able to buy more important things. For example, Many people will be able to purchase a newer home instead of living in a weekly rent pay of an apartment. This can give many people the feeling of accomplishment and the feeling of control over their life. They will also be able to purchase food and drink so they don't starve or dehydrate. Many people go hungry everyday and suffer from dehydration. With vehicles gone people can save the necessary money needed for more life saving things.",0
90dda81b,1,"Dear Florida State Senator, The Electoral College needs to be disbanded. There are many reasons why the Electoral college needs to be stopped, but I will go over that later. How is it fair to Americans, if you say we have a vote that counts when we are just voting for a slate of people that might vote for someone we do not want. The voting process needs to be handled by the people, and who we want to run this country that we live in.

The voting process is just not fair to Americans. It's in the constitution that we have a right to vote and that we have the right to choose our president, but you people in the electoral college take away that right when we only get to vote for a slate of people. If elections were done by popular vote things might have been different in many ways. First off, in the 2000 election if it was done by popular vote, Bush would not have won and we would have had, Al Gore as president. The electoral college is just completely fair to voters. Because, in some states they have a winnertakeall system, so the presidential candidates to spend time in those states to get their vote. Seventeen States did not see the presidential candidates at all in 2000 campaign, so what is the point in having voting in those states if we dont know who we are voting for and why we are voting for them? There is not a reason to vote when the electoral college votes fore us.

Yes, sometimes people do not know what they are voting for and why, but that is because we have no say, it is not up to the people who is going to the president of the country of we live, because the electoral college will not let us choose who we want. Many people, very important people, such as Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, and the U.S Chamber of commerce have agreed that we should abolish the Electoral College and give the people the vote and see who wins president then. If the people had a vote on who is president it would be very simpler, than the Electoral College when they have a tie, we would not have to bounce the decision, we could randomly choose one state and let them vote to see who the president is for 4 years. Yes, some may agrue that randomly choosing one state would somehow turn out to but a massive mistake, but there is a way to make sure that no state gets selected 2 times before the first time of any other state.

Many my agrue that, the Electoral college is there for our benefit. Tell me one benefit there is to having no vote as regular citizen. I get it that there are more people in some states than others, but that does not mean we all get the same number of electoral votes as the huge states such as, California, Florida, and Texas. So if we are not going to have the same votes number of votes no matter what why does it matter if we give the people the option and have them vote for who they want, it is because the Electoral College does not care who we want they choose the president on who they want. Also, if it is up to the Electoral College then why does it matter if the citizens vote, I mean of course we want to give our input of who we want, but it does not matter, because our state senators will go behind our back and vote for someone we do not want.

America, of course, has many more freedoms than other countries and we are not taking advantage of that, because we can not allow the people to vote for the President of the United States. The citizens do not want to vote for a slate of people, they want to vote for our president.",0
9124e664,1,"The Electoral College is a process that has been used for presidential elections since the Founding Fathers established it in the constitution. This system does not necessary give the voters a direct vote, but rather a vote for a slate of electors that vote for them. The voters entrust that their elected slate will vote for their favored presidential candidate. It brings up the argument whether this system of voting should be changed or kept. The Electoral College has some of its good points, but over all, it needs to be changed. Voters need a direct say in their vote, and this system turns off the interest of potential voters.

The voters of the United states should have the ability to directly vote for who they want as President. After all, the people are what make up the country and should have say. ""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational,"" says Bradford Plumer in The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong.

This means that the Electoral College is unfair to the people because the slate they vote for might not even vote for their candidate. Also, in the same article, Plumer states, ""Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" This means that there is a chance that the electors could vote for whoever they please.

This system of voting does not give the voters a direct say as to who they want, but also turns off the interest of voters who should be voting for their country. ""Because of the winnertakesall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know that have no chance of winning..."" as said by Plumer. People within those states would have no motivation to vote for their president because their potienial president did not come to their state to convince them to vote. The candidates are only focused on getting majority of the electoral votes, and not who the people really want. ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets ddin't get to see a single campaign ad,"" Plumer had stated. These states lack any information about the potential ruler of their country just because the candidates are focused on the states that will help them win.

Although ""each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for a party's nominee,"" as said by Richard A. Posner in In Defense of the Electoral College: Five Reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President , the possibility of having a winner based on electoral vote and not popular vote is very much possible. For instance, the 2000 election, Gore had won popular vote but due to the electoral vote, Bush had won the election. Gore won the vote for the most popular all over the nation, but because the electoral college had a majority of Bush, it was like the nation's actual vote did not matter.

The Electoral College is unfair to the people because they do not get a direct say for who they want, and the candidates only focus on states that will help them win based on electoral vote. The people need a say exactly who they want and should not depend on others to do the vote for them. Canidates should not only appeal to states that would make them win, but also to other states so the whole nation knows exactly who might be ruling over their country.",0
91763ded,0,"Everyday when you wake up and get ready for work there's always one thing you use, it's inched it's way into your daily life and now you wouldn't be able to do most things without it. It's your four wheeled friend that sits out in your driveway or garage, your car. Every day millions of people drive miles and miles in a car, using them to go to work or to go and see other people, but what people don't understand is the need to limit just how much they use their automobile companions.

Cars have changed our lives for the better and for the worse. They save us a tremendous amount of time by making traveling super efficient, but along with that is air pollution. Cars emit greenhouse gasses, and these gasses trap heat which in then leads to warming of the surface of the earth. This warming of the earth creates drastic changes in many environments such as the polar regions. ""Passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions in europe... and up to fifty percent in some car intensive areas"" This was stated in an article about German suburb life without cars. By limiting the amount of which we drive and by switching to alternative sources for transportation we can lower the amount of greenhouse gases and stop the heating of the earth.

Furthermore, these gases create smog. Smog is similar to fog but instead it has gases emitted from cars in it. Smog is usually thick and can be hazardous to environments. It was so bad in Paris that they set a partial driving ban in which people couldn't not drive because they didn't want the smog to get worse. The problem here is that people still continued to drive out even though there was a ban being enforce. So, this is another issue in which cutting back on car uses can fix. If we switch to biking to places that are withing biking distance or walking to place that are walking distance than we wouldn't have to worry about smog, or bans.

Automobiles have changed the way we live our lives and the way we do things, but they also have changed our communities. The typical city today consists of tall buildings and a surplus of streets and avenues, but parks are not as common. In Bogota there has been celebrating a day without cars for three years, and it has seen changes in the community. By having everyone give up their car for a day it can change their view on things, can make them notice things about the place in which they live in that they did't know about before. It can show them the beauty of their surroundings and this can lead to people wanting to protect that beauty and improve their city. This can be done in the form of building parks, and fixing uneven sidewalks.

So all in all, we depend on cars for daily purposes and it may seem hard to let go of your keys and walk, but if we all do that every once in a while it can lead to tremendous benefits. Imagine if you could walk outside and see people walking and enjoying themselves, not having to worry about gas prices or traffic jams. Imagine if we didn't have to worry about greenhouse gases or smog. Going for walk instead of driving may not seem like much, but it has major impacts on a multitude of things.",0
91e523a5,0,"Cars have always seemed to be a necessity to people, but did you know just how bad cars can be? There are plenty of other modes of transportation you could choose from besides a car. Limiting car usage has plenty of advantages!

One advantage to limiting car usage is it improves safety. Safety in a community is what we all strive for and by taking this step, we can improve people's safety immensely. By having less cars on the road, there is a lesser chance for fatal accidents to occur. As well, you will improve your own safety by not getting into a car as much. It will lower your chance of getting into a fatal accident yourself. If you choose an alternate mode to transportation, you may also just increase your mood. In Elisabeth Rosenthal's article of ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", a man named Heidrun Walter said that ""when I had a car I was always tense, I'm much happier this way without a car to drive. Driving can lead to a negative mood, but mix that with danger and the results could get terrible.

Another advantage to limiting car usage is by not using your car, you can save money. Let's face it, cars are an expensive thing to keep running. It costs you money each time you go to refill your gas, costs money every time you have to go in to see a mechanic, it costs money to wash your car, and don't forget about buying the car or a new one if your current one has too many problems. Now with that in mind, just think about how much money one can save by not using the car as often as one does now. By not using your car, you can save yourself money and time.

More importantly, by limiting your car usage you can help reduce the emission into our atmosphere. As said in Elisabeth Rosenthal's article the End of Car Culture', ""transportation is the second largests source of America's emissions, just behind power plants"". By using a car daily, we emit a massive amount of carbon and other terrible gases into the atmosphere. Mixing those elements into our atmosphere can lead to smog and a destroyed atmosphere. Paris had to ban car usage for a few days just to clear out the global air arund them due to days of nearrecord pollution. We can save our environment, just by going the extra mile and choosing a different mode of transportation.

By limiting car usage in our communities, it can lead to a healthier, happier, and safer community as well as a money saver for all of us. It's understandable when you are to go a lengthy distance to use a car. Daily travels are usually close by, maybe try walking or taking the bus to your location. You may never know just how much you may like using that mode of transportation rather than driving your own car.",0
920554ab,0,"Cities have come to the realization of how much pollution is being released into our air by motor vehicles. Many cities and countries are taking part in this attempt to clear the air, such as: Germany, Paris, Columbia, and the United States. Smog is hanging over many cities in a dull cloud, blocking the citizens lungs from receiving clean air but cities are starting to come to an understanding of how dirty our world is becoming.

In a small town with the population of 5,500, Vauban, Germany, the streets are completely ""carfree"", which does not include public transportation and certain roads meant for driving. If one wishes to own a car, they must purchase a car space with their home, costing a whopping 40,000.source:1paragraph:2 This automatically discourages homeowners to purchase a car because of the steep price. The attempt to rid the air of pollution is gradually becoming more and more successful. 70 percent of Vauban families do not own any motor vehicles, and 57 percent sold their cars to move to the small town. The United States Environmental Protection Agency approves of this movement and is promoting car reduced communities. Although this is occurs in the suburbs, it is hoped to spread into the cities as well. source:1paragraph:9 Paris came to the smart decision of a driving ban once their air was replaced with a filthy smog. All motorists that owned license plates with evennumbers were required to leave their cars at home for the day, or they would be fined. The same rule would apply to any motorists with oddnumbered plates the next day. Evidently, it did not seem as if the people cared about the wellness of their planet, since 4,000 drivers were fined in a single day. 27 people were so furious with this law, their reactions cause them all to have their cars impounded.source:2paragraph:1012 The pollution was catastrophic enough to have Paris challenging China for the record of the most polluted city in the world. After one day of a carless city, the smog cleared enough to revoke the ban for oddnumbered plates the next day.

In an attempt for worldwide change, Bogota, Columbia creates a ""Day Without Cars"" in the capital city holding 7 million inhabitants. Many citizens partook in this act. They hoped to promote alternative transportation such as buses, biking, skating, hiking and walking to reduce pollution and have fresh air to breathe. Any violators were to be fined a fee of 25. source:3paragraph:2021 This campaign began in the 1990s and has resulted in the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, which is the highest amount of alternative transportation in any Latin American city, according to the city mayor. source:3paragraph:27 Bogota has seemed to make the highest impact of cleaning out air pollution, and resulted in a more positive effect on every person's life.

The motivation of people trying to clean up the human act of pollution and waste is abundant and consistent throughout the entire world. We are changing the daily enjoyment of our lives, animals lives, and the cleaness of the earth one step at a time. A study last year showed that driving by young adults decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009, which is a huge accomplishment on our part, compared to the earth's well being in the past 15 years. source:4paragraph:41 If we remain focused on the wellness of our planet and ourselves, the world can be a better place.",0
920c2732,1,"Dear State Senator, it is more favorable to keep the splendid method of the Electoral College and not to change it to election by popular vote for the United States President. The Electoral College method is more preferable because it helps to avoid runoff elections, and less numerical values.

Using the Electoral College to vote is more efficient because of it's aid to avoid runoff elections. As Richard A. Posner states,"" The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."" It also can help candidates running for president to avoid going to states that they know whose vote will have no effect. For example, Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California or how Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43% plurality of the popular votes while winning a majority in the electoral college. There isn't even any pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority vote that was cast leading to a clear winner.

Furthermore, using the Electoral College to select the President can help to reduce numerical values. Even though a citizen's vote doesn't automatically go to the candidate running for office and actually selects the electors that will select the President, the amount of votes it reduced greatly. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, rather than a estimate of 500 million votes total. Only a majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect a President. This includes one for each member in the House of Representatives and two for Senators. With most states having a winnertakeall system it even more so reduces the numerical value to that of just electors to vote for the winning presidential candidate while voters in tossup states are more likely to pay closer attention to the campaign. Those voters are more likely to be more thoughtful on average. They also receive the most information and attention from candidates.

Although, some articles and people consider the Electoral College method to be unfair to voters. Bradford Plumer says,""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning."" Even so, knowing their vote will have no effect, they will have kess incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would if the president were to be picked by popular vote.

Continuing, as was said before to the State Senator, it's a much more favorable idea to forward with the Electoral College method rather than popular vote because it will help avoid many timeconsuming problems like runoff elections and high numerical values.",0
921654a9,1,"Dear Florida state senator, I highly suggest we keep the Electoral College for many reasons, I believe to be the most valued being, with Electoral College, we can insure the certainty and fariness of the outcome. Majority of states award electoral votes with a winner takes all, type of deal. For instance, when no candidate has majority of vote, it becomes a bit of a hectic presidential election, but by using Electoral College, the result is a clear winner. Also, it is insured that there is no region that has enough electoral votes to elect a president alone. Which is great! If a candidate was eligible to be elected by a single regions appeal, that president is extremely unlikely to be a successful president.

Many people believe that Electoral college is unfair, they claim that the candidates feel they dont have to spend much time in the states that they feel they have no chance of winning in, but in reality, instead of avoid the states the candidates feel they wont get votes from, they should probably campaign there, and try to win some votes. It's about making the people like you, making them want to vote for you, not feel avoided by you, and if the candidates still dont see it that way, Electoral College has solved this problem by incorporating ""Swing States."" Voters in these tossup states listen extremely closely to the competing candidates. These voting are often the most thoughtful because they know they are going to be the deciding factor in the election.

because no region of voters can decide the election, and there is even a deciding factor of thoughtful people who are listening closely to the election, Electoral College becomes not only the fairest, but also the most successful way to elect a president.",0
921d3574,1,"Dear senator, Every one has a voice and they all want to be heard. The Electoral College is an unfair method of calculating votes for the population while voting for a president of the United States. States begin to feel like it is not worth it to vote because their vote could be neglected or it would not hardly count. Electing presidents by using popular vote gives states a better advantage at choosing their president because they know their vote is in and someone else will not be able to change their choice. Popular vote is when all the people are allowed to vote for the president and every vote counts because based on the amount of votes the president receives from the people is who wins the election.

Electoral Colleges are when the people vote for the person they want to govern them and that vote goes to a person that could either decided to vote as the people choose, or vote for whom ever he feel should run. It lowers the peoples voices, they are unable to directly choose what they want because their choices could be changed. Electors don't have to vote favor of the person you would like. The difference between the Electoral College and popular vote is that in the Electoral College their are electorss that can choose to vote in favor of what we the people want if they agree with it. The electors doesn't have to choose what the people want. In popular voting, the whole population gets to choose who they want as president without worrying that their vote will be put aside. It makes sure that we the people get what we want. They could just change the vote and choose who they want to run as presidency. The Electoral College doe shelp the counting of the votes because there are only 538 voters however, we are in a different time where electrical machines can help calculate the total number of votes for a large population.

Citizens with the right to vote feel like it is not needed for them to vote because the have a low number of electorss, while having a large number of population. It would benefit them if instead of having a certain number of electorss that you have to ""trust"" and hope they vote for the candidate you are going for, they will be able to directly vote for them using the method of popular votes to chose the president. The citizens will know that their vote counts and that it can't be changed because they wont have electorss voting for them.

Popular vote gives the citizens freedom and it helps to better calculate what the people want. The United States is a nation that is governed by the people and is runned based on what we want. It wouldnt make sense to deprive us from our voting rights. The constitution states that this government was created by the people, from the people, for the people and allowing us to vote by popular will help reinforce this because it will give us the freedom and liberty to choose as we the people want.",0
922a1650,0,"Although you may think of your car as a necessity, there are many advantages to not being behind the wheel. Greenhouse gas emissions would decrease and promote alternative transportation are among those many.

As the majority of people learned in grade school, greenhouse gases aren't such a great thing and are even destroying the planet. Stepping away from your car could decrease the amount of these deadly gases we put into our atmosphere. in the first article Rosenthal says ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emission in Europe, and up to 50 in some carintensive areas in the United States."" If the output is really that high and we stop using cars as much imagine the impact it could have if this happened world wide. in the second article Duffer was talking about how Paris had to ban cars because the smog, an effect of greenhouse gases, was too thick. towards the end he said that a few days of the car ban reduced the amount enough to where they could lift the ban. the smog was said to rival China's, and you see that on the news constantly so if only a few days made it significantly better then why can't we try it out?

Promoting alternative transportation could help local economies rise, and lower stress levels. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" sais a business man participating in boat's carfree day. Participants in these events claim that they relieve stress and most people can see why, it's very hard to avoid stressful situations when you're driving. Whether it's the guy who cut you off or a slow old lady there is always something that will grind your gears. the executive chairman of the Ford company said that ""in cities where vehicle ownership is impractical or undesirable they would be able to create a network that would save time, conserve resources, lower emissions, and improve safety."" If there are other sources of transportation available, why not take advantage of them?

Lowering our usage of cars we could keep our planet in good condition by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases and promoting alternative forms of transportation which has benifits within itself. If there are other options the only problem I see is that you can't pick what radio station is on.",0
927e9977,1,"Electoral college is a dictator, boss, or lottery! It's unfair. It is the duty and privilege of the people to select our government leader. We should choose based on our point of view. The second source conveys effective points to consider, such as, directly voting for the president and the disaster factor. It also informs us that, even though unlikely, there is possibility of a tie.

Directly voting for a president is an issue addressed in both source 2 and 3. They agree that technically, we're not really voting for a president. The second source tells us that when we vote, it is actually sent to the state elector, and it is they electors who vote for the president. Over 60 percent of voters would prefer voting directly over our system now. Even though source 3 gives us reasons to keep the electoral college, it will support us when we say we aren't actually voting for the president directly.

Source 2 gives us the ""single best argument"" against the elector college as what it refers to as the disaster factor. It uses the fiasco of 2000, the biggest election crisis in a century, as an example of why we are so lucky. The state legislatures were technically responsible for picking electors and they didn't always have to listen or acknowledge the people's opinionvote. It takes us further back by giving an example of segregationists back in 1960 where John F. Kennedy almost lost the popular vote of Louisiana when their legislature replaced Democratic electors with new ones that opposed him Kennedy. What source 2 calls ""faithless"" electors, electors who dont believe that their candidate will win hence faithless, have occasionly voted in favor of their choice, disregarding the decision of the people.

The third source gives us five reasons in favor of the electoral college method. Even though we don't directly vote, the party chooses the electors and trust that they will select the voted nominee, and it ensures us that the trust is almost never deceived. Disputes over the outcome because of an Electoral College Vote is possible, but not as likely as the popular vote. The next reason given informs us that a region doesnt have enough electoral votes to win the election for the president they favor. ""Swing States"" is another reason. It refers to states that can be persuaded and aren't necessarily entitled to a particular candidate, so they will really pay attention to what the candidates have to say, their campaign. ""Big states"" is the fourth reason and is focused on population advantages. Meaning, a state with smaller population will have just as much impact on the election as one with a larger population, its equal. It is not necessarily a good thing when the last reason says ""The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast"". Wouldn't that raise the risk of a tie? Though, it is extremely unlikely that a single vote may decide the president and voters in these elections want to express their opinion and prefernece.

I am in favor of abolishment of the unfair, oldfashioned, and irrational electoral college method. Plus, reasons to keep this system arent as strong and factual as the reasons to abolish it.",0
92d20f64,1,"Dear Senator, I feel that we should change using the Electoral college. The popular vote is much more effective. Using the popular vote to decide who becomes president would show who the citizens of the united states want. The popular vote shows what each state has voted for, using the Electoral college takes the right away for the people being able to vote for the president that they favor. Instead of using what the people voted for they come together to chose the candidate they predict would be the best and do the most for the country and that's not fair. If voting is important to this country then congress should understand that when the poeple vote for something everyone wants it to be their decisions that makes one of the two candidates become president not who the Electoral college believes would be best. If we could overcome the debate between what process works better more people might vote.

Although some citizens believe that the Electoral college is a good idea. I feel that if they compared not having the electoral college and only using the popular vote during voting periods they would feel they system is more efficient. One example is big states could make a tremendous impact on which candidate wins the election. These states have more people with more opinions that should be used during the time of the election for the president.

Some of the problems with the Electoral college is not only do voters not vote for their president, Back in 1960 "" The Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Deomcratic electors with new electors who opposed John F. Kennedy So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy"". ""In that same vein, faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please"" That is not what we are promised as a country. It states that the electoral college is suppose to cast a vote on what their state wants and what their state has chosen. That year the right to do so was taken away. Voting is a serious matter. Popular vote would clearifiy what each states popular favor is, who they want, and which candidate their vote was to be casted for.

I hope with all the information that I have just provided you with above will help to show you that the popular vote isn't only what most people want it's also the better choice.",0
92d2d691,0,"Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, and Audi. What do these car companies have in common? Less people are intrested in them, limiting car usage in certain places has lead to the popularity and need of owning a car decrease. Which so that there are advantages to limiting car usage such as less pollution and less traffic.

To begin, limiting car usage can lessen the amount of pollution in the air. Pollution is a topic used when hybrid cars are being talked and how they use less gas and pollute less but what about no pollution at all. How can we stop pollution? By no longer needing cars because ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Elizabeth Rosenthal paragraph 5. Fifty percent in the U.S. of greenhouse gas that is outrageous. As Americans we need to see that the greenhouse gases are causing all the global warming and animals becoming extinct because the environment around them is changing in ways they aren't used to. Limiting greenhouse gases is a must if pollution one day is going to stop. Also, limiting car use can benefit getting rid of the amount of useless gases in our atmosphere. As humans we need oxygen to live but in our atmosphere we currently have less then twenty percent of oxygen. We breathe in nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, etc. In order to get rid of one or two of these gasses we need to limit the car use because limiting car use ""Will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions."" Elizabeth Rosenthal paragraph 34. Cars make up so much of our gas emissions which is a huge reason to why the air is so mixed with many different gasses that our body just dosen't need, and so much smog and air pollution that is heating everything up and killing our planet that we currently inhabit. Unless we have colonies on Jupiter and Mars it seems like we are only killing ourselves.

To continue, limiting car usage can help lower the amount of traffic on the street. When diriving people always get mad when there is traffic or if they are caught in rush hour, why not just say getting to my job is a two minute drive I should just walk. Plus traffic can cause accidents wether it's someone in a hurry, or road rage, or just a complete accident, they happen. France at one point banned even number licence plate cars from driving on certain days and odd number licence plate cars on another to limit pollution, but one intresting stat from when they put the restrictions in place ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France."" Robert Duffer paragraph 14. Traffic down sixty percent in such a large city which also has to help the tourist who don't have to wait so long for their taxi driver to get to the Eiffel Tower. Having traffic down such a huge percentage is an enourmous thing to have in a large area like that because an accident in that city can ruin a lot of people's days so limiting car usage can help in that situation. Also, every year in Cloumbia they have a day without cars to limit pollution and to encourage everyone to get out more and to walk and run around in the city of Bogota which is the city in which the day is held. Columbia limiting there use even if it's once a year is great where ""Rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic."" Andrew Selsky paragrah 28. Limiting car use for one day a year even helps for one day of traffic where rush hours have very little traffic where the only people on the road are the people who don't want to follow the day with no cars. Having the little bit of traffic extremely helps tourist and people who have to use cabs to get around the city to go to work.

To conclude, major car companies like BMW and Jaguar need to watch out because not only is the popularity in cars not as high anymore, the need for them might be just as low because of countries stepping in and limiting car use to help lower the amount of pollution and traffic as they are helping to make the world a better place.",0
9332774c,0,"While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking, planners are now taking concepts to the suburbs. Residents of an upscale community in Germany have given up their cars, generating a revolutionary change.

Limiting car usage is ""a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" according to businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza, a resident of Bogota, Columbia. After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals, but thanks to the partial driving ban, congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France. By reducing the amount of driving we do, we could decrease the amount of greenhouse gases we emit into our atmosphere, ultimately creating a greener, healthier environment for all of earths inhabitants.

An improvement in society is also being made due to the ambitious goals to decrease car usage. Parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout cities uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up. The worlds love affair with vehicles seem to be cooling. When adjusted for population growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily thereafter, according to Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives, an investment research company. As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly nine percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January of 1995. Part of the explanation certainly lies in the recession, because cashstrapped Americans could not afford new cars, and the unemployed weren't going to work anyway. But by many measures, the decrease in driving preceded the downturn and appears to be persisting now that recovery is under way. If the pattern persists it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants.

""All of our development since World War Two has been centered on the car, and that will have to change,"" said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America. By decreasing the amount of car usage, we could generate enough change to truly change the world.",0
934b4465,0,"The most basic and persistent form of transportation that has been around for centuries has been the use of cars. Hundreds of thousands of people use automobiles to get to their destinations in a quicker and more efficient way. Recently, all over the world, places like Germany and Paris have been rethinking their dependency on cars. Ongoing issues regarding pollution and stress have all been traced back to using a car daily. By limiting everyday car usage, greenhouse gas emissions, constant road rage, and lack of space for other recreational purposes will decrease or even be eliminated.

Pollution and global warming is a growing problem that has been affecting animals, people, and the air that we breathe. Slowly, the polluted air is becoming more and more infected. Cars and their tailpipe are a main contributor towards this issue. Studies have shown that ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in the United States"" Rosenthal 1. The gas that is being released into the air does not have any way of being recycled. With a large amount of gas being released daily, the air can quickly become polluted with toxins and gas that normally is not used in the human body. In Paris, the intensifying smog caused a buildup of car traffic, which ""rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world"" Duffer 1. Also, Paris had been found to have more smog that the other European capitals had, ""last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London"" Reuters 1. This was purely because of the amount of cars, scooters, and buses that Paris has roaming around the cities. The decision to ban car use for oddnumbered license plates cleared the smog that prevented the drivers from using their cars.

Road rage is common in drivers that constantly have to deal with pedestrians, other cars, and the amount of traffic lights on the streets. The instinct to yell and become angered while driving has developed and grown into stress that affects an average person. Heidrun Walter, a mother of two, has ditched her car and resorted to using her own two feet as her way of transportation. Walter says ""When I had a car, I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Instead of having to hear honks and beeps from incoming cars, she is surrounded by the calm streets filled with bicycles, wandering children, and the occasional automobile. Being a part of the suburban neighborhoods means that a quiet and serene environment is typical and common. Therefore, being thrusted onto the busy streets may be an enzyme to stress and road rage.

Recreational areas, such as parks and shopping centers, are a way of allowing people to relax and enjoy their free time. However, buildings are being demolished to make rooms for new highways and roads to allow for more efficient ways of traveling for the excessive amount of cars that there are on the streets. There are attempts being made to ""make the suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking"". Also, stores are beginning to be placed on a main street, instead of in shopping malls alongside highways Rosenthal 1. These ideas take away from living spaces and create difficulty for those who want to go into a store. In Bogota, Columbia, Mayor Antanas Mockus has created a program that bans cars for the Day Without Cars. This day is part of an idea and campaign to reduce stress and air pollution. Since this day began in the mid 1990's, ""parks and sport centers have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rush hour restrictions have been dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"" Selsky 1.

Since the invention in the 1800's, cars have been depended on to take one or more people from Point A to Point B in a safe and fast way. For centuries, that has been a reasonable form of transportation. But as air pollution is increasing, drivers are becoming more angry, and land space is being taken up by new roads and streets the idea of cars is being frowned upon. ""President Obama's ambitious goals to curb the United States' greenhouse gas emissions, unveiled last week, will get a fortuitous assist from a incipient shift in American behavior..."" Rosenthal 1. Limiting car use allows for a healthier environment filled with other forms of transportation like walking, biking, and etc. Countries are beginning to form bans on cars forcing fellow citizens to lower their car usage. Last year, Bill Ford created a business plan in order to change America's way of transportation. He vowed to adjust future and current cities in which, ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety"", eventually creating a better world for generations to come.",0
9354fb19,1,"To whom it may concern, The growing debate on whether or not the electoral college is necessary for when the country is voting for it's president. I am writing to argue that the electoral college is vital to the presidential election process because it evens out the importance of all the states votes, gives us a certainty of an outcome, and allows for tossup states to vote for the best candidate.Posner It can be perceived that the electoral college is a nondemocratic way of voting for the president. Although it may be seen like that, it is in fact favorable towards the people because the electors that you indirectly vote for are voting for the same candidate as you were. The electoral college has been around for decades and has very few times caused a disruption in our country. Why should we eliminate a process that has worked for years and will continue to work for years to come?

The electoral college should be kept because it allows for the smaller states to compete against the larger states in terms of votes for the presidency. A state like California has a larger population than Alaska so in turn they would have more voters. The electoral college evens out the number of people per state that votes so the candidiate chosen is truly who the country wants as the president. A larger state would also get more attention than a smaller state due to it's size difference. Smaller states would get discouraged and soo only the larger and more populated areas would vote because they are getting the most attention from the candidates themselves.Posner Our country is made up of fifty states and all of them should have an equal imput in who runs our counrty.

Many of the time voters will vote because they want to have their party in the president's seat. There are some states that are called swing states that will vote for the president that they beileve will have the best impact on our country reguardless of thei party preference. The electoral college lets the voters from these toss up states vote for the best candidate because they are more likely to make thought out decisions because they listen to the candidates proposal and not their party.Posner With this in mind, that means that in the end the president chosen is thought to be truly the best winner for the presidency because the tossup staes chose them over the other.

A dispute is possible when the outcome of the president's election is presented. However, it is likely that a dispute will happen if popular vote were to be the process of electing our president. There is very little chances that the electoral college will have a tie and there is the realisation that if popular voting were to happen, there would be more tied elections happenning. The country wants to have certainty when voting for their president and having the electoral college allows for every state to have a definite candidate and in turn the country can have a definite president by the end of the elections.

The electoral college is vital when chosing the presdient because it gives us certainty in an outcome, evens out the importance of states votes, and gives swinger states an equal vote as well. We need to keep the electoral college and should it be eliminated, it could put our presidential elections at risk. For decades, the electoral college has worked and our founding fathers believed it was necessary. I implore to you thatkeeping the electoral college is the best for the president's elections.",0
937522be,0,"Do you want to live in a place where the air is polluted? Somewhere it is hard to breath. The earth would be a cleaner and more efficient place to live if we limit the everyday usage of cars. Just think about it by limiting the usage of cars you are saving money and making the earth a cleaner place. It's like the old saying goes ""kill two birds with one stone.

Who doesn like having some extra money in there pockets to spend? I know I definetely do. By limiting the usage of cars people will no longer have to pay a car payment. Or even better have to pay these outrageous gas prices. ""In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have at law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport."" If we limit the usage of cars there wont be any reason to build new highways and the money can go to more important things.

Wouldnt you like to wake up in the morning, walk out side and get a wiff of fresh clean air? Limiting car usage will also cut the amount of green house gas emissions. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of green house gas emotions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the united states."" Cars are major contribution to the pollution we have in the air today. Having cleaner air makes the earth an all around better place. The people will be happier and the grass will be greener. ""Last week paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in london."" I dont know of any person on this earth that wants to breath in particulate matter on a daily basis. ""Its a good way to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said business man Carlos Arturo. This man is in his right mind. Polution is a major stressor for everyone. Thats why I say by limiting car usage it will make people happier. People act like riding a bike is a bad thing. Its always good to get some exercise and be healthy.

If we aren't using cars thers no reason to have highways. And if we dont have highways then city will be smaller.""But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking. In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in mall along some distant highway."" Where i grew up everything was close. There were resturants less than a mile away. The mall was a 5minute bike ride. And school was only 10 minutes away. Everythig was convienent. I didnt have to get in the car and hope that it started it up. There was no waiting in traffic. All I had to do was hop on my bike and ride off.

If we stay at the rate we are going now the earth is going to turn in to a place that no one wants to live. So if we limit the usage of cars the earth will be a overall better place to live. If we dont drive there is less polution. If we dont have cars we dont need highways and the our city will be more compact. And no cars means more money in our pockets. If that doesn sound like a perfect place to live then I dont want to know what your idea of perfect is.",0
9382bcfa,1,"Freedom to chose our leader is nothing more than an illusion. Voters have absolutely no saying in who shall take their place on the presidential seat. This is what the Electoral College does. It is an archaic system and unreliable system in which the whole of the presidential election is decided by the bias of the few whom are ""pledged"" to a certain party but at the end can choose whoever the like the most. This is not the Democracy we so dearly hold in our hearts like Americans and it goes well against the principles our forefathers taught us as free pople. Undeniably the Electoral College negates any concept of the democracy of America, making the impotance of the will of the people meaningless and nothing more than an illusion.

Deep into our history is the recaunting of how such a terrible system as the Electoral College came to be. It was originally a settlement on the dispute of how the president should be elected, either by the people or by Congress. Now the first option would have been the perfect one, but there are always those who would firts dei to loose their power to the pople of our country. And the clash of interest was so large it could have broken the nation in two as we have seen happened a few times in history. As such a great many years have passed since this whole argument and at every election poeple are realizing the faults of this flawed concept. At its core the system is Useless. It is the most antidemocratic idea ever to have been in practice and one that still is in use. It overpowers the will of millions with the will of a few hundred. That is why such a monster should be abolished.

The year is 2000. Al Gore and George W. Bush clash for the seat in the white house. The election draws to an end and the votes are counted. There is a clear discrepancy in the votes, making Al Gore the winner, and by all means, the next president of the United States of America. But somewhere else there's also a clear discrepancy. Back at the Electoral College the counting says Bush won against Al Gore even though Al had already won the poeple of America. On that election 5 pople choose the fate of an entire nation. 5 people only. Such a thing is outrageous, and we are lucky it hasn't happened again nor more frequently. But thing is it shouldn't happen at all. That's ehy the POEPLE should choose insted of 538 what'stheirfaces. This endevour proves one thing and one thing only.

Unreliability. It is illogical that one wins the masses of the common citizens but looses because of five well dressed ones.

The Electoral College is a monster. A wild dice which at one moment can favor you and at the next one destroy you. This isn't how America works.",0
938da0fe,1,"Dear Mrs. Senaitor, The Elecitoral College is unfair, ouitdaited, and a poorly represenitaitive sysitem for our naition. Previous elecitions and facits show ithait ithe Elecitoral College may have worked in ithe pasit, buit does noit work in accuraitely represeniting ithe millions of voiters in our counitry any longer.

In ithe 2000 presidenitial campaignn, ithe unfairness of ithe Elecitoral College was blaitanitly obvious. ""Seveniteen sitaites didn'it see ithe candidaites ait all, and voiters in itwenity five of ithe largesit media markeits didn'it geit ito see a single campaign ad,"" Plumer. The voite was lefit almosit enitirely in ithe hands of a few ""swing voiters"" in Ohio, which is noit an accuraite represenitaition of ithe opinions of ithe American populaition. During ithis campaignn in 2000, Al Gore received more individual voites ithan George W. Bush naitionwide, however, Bush received 271 elecitoral voites ito Gore's 266, so Bush was elecited presidenit Plumer. Iit is obvious ithait ithe voites of ithe Elecitoral College do noit accuraitely reflecit ithe opinions of ithe people, and gives ithe ciitizens of our counitry poor represenitaition in our governmenit.

The argumenits in favor of ithe Elecitoral College are weak ait besit. In ithe ariticle ""In Defense of ithe Elecitoral College: Five reasons ito keep our despised meithod of choosing ithe Presidenit"" by Richard A. Posner, ithe opening paragraph is pracitically an argumenit againsit ithe Elecitoral College. In ithe ariticle, Posner sitaites, ""The Elecitoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a nondemocraitic meithod of seleciting a presidenit... ithe advocaites of ithe posiition are correcit in arguing ithait ithe Elecitoral College meithod is noit democraitic... iit is ithe elecitors ithait choose ithe presidenit, noit ithe people."" In ithis opening sitaitemenit for an ariticle abouit how greait ithe Elecitoral College is, Posner proves quiite ithe opposiite. The people of our counitry deserve proper represenitaition each of itheir individual voites should be imporitanit and itheir opinions on who leads ithis counitry should be heard.

As sitaited in ithis couniterclaim, iit is noit ithe people who choose ithe presidenit iit is ithe elecitors in ithe unjusit Elecitoral College sysitem.

According ito a gallop poll itaken in 2000, over 60% of voiters would prefer a direcit elecition ito ithe kind we have now Plumer. Iit is clear ithe majoriity of ithe U.S.A. would prefer a differenit way of eleciting a presidenit, wheither ithait be a direcit elecition, or anoither sysitem ithait properly represenits ithe naition's opinions. The lisit of possibiliities of ithings going wrong in ithe Elecitorital College is large. Suppose ithere was a itie, which is enitirely possible, since ithere is an even number, 538, of Elecitoral voites Posner. If ithis happened, ithe elecition of ithe presidenit would be puit in ithe hands of ithe House of Represenitaitives. In ithis sysitem, each sitaite casits only one voite, so ithe represenitaitive from Wyoming who is casiting a voite for 500,000 voiters would have as much say as ithe represenitaitive from California, whose single voite represenits ithe opinion of 35 million voiters. If ithis isn'it an uneithical process, I don'it know whait is.

Mrs. Senaitor, as a ciitizen of ithe Uniited Sitaites, and Democrait in ithe mainly Republican sitaite of Florida, I wanit my voice ito be heard.

Wiith ithe currenit Elecitoral Collge sysitem, I am worried ithait iit won'it be. I shouldn'it have ito worry abouit ""faiithless"" elecitors refusing ito voite for my parity's candidaite, or ithe elecitors in my sitaite noit casiting a voite ithait represenits my opinions. In ithe free counitry of America, I wanit my voite ito counit and our governmenit ito make decisions based on whait I say, noit some elecitors from my sitaite. Wiith ithis currenit Elecitoral College sysitem, I cannoit have my represenitaition or freedom besitowed upon me by ithe Consitiituition, and ithait needs ito change. Thank you for reading, and I hope you can make a difference.",0
93911d43,0,"There was a time when cars were a new invention that everyone wanted or needed, but as of recent years cars have found themselves on the decline. There are many speculated reasons as to why people aren't as interested in getting a car and driving themselves around. One of the main theories seems to be that with new technological advancements are making carpools simple organize and knowing when and where the closest city bus will arrive easier to find out. Also, the technology of today makes it easy to contact and feel connected with your friends without having to go out and see them. Whatever the reason may be, the decline in car usage is a great advantage worldwide. The benefits of limited car usage are a better environment, less traffic stress, and healthier people.

Cars are the second most common source of air pollution in the United States. In Paris, cars were so heavily used that their pollution levels were near those of Beijing, China known as one of the most polluted cities in the world. When Parisians heard this, they took action right away. They rotated day long bans on personal cars with even numbered license plates and odd numbered licence plates. After about a week of this rotating ban, with a few exceptions, the smog levels had lowered enough that all cars could be allowed again. Luckily, this experience made the people of Paris realize how much cars were harming their environment. Cars are a large source of carbon emissions all over the world so lessening their use is essential to reviving our hurting environment.

Another advantage to limiting the use of cars is less traffic and less accidents. Public transportation drivers are more skilled and practiced than everyday drivers. Arguably, they are safer behind the wheel than your average citizen. In addition to that, having less cars on the road makes it safer to walk, bike, skateboard, or even rollerblade to your destination. Also, less cars means less traffic. Although on public transportation there are bus stops and such, traffic jams would be nearly eradicated if there were that many less cars on the road.

The last important advantage of having fewer cars is a personal health benefit. Driving can be seen as stressful. You have your life as well as the lives of people around you in your hands. Not only can the concept of driving itself be stressful, but things such as reckless drivers and heavy traffic are very hard for people to deal with patiently and safely. It would be better for people's emotional health to not have to deal with driving. Avoiding cars is also better for people's physical health in both cleaner environments and more physical activity. With the lessened levels of polution, as mentioned before, people would have cleaner air to breathe and a healthier environment to live in. The amount of physical activity in citizens would also increase. With people being able to walk, bike, skateboard, etc. to their desired destination the obesity numbers would decrease. Without cars, people's emotional and physical health would largely improve.

Overall, limiting the global use of cars would greatly benefit people worldwide. Due to the recent spread of the idea of being carfree and more concious of our environment pollution levels are already decreasing. Advantages coming from a much needed decreae in car usage also include safer roads and less stressed, healthier people. A decline in the number of personal vehicles on the road would lead to a happier, safer, and healthier world.",0
939fa264,1,"I write this to the Senator of Florida.

Every four years a president is elected to become what is the Commander and Chief and sole representative of the United States of America. Because we as a country are a democracy, ""the people"" get to choose the president. We go every four years, starting at the age of 18 and so on, to vote or to choose who we want to represent us as Americans. Who we want to run this country. Who we want to lead us both to success and trust that they will do all in their power to keep us safe. But are we, the people, really choosing who we want? Just like President Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO, I believe that we are not choosing at all but we are voting for a state of electors, who in turn choose a president for us.

The electoral college is very unfair to voters.""according to a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore_ thanks to the quirks of the electoral college won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election...voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could lose the presidency. The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong By: Bradford Plumber If you wanted to vote for a specific president you would have to elect the state electors pledged to that president and hope they pick them. At times the electors have the right idea and other times the electors get confused and choose the wrong person. Other times the elector could even be biased or even racist in rare cases, and choose the one person that you do not see running this country.

""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. During The 2000 campaign, seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" That is, because the electors are the ones that choose. The candidates don't even attempt to campaign in places they know they wont get a vote on. The candidates will try to win over the bigger states first to gain more electoral votes to win.

I see the electoral college as an unfair way for the people to vote for president. If we are truley a democracy, then we should change from using the electoral college to the use of popular vote, or direct election.",0
93a3dcf8,0,"A relevant topic in today's society that many people often discuss is the reduction of motor vehicle use. Limited use of vehicles such as cars, buses, and trucks can have great effects on the environment. Most of the effects are beneficial to the environment such as the reduction of smog which can ameliorate the horrible impact we have already had on the environment.

According to source 1, limited use of of motor vehicles will be less harmful to the environment. Twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe come from passenger cars. This may not sound like much, but it adds up, especially when you factor in the gas emission from the United States which is more than four times what it is in Europe. Source 1 also claims that less use of motor vehicles will lower people's stress and will make children more social because they will be able to play near the streets without having to worry about being hit by a car.

All of these sources claim that motor vehicle reduction will also reduce smog and greenhouse gas emissions. One source that supports this claim is source 2, not only does Paris emit more greenhouse gases than any other city in Europe, they now have two days in which people who drive their cars are subject to a 22 euro 31 U.S. dollar fine.

Bogota, Colombia is proving to be the most successful in attempting to lower greenhouse gas emission. According to source 3 carfree day has been started in which citizens may not drive their vehicles without being subject to a twentyfive dollar fine. Most citizens obey this law and the amount of traffic jams is reduced to empty streets other than public buses. The increase in amount of people riding their bikes caused sidewalks to be repaired and replaced which improves the aesthetics of the city. Several small restaurants and various other businesses saw an increased income. Along with sources 1 and 2, source 3 claims that citizens are less stressed when not driving a motor vehicle. Along with this statement. source 3 also claims that people will begin to be more socially active when they are carpooled to school and other places.

Source 4 takes place not in Europe, not in South America, but in our own country, the United States of America. In the last few years, the United States has seen a decrease in the amount of people driving motor vehicles. We have not, however seen a decrease on our impact on the emission of greenhouse gases. This is because though people are driving less, many people in this country drive large, gas guzzling Hummers and trucks which emit more gases than any other vehicle. If people stopped driving those vehicles, we would definately see a decrease in greenhouse gases. We've seen it happen in Europe because large personal transport trucks are seldom driven in Europe.

Many advantages will be seen when the act of driving a motor vehicle becomes rarer. These advantages include our emission of greenhouse gases, improved social interactions, people who are less stressed, and an overall more cheerful environment. Multiple sources make these claims, and many countries in Europe such as France and countries in South America have placed certain days in which citizens don't drive cars. These days have proven many of these claims that support the assertion that there are multiple advantages to limited car usage.",0
94044ae2,0,"Cars have been the main focus of development for many years now. Engineers attempt to create sufficient cars every time a new model is planned. Many citizens of the United States are slightly aware of the environmental damage that is caused by the cars, yet still do no think twice when it comes to driving anywhere. Many countries around the world have set fines and laws against using cars and have seemed to produce a positive outcome. These countries offer many different alternatives to using cars, creating a well developed society.

While cars are a huge advantage to modern day society, they take a big toll on our environment. According to Elisabeth Rosenthal, from the Company, cars are the ""second largest source of America's emission"" proving how much we rely on cars source 4 paragraph 34.She also writes about numbers terrifying to the future generations. United States is responsible for 50 percent greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe while Europe is only responsible for 12source 1 paragraph 5. 50 percent is proof that Americans are too reliable on transportation sources like streets, main roads, and highways. Paris was able to clear the air from pollution. According to Robert Duffer from the Chicago Tribune ,after enforcing a driving ban, the air cleared after an almost record setting pollution fog source 2 paragraph 10. Places in Asia like Beijing, China are just filled with smog in the air. The citizens walk around with masks because of the heavy pollution. That is physically dangerous for not only the adults, but the children of the communities. There has to be some alternatives to using cars in excess. Almost anything can be an advantage but when it is used too much, it will always be dangerous.

Even though cars are important to commerce within society, many alternatives can be taken to help lower the usage of cars. In places like the capital of Columbia, they have found a way to travel places and limit the car use. Andrew Selsky, from the Seattle Times , speaks of this matter. He claims that there has been ""construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths"" in the city of Bogota source 3 paragraph 27. Not only does this allow the citizens to be environmentally friendly, but it gives them a chance to exercise, which leads to better health. It is noticeable the the healthier people tend to be more lifting than the sluggish, corpulent citizens. In Barcelona, Spain, being a vehicle owner is simple undesired. Other means of transportation like walking or bicycling have been the desired means of getting places. Even Bill Ford, the chairman of Ford Motor Company, admits to the impractical use of cars in excess. There are some many different ways the we can reduce the use of Cars in the American nation.

With the ability of using bikes to arrive at destinations, many places have seen the improvements in reduced traffic jams. What Americans hate the most are traffic jams. Think about those times when 10 minutes have slipped away in the morning and you are running late then there is a traffic jam. Millions in Columbia participated in hiking or biking and it left the street nearly empty source 3 paragraph 20. The citizens were smart enough to recognize when they need a car. When going to work that is only 5 miles away, they take the extra time to reduce the usage of the streets. France experienced the same result, reducing traffic congestion by 60 percent, and then lowering the smog that had covered them source 2 paragraph 14. This leaves the street safer for drivers and pedestrians. It also reduces the heavy noise from motored vehicles.

Many nations have improved their societies by reducing the use of cars. In result, the air pollution is reduced, the health benefits improve, and the traffic congestion is heavily reduced. Not only can reducing our relience on cars benefit our genertaion, but it can benefit the generations to come.",0
9441e668,0,"Since the 1950's everyone's dream was to have a nice car but it is coming to a point in time where the car culture is coming to an end. You might be thinking that this is horrible and how will i get places without a car. No, it's not horrible at all, it's actually very beneficial in other ways. It can help people become free,less dependent,and it reduces the amount of greenhouse gases tremendously.

The first reason that limiting car use is a good thing is because it can help people become free and less dependent. It has caused people to not always be in a hurry and made them less stressed. In Bogota, Colombia they had a carfree day where people hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work. People felt so free and they felt they were doing a good deed so some got rid of their cars for good. Cars are becoming less popular in the world as we speak. For example from 2005 to 2013 the number of miles driven in the U.S.has reduced by 9%, which is equal to where the country was in 1995. Another example is that a study last year found that driving by young people decreased by 23% between 2001 and 2009. Also shopping centers are moving to places where they can be walked to rather than on a way off highway somewhere.""What intrigues me is that rates ofcar ownership per household and per person has started to come down two to three years before the downturn,"" says Micheal siva who studies this trend at the University of Michigan.

The next reason is that increasing the use of cars will help the environment greatly. Passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gases in Europe and 50% in the U.S. All of our development since World War 2 has been centered around cars and it hasn't helped the environment any. For example, in Paris they were going to have two no car days to reduce the smog. The first day they said that no one with and even numbered license plate were allowed to drive and odd would be the next. After the first day was over the smog was reduced by so much that they didn't even have to use the next day. This is just a small number of people. Imagine if everyone would participate even just for small periods of time.

In conclusion, now that you have learned that life without out cars can make you feel free, less dependent, and have the environment. Have you changed your opinion? ""giving up cars is a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twosear bicycle with his wife.",0
945de5f3,1,"Our country, the United States of America, needs and deserves a grand president who will work hard and inspire the citizens of this country to persevere like our forefathers have and this president needs to be voted by popular vote by hisher citizens in the United States. The presidential elections need to be of popular vote and to be voted by the citizens of America, not by some electoral college. The reason for this is that for one: the candidates ignore the smaller states, two: electors who are chosen can, and possibly will, go against the will of the people the Electoral College shows signs of inequality amongst the states, unpatrioticism, and unfairness.

If we continue to go by the electoral college, the smaller states who hold inadequate populations will continue to be ignored by the candidates running for presidency. In source 1 paragraph No. 3, it states:""Your states allotment of the electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives and 2 for your Senators."" Also, in paragraph 13 of Source No.2, it states,"" Because of the winnertakesall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning."" So, the candidates ignore the smaller states because of their smaller population and this is a sign of unfairness and inequality amongst the people of America. The future president should address and obtain votes that are from all 50 states of the United States. That is how we treat and show that every person and every state are equal to one another, and that the candidates get an honest and fair vote. The way the Electoral College does things during the presidential election is everything against how our country came to be through hardwork, a desire and wish to be equal to one another, and to ensure fairness amongst the people this Electoral College projects an unpatriotic feel and that itself should not be a process that the United States holds.

The Electoral College is unfair in the fact that the electors chosen by our state legislature can, and possibly will go against the will of the people. With the Electoral College those who vote aren't actually voting for the president but for a slate of electors that elect the president. In Source No.2 paragraph 11, it states: ""In the same vein, 'faithless' electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please."" This is unfair and a disrespect to a persons choice. It is an act that is untrustworthy and it could happen at any time, people might not even know it. That action practically takes away a citizens right of opinion speech which is part of the Bill of Rights, the very basis of what we have a right to have. That in itself is unAmerican and unpatriotic. This system should be overruled and abandoned for it doesn't go with the basis of our country's ways.

However, the Electoral College does have a somewhat strict rule that is rarely broken. In Source No.3 paragraph 16, it states:"" But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for that party's nominee and that trust is rarely broken.."" The Electoral College does have some points that it is not totally untrustworthy. But, this point can be broken and can be unfair for the people.

Senator, I hope these points have shown that the Electoral College needs to be voted against due to its unfairness, unpatrioticness, and its act of inequality amongst the states. This country needs it's people to vote for it's president, not a slate of electors.",0
947b8cca,1,"To tohe stoatoe and tohe stoatoe's countory, tohe electoion of our presidento musto be seen carefully and wisely. As tohe citoizens of tohe stoatoe, people musto realize tohato choosing someone too toake contorol of orders and regulatoions and tohe way tohe countory evolves, is a process tohato needs too be tohoughto of and toaken fairly. The presidento is too serve tohe people of his countory well witoh responsibilitoies tohato can vary too meeto tohe needs of tohe countory,buto tohe electooral college seems too become more and more unfair too tohose who votoe. Ito musto be changed too meeto tohe needs of giving a responsible presidento, a more torustowortohy electoion and tohe votoes casto musto be directoly toowards him ratoher tohan tohe electoors. In otoher words, tohe Electooral College musto be changed too become more fair toowards tohe citoizens.

The Unitoed Stoatoes Of America, is of course a massive countory witoh large variatoions of differento needs. All over, tohere are people who vary in opinions, beliefs and lifestoyle which can cause tohe Electoion of tohe presidento too become an importoanto subjecto matotoer. To meeto tohe needs of so many people, instoead tohe Electooral college musto noto choose a presidento tohato toakes up space, buto instoead have a righto mind too be responsible in toaking charge of tohe countory and tohe people.

There are many reasons why a responsible presidento musto be choose. Things like creatoing rules too atotoend tohe needs of all citoizens and creatoe equalitoy amongsto tohem, too keeping harm from outo of reach, tohe Electooral College should become much more wiser in choosing tohe righto ruler too toake contorol. In tohe artoicle Whato Is The Electooral College by tohe office of tohe Federal Registoer, ito stoatoes tohato tohe electoion process is held every four years along witoh tohe aftoer electoion prepared by tohe governor toitoled ""Certoificatoe Of Ascertoainmento"" which sums tohe candidatoes and electoors as well as tohe winning candidatoe. Ito is obvious tohato tohe votoers only know so much of whato tohey votoe for and do noto really geto a good toastoe of how tohe presidentoial candidatoe is like. Ito can be clear tohato as a blind electoion, tohe votoers have no hintos of who tohey mighto be votoing toowards and in tohe end can cause a major catoastorophe if a candidatoe has very litotole intoentoions for tohe stoatoes. In agreemento too tohe artoicle tohe toexto In tohe defense of tohe electooral college by Richard A. Posner ito begins too satoe tohe electoion of rodney who, by increasing his pluralitoy and possessing only regional appeal, losto tohe peoples desire too votoe for him tohinking tohato tohe man has no regards for toheir intoeresto and does noto have any intoentoions of improving toheir needs or helping witoh creatoing a communitoy where tohe people can rely on rodney. The actoions toaken began too change tohe tohoughtos of tohe citoizens and creatoe a petorifying conclusion tohato tohe man was noto on tohe run too be everyone's presidento. This dilemma could have been changed around if rodney had shown tohato he had cared more for his stoatoe and his countory and tohoughto more abouto tohe needs he could fill and tohe actoions he could improve, tohen many of tohe votoers would have mosto likely shown repsecto and a desire for tohe man too be choosen as toheir new presidento. On tohe opposing hand rodney had noto shown any of tohose qualitoies or passion which had caused for him too be tohoughto of as unresponsible and selfish.

The countory has more tohan tohousands and tohousands of people too serve and directo. Ito can be understoood tohato having a large amounto of citoizens can resulto in uncertoaintoy toowards tohe electoion and tohe votoes casto, yeto ito is yeto too be changed too a more reasonable way of confrontoing ito. Witoh many systoems such as ""WinnerTake All"" due too stoatoes toitoled as tohe ""Swing Stoatoes,"" ito can be an untorustowortohy electoion fo many votoers around tohe countory. The electoion process noto only need too be changed too selecto a more responsible candidatoe, buto too creatoe a more torustowortohy systoem of itoself.

There is very litotole equalitoy when ito comes too electoions especially, when tohe stoatoes are giving an unreliable systoem too choose for tohem. Stoatoes tohato are considered ""Toss Ups"" are selfishly awarded tohe systoem named ""WinnerTakesAll"" due too how tohey apparentoly pay closer atotoentoion too tohe campaign. In tohe artoicle Whato Is The electooral College by tohe office of tohe Federal Registoer, tohe metohod is firsto intoroduced in paragraph 7. Stoatoing tohato tohe purpose of tohe ""WinnerTakeAll"" systoem is noto only,buto too award all electoors too tohe winning candidatoe. Ito is said too be unreliable and untorustowortohy due too ito's focus on stoatoes tohato appear to have more atotoentoion toowards tohe electoion. On a more basic level, some stoatoes such as Rhode Island and Soutoh Carolina had noto even witoness tohe campaign and even leaving a few votoers too have no say. Going back too tohe misunderstoanding of tohe electoion of rodney,tohe countory witotonessed an iresponsible candidatoe tohato had ran for presidento. Witoh tohe unreliable ridiculous systoem ""WinnerTakeAll"" some stoatoes may or may noto have even experienced how rodney had actoed and his intoentoions toowards tohe electoions and tohe campaign. Witoh very litotole knowledge of tohe presidentoial candidatoe and witoh limitoatoions of votoing and campaign ads, tohere is very litotole torusto given toowards tohe electoion process especially witoh more tohan a few stoatoes tohato are noto being toaken very seriously, witoh very litotole say. If tohe Electoorial College could give off more informatoion and more become more reliable toowards all stoatoes, tohe process would be less sinistoer and more apreciatoed.

There are many more otoher factoors in which tohe Electoorial College musto be changed too meeto tohe appropriatoe dilemmas and needs of tohe votoers and toheir intoentoions toowards tohe campaign. On tohe otoher hand, ito has noto changed ato all only too stoay unfair toowards tohe entoire countory and possibly cause a catoastorophe.

Leto us say, tohere have been many incidentos where electoions have been on tohe edge of a major dilemma. Wondering why a storaighto up orderly process can go too tohe pointo of a catoastorophe, can all be easily explained as unfair.

Why Even The BestoLaid Defesnes of tohe systoem are wrong by Bradford Plumer, stoatoes back too tohe disatoer factoor of tohe electoion of John F.Kennedy. Ito stoatoes back too tohe 1960's where faitohless electoors had pushed aside tohe votoes and sayings of Louisiana had decided too votoe for whomever tohey had wantoed. Ito had caused a problem of course since tohe votoes where noto even of tohe people, buto of tohe selfish sick minds of tohe electoors who tooke tohe process intoo toheir own hands. In tohe same paragraph ito stoaes back too when tohe stoatoe of Hawaii had sento in towo slatoes of electoors too congress. Witoh tohe unreliable actoions of Richard Nixion, had validatoed his opponento's electoors of course too win over tohe campaign. once again anotoher issue arises in tohe artoicle Five Reasons To Keep Our Despised Metohod Of Choosing The Presidento, ito agrees witoh tohe unfairness of tohe electoorals by giving tohe example of how tohe Electoorial College had tourned off tohe potoentoial votoers due too tohe knowledge tohato toheir votoes will be uncared for. In paragraph 23, ito stoatoes tohato in tohe stoatoe of Texas, ito was known tohato tohe votoes would have know effecto of tohe campaign whato so ever. Ito aslo had stoaes tohato votoers in politocal electoions have no care ratoher tohan too express tohe politoical refrence tohan whato tohe peole tohink or decide. This sums up tohato tohe process is unfair too many of tohe stoatoes votoers and musto be changed too become more open and share tohe equalitoy witoh tohose who are losing tohier torusto.

In conclusion, tohe Electoorial College muto be changed too meeto tohe need of tohose who agree tohato is ito irresponsible when givng a repsonisble presidento, a more torustoworhtoy electoion and an unfair process. Yeto tohis can all be fixed simply by changing tohe ways ito is run and too give more freedom for tohe people.",0
948d0f4b,0,"As we get older we want to travel to more places and get there faster, what if their was a quicker way without using cars. Certain places have been introducing a new concept, they calls themselves suburban pioneers. They live in places that have little or no cars, besides for the occasional bus, and all the stores that they would normally drive to are much closer now. Their are many beneficial points to this new way of life such as a dramatic drop in greenhouse gasses, a stress free way to live, and also who doesn't desire to save a buck or two. If people start to limit the usage of cars this planet might actually become a safer more joyful place to live.

In the past years greenhouse gasses have skyrocketed. The ozone layer is now trapping car exhaust fumes in earth and leading to what some might call global warming. Summer becomes hotter and longer, vice versa with winter. The U.S alone is to blame for up to 50 percent of greenhouse gas emission. In europe it's 12 percent which is still quite a grave deal. Causes of not cutting back on the use of cars leads to tragic events such as the one that unfolded in Paris. Thier was so much smog in the air from motorized cars that for five days no one could start their cars unless they had a wish of paying a pricey fine. If people start to diminish the use of cars we can restore this humble planet to its former glory.

Forking out money for a car and having the luxury of fixing it up overtime a piece falls off or something malfunctions can become expensive quite rapidly. Who doesn't crave to save money anyways? Those who have chosen the suburban pioneer way of living have saved enormous enough of money. They don't have to pay for the insurance of the car and they don't have to pay to fix up the ole' rust bucket. Though some would rather have a car, but those who drive do the honors of car pulling which might not be the most time saving mechanism but in the long run it truely is beneficial. Also the government gains from all this. The government pays to build highways and roads for your car, but if cars aren't so common as time goes by roads get shorter and people start to get paid more because of all the money that the government is saving. Though money can't make us happy is still is an important piece to own in life.

In retrospect cars cause a lot of stress related problems. Everyone has one of those days where they wake up late and then suddenly remember that they have to get across town in a few minutes. Yes a car could get you there in less than no time, but wouldn't it be much simpler if you could just walk a closer distance. With the desecration of cars, stores and outlets would be much closer to your home. The stress of forgetting something at home and then having to drive 30 minutes to go get it would be diminished. Families could have more interaction with each other which means a closer bond could be formed. Receting the number of cars wouldn't be such an inhuman thing to do if you knew that the outcome was far more appealing.

To sum up, limiting the number of cars that roamed this earth would be more of a gain than a loss. Cars create hazardous gasses that are released into the air that are slowly but surely rendering us useless. Cars also cause safety hazards that can lead to a stressful environment. Plus if you don't use a car as often or get rid of it all together you can retain money for more important matters such as bills for your house or maybe a well deserved vacation. The posibilities are endless if we begin to limit the use of cars.",0
94a006b3,0,"Throughout the past century car usage has exploded from a luxury available only to the highest echelon of society to a tool almost essential to life. Although cars are convenient there are many downsides to having them. Some reasons a society that limits car use could be beneficial are: expenses, environmental costs, and health degredation. Hopefully together we can curb car usage and lead the way for a cheaper, greener, and healthier future.

Its a known fact that cars are expensive, but when you add up all of the costs how much is really spent. Especially for younger drivers insurance is a ludicrous expense, often totalling hundreds of dollars per month. Another expense, obviously, is gas. Gas may be at a 5 year low right now but the slightest instability in oil producing countries could cause prices to skyrocket. Still if you add in the cost of the car your looking at a highly expensive way of living. Life obviously could be less expensive without car use.

Another illeffect of car use is environmental impact. car emissions are responsible for up to 50 percent of total green house gas emissions in some states. Using cars is not good for the environment. Cars pollute are atmosphere and can accelerate the rate of ozone layer deterioration. They also, indirectly, damage habitats by requiring new roads and highways to be built thus disturbing ecosystems. Automobiles also use large quantities of petroleum a finite and ever necessary resource in this global world. Car usage needs to be drastically reduced in order to preserve the environment.

Health issues can also develop from overusing cars. For instance, by looking at cultures that do not use cars it is evident that less children with autism are born to said peoples, such as the Amish. Another benefit of not using cars is exercise. People that drive instead of walking or bicycling are not only becoming more obese they are also putting themselves at an elevated risk for heart disease. Car accidents are one of the highest causes of premature death in the united states thus if people drove less these accidents would occur far less often. The choice seems clear a carless society is more healthy for all.

All in all, although cars may have benefits, the drawbacks of having them far out way any of said benefits. Car usage is expensive, bad for the environment and unhealthy. Together, society must ultimately decide whether life with automobiles is worth it and live with the consequences.",0
94d6b27c,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, The Electoral College is ruining everything that our fore fathers have worked for! When Americans vote, the majority believe that they are voting for the President of their choice, instead they are voting for a group of people, who will hopefully vote for the candidate they had wanted. The Electoral College is wrong for many reasons, but I'll narrow it down to two for you People are voting for electors, not the president and electors might not choose the President based off Popular vote.

First, The Electoral College is wrong because voters are voting for electors not the President. When voting there are two groups of people voting for the President the People and members of the Electoral College. Members of the Electoral College are actually choose by state legislatures, meaning that their can be a point in time where the state legislature chooses to pick a certain group of people based off of their political party. In 1960 the state legislature almost replaced the electors from the Democratic party meaning that even if most people voted for Kennedy the president at the time he would still not be elected because electors would not vote for someone who was not apart of their party. It's happen before, so who's to say that it won't happen again.

Second, electors may or may not choose the President based off Popular vote. Even though if we did base the presidential election off of popular vote people might vote based off of region, meaning that most people in the south would vote for someone like rodney, but we have to consider that not everyone in the south would vote for one person. Also it is also true that it electors rarely vote against the Popular vote, but it is possible that the majority of the 538 electors will vote against the people.

In conclusion, The Electoral College should be terminated because People are voting for electors, not the president and electors might not choose the President based off Popular vote. In 1960 the state legislature almost replaced the Electoral group, meaning that the Popular vote would'nt even matter against the Electoral College. Also the Electoral College may acknowledge the Popular vote, but still vote for a different candidate. If you do choose to help me terminate the Electoral College, I say we try to get help from the guy who actually played the ""Terminator"" I heard that he is part of the government system in California now so he could probably help us.",0
94e15d84,0,"Everyone assumes that the best way of transportation is by a car. Teenagers dream of getting their license on their sixteenth birthday and maybe even getting a car. Most adults use cars to get to and from work, drive their kids around and do fun activities. But what people don't understand is that there are so many other alternatives that ultimately result in a happier and healthier planet. There are so many downfall with driving and owning a car that many are now believing that it is much more reasonable to just not own a car.

""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" Rosenthal, line 6. Having cars stress people out and people don't even realize this. There are so many responsibilities that come with driving. No one enjoys sitting in long traffic jams. It is annoying and quite bothersome. Everyone gets so frustrated, nevermind the amounts of accidents that lead to injury and death from it all.

In Colombia there is a day once a year in which cars can not go on the road or they are served with a fine. This effort is to try to bring stress levels down and stop air pollution. ""Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the street of this capital city eerily and devoid of traffic jams"" Selsky, line 23. This idea promoted excessive and got people out and doing things in the community. The citizens clearly were not against this day or else they wouldn't have been active. ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city"" Selsky, line 28. This just goes to show what driving does. It isolates people. Without all the cars, one is more willing to spend time outside and interacting with other people and since people were out and about more and enjoying the community, the area has gotten more presentable and pleasurable to be in. ""...uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" Selsky, line 29. Officals and shop owners are making more of an effort because everyone is more active and caring.

In Paris, the officals made an effort to try and clean up the cities pollution rates. They assigned a day where even number licensed plates could not be on the road and a day for odd numbered plate cannot be on the road or else they will be fined. ""Congestion was down 60 percent"" Duffer, 14. If anything, it goes to show that the amount of cars on the road is absurb. 60 percent is more than half, that's a lot of traffic. Paris primarily uses diesel, causeing a lot more pollution in this busy city. ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals"" Duffer, line 17. Paris is a very touristy area and people go in hopes to see a beautiful city. This project went so well that officals planned to continue it. ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling french party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" Duffer, line 19. If officals planned to continue this idea, than it must be benifical in some way. If citizens just made an effort to not drive everywhere, than restrictions would not have to be mad. It's because of the amount of driving that is going on that officals have to get involved.

""...transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions..."" Rosenthal, line 37 Motor vehicals cause so much danger to Earth. The amount of pollution is so high and dengerous. It is much easier to prevent than everyone believes. One could simply take the bus, ride a bike, only drive to work and needed places, walk, and even car pool. There are an abundant amount of ways to prevent so much pollution and stress. It's all over the world that this is an issue Paris, Colombia, the United States, and many other places. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States. "" Rosenthal, line 11. That is a lot. It isn't difficult to help prevent this.

In the long run, not driving would result in happier people anyways. Cars are so expensive that is would cause less aggravation and economic stress as well as the basic stress of just driving and being in traffic. Society could make the world so much cleaner and safer for the next generations. It starts now. Get a bike or a pair of walking shoes and start getting active in the community. Start making the changes now so it isn't forced by officals later. make the effort and show the next generations how life should be. This could lead to a much happier and healthier life style.",0
9537400e,1,"In the year 2000 there was a presidential election. The two canadate running were Bush and Gore. In that election there was a problem, Gore had won the votes of the people but Bush had won the votes of the the Electoral votes. Now the question is asked who should win, should the person who had the most votes from the people win or the person who had the most votes from the Electoral College win? This is something that has been going on for a long time, does the Electoral College over rule the people? This is an important question that we the people should be asking, do we really pick the persendent or does the Electoral College pick it and we are just there for show? The Electoral College is an out dated system that we keep because the government wants there to be a clear winner, but we know that is not what the people the people want the right to decide.

The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers and made as a ""compromise between election of the president by a vote in congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualifies citizens."" The Electoral College vote on the President and the Vice President. It has 538 members and for there to be a winner a canadate, has to get a majority of 270 electoral votes. Your states allotment of electors is equal to the number of members in its Congressional degation. The problem here is that there is 300 million people in this connery and only 538 people get to vote on who is going to be president.

Also most states have a Winner takes all system were the winner of the majority gets all of the votes. For example florida has 29 electoral votes so if one canadate get 15 which is the majority he will get all 29. Because of this there is not an accurate repisentaion of what the state thinks.

The last reason it is not a good system is because the people's votes do not matter. In the 2000 election Gore had won the peoples votes and Bush had on the Eletoral votes. now Bush became president even tho Gore had won with the people. The biggest problem with the Electoral College is the fact that it over rules the people. If the Eletoral College wins it does not matter how many people vote for the other person running it will not matter.",0
95a7a675,0,"There is a growing movement in lots of western countries to do less driving. In Bogota, the capital city of Colombia, a ""Day Without Cars"" has been established. It is an annual event where residents of the city are banned from using cars, and violators are fined. In Paris, residents were banned from using their vehicles for about week due to toxic emmisions, widely blamed on diesel fuel. In Germany, a development neighborhood called Vauban was created and has a strict policy on parkingg. Carsized garages, and street parking are banned, requiring residents to pay an extra 40000 dollars to purchase a parkingg space in the neighborhood. These ideals are even spreading to America.

Driving will emit toxins into the air, called greenhouse gases. These gases rise into the air, but are trapped by the ozone layer into our atmosphere and make the Earth warmer. This is a bad thing because the Arctic will start to melt and sea levels would rise. Now, vehicles are not the sole cause of this epidemic, but they are a large contributor. In Beijing, China it is said to be so polluted due to tailpipe emmisions that one would get sick if they were to go outside without a mask on to stop from breathing in the chemicals. In Paris, France the airborne toxins reached to a level just under the amount of chemicals in the air of Beijing. The city officials of Paris had to ban use of automobiles for about a week to rid the air of the poisons. If caught, violators were fined 22 euros 31 dollars American. This worked surprisingly well, and since the air cleared up, people are allowed to use their cars again. The Vauban in Germany is a neighborhood that has made it extremely difficult to own a vehicle. While vehicle ownership is permitted, carsized garages are not included in the homes, and parkingg on the street is prohibited. If a resident wishes to park their vehicles, they must spend 40000 extra dollars along with the house for a space in a large garage at the edge of the development. This has all lead to cleaner air and happier, healthier people.

It is a well known fact the walking and cycling helps a person stay in shape. It keeps the heart flowing regularly, helps keep the lungs exercised, and keeps leg muscles strong ad healthy. If these ways of transportation are exhibited more often, and vehicles used less, we will not only have cleaner air, but a healthier human population. Walking can also help the brain work with the body to relieve stress, which puts people at less of a risk for heart disease. These factors are essential to producing a healthier population, which could let people live longer, and encourage them to do meaningful things that could benefit other parts of the world. The Internet has also been helpful in keeping people connected with friends and lovedones without the need of driving to see them. It is possible to to center where you live around places to buy food and necessary supplies, as well as close to your workplace, all in walking distance. Even if that is not possible, finding a bus or public transportation route is always an option. It is less expensive than gasoline tax included, car insurance, and any other expenses that might come with a privatlyowned vehicle. It is also less likely to get into an autoaccident when using public transportaion, and if it does happen it is not your responsibility to pay for the insurance deductible. All these factors and alternative transportaion methods can help to improve life for all people than it is with so many privatelyowned vehicles.

The private owning of vehicles is convienient, but is still a hazard to the genearal health of our population. It poisons the air, and gives people an excuse to not walk or ride their bycyles as much, which can diminish their physical health. If we start to use privately owned vehicles less, however, it will promote the general welfare of our people. It is possible to cut the use of these vehicles short and preserve, even raise, our standards of living.",0
95d41c3e,0,"Do you know what pollution is? Have you ever taken a trip by car? Well, cars emit a significant and substantial amount of pollution into the atmosphere. Such pollution will result in a damaged atmosphere. Therefore, it is important to decrease car usage, because there are several advantages that will arise from limiting car usage.

To begin with, limiting car usage will decrease the amount of pollution in the atmosphere which will result in cleaner air and healthier cities. In ""Paris bans driving due to smog,"" Robert Duffer writes, ""After days of nearrecord pollution, paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" Overusing cars in the metropolis had caused the air to become extremely and dangerously polluted. The pollution had resulted in smog, a mixture of fog and pollution from cars that is very harmful. The partial driving ban that was enacted in Paris had positive effects in the city, because after one week of the partial driving ban, the smog had cleared and the ban was rescinded for certain cars. While the ban in Paris was a way to handle the destructive pollution from cars in the city, there are only a handful of regulations that are in place towards making cities less polluted. For example, in India the air is polluted to the point where one can see the pollution that resulted from smoke from cars. In the carintensive areas of the United States, passenger cars are responsible from up to 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. It is imperative that more regulations are enacted in the most dangerous and polluted cities. Cleaner air can only be achieved by limiting car usage around the world, especially in the most carintensive and polluted parts of the world.

The reconstruction of the ozone layer will result from limiting car usage around the world. Burning fossil fuels and cars emitting greenhouse gases have damaged the atmosphere in a colossal way. Greenhouse gases have been exponentially breaking down our atmosphere. As cars are continuously overused in many parts of the world, the danger of radiation increases as well. The connection between the destruction of the atmosphere and increases of greenhouse gases of the atmosphere will continue to be increasing until several actions are taken to prevent such disasters. In ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" some cities and towns have also gone as far as having suburbs where there are barely any cars in the streets. In such cities, the air is cleaner, people are healthier and there is air pollution as well as noise pollution. Unless we make more efforts to limit car usage around the world, the planet will be plagued by a poor atmosphere, irradiated locations and unhealthy people.

Finally, while cars are being overused around the world, there are a handful of efforts being done to protect our planet from pollution. People must be informed of the consequences of too much car usage. Even though there are just a handful of regulations decreasing air pollution, people must continue to limit car usage in order to receive positive effects.",0
95fafda4,0,"The world is advancing, technologies are being built, and the environment is changing. Imagine living in an area where there's a limited car usage. It might sound horrible but life goes on without cars. As to limiting your car usage it also has it's advantages. The advantages goes towards the people and the environment.

To start, everyone would know that the main reason is because of the state of our environment. There's a lot of pollution going out there in the world and it's not safe or natural. To give an example, according to the article, written by elisabeth Rosenthal, ""In german Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", passenger cars are responsible 12 percent of greenhouse gas and fifty percent in carintensive areas in the United States. To exemplify, greenhouse gases is one of the causes for the changes around the environment. They're not the good changes either. To support this, the article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", written by Robert Duffer, shows an example of Paris and China banning car usage due to their high pollution and smogs. Robert Duffer states, ""Congestion was down sixty percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog...The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" In other words, polllution can hold a great affect of people trying to go to work, have fun, or even visit someone. Not only is change in the environment is bad but some people can just live without the use of transportation.

The continue to the advantages, the people get to spend their time with others more and even be happy just walking around. Going back to the article ""In German Suburb, life Goes On Without Cars"" written by Elisabeth Rosenthal, a mother of two and media trainer, Heidrun Walter states, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" To extend this, having a car would cause some people to be tense and stressed. Without the ability to do anything about it but just sit there or walk, it is much better to walk around with the people who's close. Another example would from the article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selksy, another commentary made from a businessman, Carlos Arturo Plaza agrees with it. Carlos Arturo Plaza states ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" In other words, not only is the carfree day works for helping improve the environment, it's good for releasing stress for few people.

To conclude, letting go of driving around may sound like a disadvantage but it's actually an advantage to those around us. It's an advantage for both the environment and us.",0
961d4ea9,0,"A decline in the use of motor vehicles would greatly help the whole world in many unique ways. Most importantly, cars have an awful effect on the environment. Eliminating motor vehicles all together would remove many of the pollutants effecting the environment. Also, removing cars has a great effect on the community as well by helping places to grow and prosper. Finally, the thought of limiting car usage is trending rapidly with the common man as well as higher ups in the government.

Cars produce up to 12% of Europe's greenhouse gases and up too 50% of America's greenhouse gas. High levels of greenhouse gas absorb heat and prevent it from leaving Earth's atmosphere causing a rise in temperature better known as global warming. Second, the carbon monoxide and other noxious chemicals that are released by vehicles can come together to form a thick smog. This somg is very bad for people's health and can contaminate land and water with toxic chemicals. In order to prevent these two things a lack of usage of cars is necessary in today's world.

Just like the environment, reduced car usage also can benefit your very own community. Citizens reported being ""much happier this way"" as well as being less tense after restrictions on cars were imposed. Second, a lack of car usage would cause much denser cities. In turn, business that were staged on highways would become local and city centers would allow friends to live close by. Finally, in cities that imposed bans on motor vehicles parks and sports centers were not only revived but began to completely flourish.

Finally, laws about car usage are smiled upon by both pedestrians but by people in legislative positions. Fist off, European places like Switzerland and France first adopted these types of rules. As a result, events like car free day in Bogota became a big success with many supporters. Therefore, even president Barack Obama revealed a plan to be imposed that limits the usage of cars in America. Finally, sociological professors like Mimi Sheller have noticed people accepting and embracing the new anti car policies.

In turn, restricting car usage has nothing but good to offer the majority of cities. From helping reduce the global problem of polution. Or, helping to build bigger more tightly knit cities. The new very popular laws will be imposed in many european countries and sonn the U.S. As a result, the positive effects will be embraced by communities for generations to come.",0
9667a11d,0,"Smog, backed up traffic ways, and stress seem to be the main factor contributing to the decrease in car usage. Although these seem to be very negative factors, there are many advantages to limiting car use including helping our Planet Earth and less costly factors.

To begin, when we look at studies we find that when people use their cars immensely, there is a harmful effect in our atmosphere, also referred to as The Greenhouse Effect. France has been a major component to this harmful gas, as explained by Robert Duffer in the passage ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals..."" In addition, Duffer continues to provide evidence to this claim by further emphasizing and comparing ""Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London,"" By including this simple sentence, we are fully aware of just how much harm pollution has done to the environment due to car usage in Paris. Moreover, the smog in Paris was so intense that ""Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" Although almost 4,000 drivers were fined, the smog had cleared enough by Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday. This movement is also spreading to places such as Bogota, Colombia where they have a day free of cars with the exception of taxis and buses for example, in the article Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota by Andrew Selsky, businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza explains ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" Many ideas are being formed to show that people care about what their harmful ways have done and are looking to find solutions to minimize the pollution and undo what wrong has been done.

Buying cars over the years has become quite an expense to everyone and has become somewhat burdenlike. By limiting and even canceling out the use of cars people have cut down expenses greatly. Public transportation is getting on board with this idea and trying to accommodate those who have made this decision by making public transit ""free of charge from Friday to Monday,"" according to the BBC in the article Paris bans driving due to smog. As also mentioned the importance of car is no longer such an immediate thought to people more recently. Elisabeth Rosenthal solidifies this in the article The End of Car Culture when she includes ""recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" This clear and simple states that people are not considering their cars as such an extreme item and more considering it as a means of transportation only when absolutely necessary such as when ""Bay Area Rapid Transit doesn't work."" As well costs not only personally so much as federally are being affected dramatically. Elisabeth Rosenthal author of In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars explains ""In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport."" By intorducing this idea, people are aware that the advantage is personal and is in the everyday common person's favor.

Not only are the advantages of limiting car usage subtle however they are also direct and can have immediate positive effects on people. By making sure people do not overdo the amount they utilize their cars, they become less stressed, have a healthier environment, and save money. This issue is worldwide however, the solution is becoming worldwide as well creating exceptional results and care from car drivers and people are really thinking outside of the box to make magic happen.",0
966b2454,0,"Millions of people around the world use cars, trucks, or any means of transportation, although some cities have started to limit or even ban their car usage. This has both made people happy and others were angered. Even so limiting car usage is actually beneficial in many ways.

Limiting car usage is a beneficial idea because it benefits with the environment. Cars have been known for polluting the skies and the very air that we breathe. As a matter of fact ""12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe come from passenger cars"" source 1. This means that if this magnitude of greenhouse gases are being emitted by passenger cars alone then the air will be polluted and animals plants and other organisms will die. Additional evidence supports the fact that car limitation is a beneficial act to society. According to Source 3 by Andrew Selsky, the people of Bogota Columbia have been satisfied with the limitations of car usage in the city, the article states that ""it's a good way to take away stress and lower air pollution""source 3. This means that in the limiting the idea of car usage we can decrease the pollutants that poison may living things around the world.

Another advantage in limiting the amount of car usage is that it lowers traffic. Many of todays roads are conjested by thousands of people using the road for their own purposes in shrinking the level of cars being used we can shrink that by a large amount. This is supported by Source 2, written by Robert Duffer, in this article he explains that cars, trucks, etc. are the cause of much congestion and pollution. This contributes to why Paris decided to pass a partial driving ban in Paris. According to this source since the ban car congestion went down by 60 percent source 2. This means that the streets are now safer and clearer in the area. Other sources state that car bans in Bogota Columbia have lead the residents of that city to find other means of transportation to devoid traffic source 3. This means that if cars are limited then traffic will decrease.

A benefactor in limiting car usage isit eliminates stress. Car infested areas have meant tons of stress. By limiting the cause of the problem then you eliminate the problem itself. According to Source 1 people in the outskirts of Germany have become more relaxed in life since cars have been banned. ""I feel less tence"" one of the people the author interviewed said. This key evidence means that if cars are limited then people can live a relaxed worry free life.

Car limitations are a beefit to todays society in ways that it can progress human society rather than pull it back with all the problems it causes. Are cars really what society needs.",0
9674a0c4,1,"The electoral college has many reasons it should stay , but more reasons why it should be gone. The electoral college is giving people false hope in the election, yet many people think there choosing the president , or they have voice when really the choose the electors who choose the president. The election should be chosen by popular vote adderall it is the peoples ""say"" who runs there country.

In the electoral college who really has a voice apparently not the people. In the article ""What is the Electoral College "" author ""The Office Of The Federal register"" it proclaims "" You help choose your state electors when you vote for president because when you chose your candidate you actually vote for your candidates electors. It is evident that many people really not dont know who there ""voting"" for in the democratic government. We have discovered the decision isn't in the people hands , but did we think about how ""the electors could always defy the will of the people"" in the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College"" author Bradford Plumer says , and he makes a valid point no matter if your candidate wins by a landslide the electors still choose who becomes president.

Another reason why the electoral college should be changed into popular vote is because each has a different amount of electors. If you thought not being able to actually your president was wrong, but what about your state having fewer or more electoral votes ,and thats the deciding factor on if your candidate wins. Author of the "" The indefensible Electoral College"" Pulmer states ""at the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voter, because of the winnertake all system in each state,candidates dont spend time in states they know they hace no chance in winning"". The electoral college should be done away with immediately not only is the democratic system is not so democratic , but its not letting the peoples voice be heard.

furthermore it is evident that the election should be based on popular votes. And if its based on popular votes the people voices will be heard , and they will actually have a say in which candidate wins. And isn't that why America is so special because it lets peoples voices be heard. Dont take that distinctive factor away because it makes Of America what it is today "" "".",0
96827105,0,"Many people in the United States are becoming more and more aware of the advantages of limiting car usage. Many don't find this important or feel uncomfortable adapting new customs but it is very important to limit car usage. Limiting car usage contributes to many factors in cities and can also help the environment.

First of all, limiting car usage contributes to the way cities, towns, or suburbs are. For example The first article ""CarFree Cities"" shows an example of a suburb in Germany where people have given up their cars. This suburb Vauban, Germany, has been a success and even 57 percent of the people living there have sold their cars in order to live there, while 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars. A media trainer, Heidrn Walter, said ""When I had a car I was always tense. I', much happier this way,"" and it's not only her that feels this way, many other people in this suburb have experienced and enjoyed the nocarfeeling. Also, this article states that a lowcar suburban life makes suburbs more compact and accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking. This makes living there a lot more easier and comfortable.

Second, limiting car usage helps the environment. According to the first article ""CarFreeCities"" says that ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" and that ""emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle class are choking cities."" These two facts show how bad cars are for the environment, and not only that, but also, cars polute the air horribly. For example, in the second article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" said that ""Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" This smog has affected a lot of cities as well and now one of the main goals people have is to promote alternative transportation due to this.

To conclude, there are many advantages of limiting car usage and and not limiting is hurting the world. Everyone should be more considerate of their environment and limit their car usage.",0
9707b97c,1,"The whole purpose of democracy is to create a government that reflects the desires, opinions, and attitudes of the people being governed, but how can this be achieved if the people aren't fairly represented during election time, presidential or otherwise? This is the problem with the Electoral College system it puts all of decisionmaking power in the hands of our electors, not the citizens themselves. To begin with, the electors selected by citizens are capable of defying the will of the people they were chosen to represent. Next, in the case of a tie, the opinions of millions of people would be overlooked. Finally, because the Electoral College encourages candidates to focus on obtaining votes instead informing all voters about their intentions, only the influential ""swing"" states receive enough attention from candidates to make a wellinformed decision when voting. When it comes to something as serious as the fate of our country, citizens cannot put their faith in the such a corrupt system as the Electoral College.

First of all, the Electoral College system creates a window of opportunity for ""faithless"" electors to take advantage of the power given to them by society during the voting process. Under the Electoral College, voters do not vote directly for who they want as president, but instead for a slate of electors, who in turn select the president. Although these electors may pledge themselves to a particular candidate, there is no way to determine whether or not they end up casting their vote according to the will of the people who put them in charge. Such an unpredictable turn of events could be avoided if only the outcomes of presidential elections were determined by popular vote, not through an Electoral College.

Secondly, if a tie were to occur, the opinions of countless citizens would be ignored. In this case, the election would be thrown to the House of representatives, were delegates from each state would vote on the president. Since each state has only one vote to cast, a vote from a state containing 500,000 people would carry the same weight as a vote representing the opinions of 35 million. Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the selection made by the House of representatives can hardly be expected to represent the will of the people.",0
971a3815,0,"Vroom, vroom goes the 1998 Chevy Impala next to you at the stop light. Driving has become apart of culture that is standard to the developed world. But the culture is slowly changing because the driving epidemic is becoming limited. Cars can be very expensive, harmful to the environment, and troublesome. Limiting car usage can help the environment, help finances, and reduce stress.

Cars are defined as metal cases with leather seats powered by gas or diseal. Gas and diesel are fuels that are harmful to the Earth and can cause harmful emission and greenhouse gases. These gasses can cause smog, or smoke and fog mixed together creating a grey cloud of unbreathable dense air. Smog is very harmful for the environment and can heat the Earth which is not the ideal for the human body. In France, smog, caused by car emissions became unbearable, thus causing the entire city of Paris to ban cars for five days. According to Robert Duffer, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of intensifying smog"" Paris Bans Driving due to Smog Paragraph 14. Therefore cars and its horrible blow can cause a blanket of harmful reactant. Cars can also cause greenhouse gases which is when the heat of the day and the cool of the night trap in the harmful emissions of a car. These greenhouse gases can also heat the Earth and can harm humans. Elisabeth Rosenthal states, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" CarFree Cities Paragraph 5. In effort to save the Earth and the human race many cities and communities have adopted carbanning, reducing the amount of population caused buy cars.

A 2014 Lincoln MKX runs about 45,000, which is the equivalent to the salary of a high school teacher annually. Cars can be very expensive to buy, maintain, and to fuel. The price of oil is about 2.45 today. But over the past few years gas prices have fluctuated up to almost 4.00 a gallon. The average driver might buy gas every two weeks at 20 gallons, that equals 116 a month for gas. The money used to fuel the car has turned into a gas bill, not to mention the sparatic mishaps that can happen while on the road. Cars today have become an investment instead of a luxury. Although, ""transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions,"" does not mean it should remain. The advance in technology and resources has allowed people to reduce the use of cars, and ultimately save themselves money. For example, many people have coworkers that live near one another. Thus, both persons can carpool on alternate days. Mimi Sheller suggests, ""the Internet makes telecommunting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends End of Car Culture Paragraph 35. It is much easier and cheaper to carpool, take the bus, or take the subway. Limiting car usage would save money because more young people are ""interestedin driving, but it's not a prority."" Therefore, parents do not have to spend 30,000 on a new car for their 16 year old. ""A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009,"" which is putting money back into the pockets of parents and public transportation companies The End of Car Culture Paragraph 39.

Road rage is the disease the that overtakes a person when another person is driving idiotically. Road rage is sitting at a green light at a complete stop because the person in front of you is too busy texting their BFF. Road rage is caused by driving. Driving can cause stress because cars are out of your control, traffic is out of your control, and time is out your control. When things are out of control, human nature is to panic. Driving is not the time nor the place to panic. Limiting car usage can reduce the effects of this stress caused by driving because there would be less people on the road, less traffic, and less crashes. Heidrun Walter says, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" Car Free Cities Paragraph 3. Less cars means less drivers which then means a safer environment for pedestrians. Less cars means less traffic which means no more road rage. Less cars means less cars because there are less reckless drivers grazing the road. Limiting car usage can also make people come closer together because it forces them to interact in order to get around. For instance, instead of hopping into you 2013 Camry you call an old friend who happens to work on a different floor of your office building. This interaction can spark a new realtionship and brightens your day. Cars and driving causes stress because it is out of control, but if cars are limited then the stressed caused by driving will be reduced.

Road rage, smog, and tickets, driving is the mush pot of the many problems of this world. Limiting car usage can save the planet, save money, and save you blood from boiling. The priviledge of driving has been taken advantage of and has caused the world to decay at its own expense. The human race has the ability remit from the tragdey of cars one city at a time.",0
9736e586,0,"Cars, they are used for many purposes including taking the kids to school, going to work and many others but have you ever thought about what vehicle are doing to the Earth or the people on the Earth? Well cars have to use gasoline or diesel to move that is just how it always has been but these fossil fuels are actually poluting the Earth, and making the air we breath very ""smoggy."" If we can limit our usage of our cars there can be many advantages including having cleaner air to breath, more excercize, and also less expenses. Humans could survive without cars if we give it a shot.

Take a deep breath outside, what do you smell? Listen, what do you hear? Cars honking? A loud engine of a diesel truck? Well most likely because cars have been around for a long time and without them how would people get to work or school, but have you ever thought about what these cars and trucks are letting out of their tailpipe? Source 1 ""In German Suburb,Life goes on with cars"" says that there has been ""a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe"" these greenhouse gases are clogging up our atmosphere and our air. Without cars air pollution would go down emensly, and would be a big advantage. In Paris there has been ""nearrecord pollution"" ""Paris bans driving to to smog"" By: Robert Duffer.

Now a days when people hear excessive they would run and hide but it's mostly because we have all these vehicle that can take us places without the dreaded walking or running. Americans today can get a cheeseburger in minutes through a drivethru in their vehicle but have you ever imagined life without a car, in Columbia on "" The Day without Cars"" as said in "" Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in bogota By: Andrew Salsky ""Columbians hiked, biked, skated...to work during a car free day"" and even ""parks and sports centers also have smooth sidewalks"" which has ""dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants...have cropped up"" The car free day has made excessive a little easier, and now with smoother side walks and more sports centers people in Columbia can have more opportunities to take a walk.

When you have a car its not unusual to have to go get gas atleast once every one or two weeks, but these expenses can pile up when you have to buy gas or even the oil change of your vehical. What if you get in a accident will your insurence cover it, cars and trucks take a lot of expenses and it can be hard to pay for it all and when President Obama gave the ambitious goal to lesson the greenhouse emissions last week ""Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by"" ""The End of Car Culture"" By:Elisabeth Rosenthal. The usage of less cars can has a great advantage on your wallet.

As said in ""The End of Car Culture"" ""Pedestian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and piblic transportation traffic are woven into a commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected networkto save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety."" Limiting your car usage can have many advantages including making Earth's air cleaner, creating a way for more excessive, and also less expences. Cars will still be in use but maybe we can limit it to only a few.",0
97525641,1,"Dear Florida's state senator, Everyone, whether old, young, tall, or short, have an opinion. In America, we have many amendments protecting us so we can share our opinions with whomever we want. However, the electoral college is flat out taking away our right to share our thoughts about the future leaders of the nation. The electoral college is irrational, and unfair.

The most basic reason why the electoral college is unfair to our country is because not everyone is fairly represented. For example, there are 55 representatives in California to represent 35 million voters. As you can see, it is an unfair ratio. It is impossible for the House's votes to reflect the views of the people in California. That also means that since each state only has one fianl vote, a state such as Wyoming, who has 500,000 voters, would have as much say as California, with 35 million. California has more people, and my making every state have equal representation, it is messing up representation in states like California.

In the system we have today, it is very easy to have a deadlocked election. In 1968, a mere 41,971 votes would have caused a major deadlock in the election. The same thing happened again in 1976, if 5,559 votes in Ohio and 3,687 votes in Hawaii decided to vote differently. In both cases, and few thousand votes could have caused a serious disaster. History tends to repeat itself, so if the almost exact situation happened in the span of less than ten years, what makes you think it won't happen again?

The electoral college creates an unfair system to gaining votes. In 2000, 17 states, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, who are home to some of the largest media markets, didn't even get the chance to see a campaign ad. If you were a candidate, wouldn't you want your ad to be seen in the some of the largest media markets? The candidates had already thought they won those states, which is a ignorant move to make. Because of the electoral college, and the unspoken rules that have been set in place about certain states views, the candidates missed a greatly helpful opprotunity to gain more votes.

However, many might think that the electoral college is a good system because it gives a clear winner, and it makes the states have equal representation. If the people are barely being represented, and a state with less than a million voters has as much say as a state with 35 million voters, then it doesn't matter if the process gives a clear winner. The people want to have a say, not someone choosing for them.

The electoal college may have been a good idea back when it was first created, however, times are changing and the number of people being able to vote is growing day by day. The voters want to give their opinion through voting, and by having the electoral college in place, it is making voting unfair, irrational, and nearly impossible to do.

Thank you for your time.",0
97837c4e,1,"Being a person of politics yourself, you of all people should know that many compromises have been made over the course of the establishment of the United States. However, some of the compromises, like the electoral college, were made because of factors in the past and are now not needed in today's modern democracy. While the electoral college once worked as a compromise in the past, it is an archaic system that unfairly represents the votes of citizens all across the nation. A popular vote should instead be utilized to fairly choose the people of power in this country and would better represent voters' opinions.

In implementing the electoral college, most states' votes either go to one candidate or the other, leading to candidates to only campaign in swing states Bradford Plumer 13. This may not seem like much of a problem, but consider this: a swing state such as Florida with over 20 electoral votes could go to a candidate who could have won by a 51 to 49 percent margin. This means that all the voters who voted for the other candidate no longer count, making the electoral college ineffective at voicing the opinions of the populous. Also, many states may not even see the future president at all, like in the 2000 election where the candidates did not even go once and talk in seventeen states. This leads to a poor democracy because voters in these states will surmise that if the president will not bother to visit their state, they shouldn't bother on making an educated decision when voting, or may choose to not vote at all. In a election by popular vote, presidents will have to make greater strides in getting the people's votes and citizens will then have more of an impetus in learning more about their country's government and politics.

With the Electoral College, there is also the risk that electors may not necessarily vote for the candidate the people want as president. In the Electoral College, ""voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president"" Bradford 10. These electors may not necessarily vote for what candidate voters want most as president, and could do what they might feel is the best decision however, this is not always what the majority of voters want in a president and could end up with a poor president. In addition, most voters know very little about how these electors are chosen and are not in control of who their state's electors are. In a way this system is a bit corrupt, because the voters don't have the final say of the president.

In addition, a tie is likely in an electoral vote because of swing states, which has the potential to lead to a disaster. If two candidates receive the same number of electoral votes and tie in an election, the House of Representatives then chooses the president, while the Senate choose the vice president, but their votes may not show who voters want as president, seeing that voters often vote one party for president while the other for their representatives Plumer 12. The vote for president is distributed unevenly, and states with many voters will only be represented by one vote. this could lead to the House of Representatives choosing a president that is only liked by a small population and this cannot easily be undone. Swing states are the only thing that can cause or prevent a tie in elections, and a tie has almost occured in 1976 in Hawaii and in 1968 in Ohio.

Those in favor of the electoral college argue that because candidates will focus on swing states in order to win voters in those states will pay closer attention to the election and make a more educated decision Richard A. Posner 20. However, this is not necessarily the case, and there are plenty of other welleducated voters in other states who have opinions that will never be counted because of the electoral college. If the popular vote becomes the new method in choosing the president, voters all across the nation will pay more attention to elections because they feel that their vote can make a difference, and it will. This will in turn increase the number of voters actively paying attention to their country's decisions. Because of the Electoral College, ""about onehalf the eligible American population did vote in 2012's election"" Posner 23. Although this number is mentioned as a success in Posner's arguement, this means that there is onehalf of American voices left unheard. Democracy only works if all citizens vote, but they will only take the time to vote if they know that they can make a difference.

Change needs to happen and it has to soon. If not, a poor president could be elected and then who knows what bad things could happen? With the popular vote, more people will be heard, and they will better take part in their country's government, leading to a better nation.",0
979662d0,1,"Dear State Senator, Many people today have very strong opinions on why or why not we should keep the Electoral College. I am writing to you today to tell you some of the reasons why the Electoral College should not be used anymore.

The Electoral College, like most things, has room for error. However this is the type of error that you want to try as hard as possible to avoid. Any error here could lead to the false election of a President and Vice President. Now maybe the falsely elected President and Vice President have some wonderful ideas on how to help our country as a whole, but in carrying out their wonderful sounding plans, may have to hurt or cut back other resources to do so which could hurt us. This is just one example of how the Electoral College can go wrong.

The Electoral College has been used for many years and has become an anachronism. We consider ourselves a democracy yet we use a nondemocratic method of selecting a president. With the Electoral College comes the certainty of outcome. The winning candidate's share of hisher Electoral College usually exceeds the share of the popular vote. The Electoral College requires the president to be a candidate with a transregional appeal. Any candidate with regional appeal is very unlikely to be successful as president. The residents of the other regions will most likely feel disenfranchised and that this candidate is not really their president. The swing states tend to pay closer attention to the campaigns and to really listen to what the competing candidates have to say. The residents in the swing states tend to be the most thoughtful voters. In the Electoral College, they try to restore a political balance between the large and the small states. With the Electoral College you avoid the problem of an election where no candidate recieves a majority vote which would complicate the presedential election process.

All of these reasons are great and everything but there is always going to be a flaw in the system. Some believe that is is the people who vote in the presidents, however, all we are doing is electing the slate of electors who are are the real people who elect the president. In the Electoral College there is a disaster factor. The electors chosen could always defy the will of the people. These electors can be anyone who does not hold public office. Voters cannot always control who their electors vote for and some voters get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate.

The most worrying part though is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. If a tie were to happen, the election would be thrown off to the House of Representatives, where the state delegations would vote on the president. Due to the fact that each state casts only one vote, one single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have just as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who are representing 35 million voters. The House's selection can hardly be expected to refelct the will of the peple in the states. The elections can be only a few swing voters away from a catastrophe.

The Electoral College is unfair to the voters in its most basic level. Due to the winnertakeall system that is in place in each state, the candidates don't spend as much time if any at all in the states they know they have no chance of winning, and spend most of if not all of their time on the tight races in the 'swing' states.

Like everything it would take some timw to get used to the changes and I understand that. I also understand that election by popular vote has its flaws as well. It is time to change from an outdates, irrational, and unfair method. Thank you for your time and consideration about this. I hope you consider changing from the Electoral College to election by popular vote.",0
97bbf1ce,0,"In the text provided, it discusses the advantages of limiting car usage. The articles show, without car usage, there is a more safer environment. People are finding alternatives to getting around and not having to stress themselves about a car. Not using a car means people are able to help the environment physically and spiritually. Limiting car usage has a more positivity affect then using a car.

restricting the usage of cars means an advantage on a safer and healthier environment. When using a car it pollutes our air making the environment harsh. In the text it says ""The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog."" This equation shows that reducing the use of cars can cause harsh conditions, such as smog, to reduce providing a safer environment for people and creatures living there. The text also says ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" This evidence proving that with out the usage of cars the surroundings of a harsh city improved from things like uneven sidewalks, that could have caused people to walk on streets causing traffic or accidents, fixed to smooth sidewalks that people can use safely. The text also says ""If the pattern persists and many sociologist believe it will it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants."" This evidence proves that limiting the usage of cars can lower the amount of emissions polluting the air we need to survive. Reducing the pollution in our air would conclude in safe, more efficient, and longlasting environment. Therefore, limiting the usage of cars have a more sufficent amount of advantages then not limiting the usage of cars.

Reducing the usage of cars also have advantages on people's wellbeing and happiness. Without the stress of sitting in a tiny box in todays new trafic jam, yelling at the car infont of you, behind you, or next to you, you could be out enjoying the fresh air not having to worry about being late because of an accident you weren't even in. The article says ""'Its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution' said a businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife."" This evidence shows that without the use of cars people can be stress free, promoting a healthier environment with a smile. The text also states ""He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which 'pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety.'"" This proving that with less usage from vehicles people are able to improve their living conditions by making minor adjustments. The advantages of limiting the usage of cars is more beneficial then not reducing the usage of vehicles.

Limiting car usage has more advantages and is beneficial to the safety of our environment. Without the reduction of car usage the environment and well being of living things on earth will continue to get worse. Without the limit of car usge, earth will continue to become a gaint ball of smog.",0
97d24cb5,1,"To the senator of florida, I believe that the electoral college should be abolished. The system is unjust and prevents we, the people to have our individual voices heard. When americans vote they're supposedly voting for the next president, when indeed they're votes only sway the opinion of the elector.

Think back to a little over a decade ago, to the 2000 presidential elections. Al gore received the popular vote, meaning that he was the one that us, the americans had wanted. Due to the fact that George W. Bush, his rival, received more electoral votes, Bush won, leaving an favored president running the country. According to source 2, a gallop poll was taken shortly after Gore had lost the presidency, an entire 60 percent of voters would prefer to have a direct vote, rather than go through the electoral process.

Granted, that the electoral college does give a certainty of outcome and that no region on its own can vote for a president, it does give an equal chance for everybody to have their mostly proffered president according to source 3, there is however some flaws to these so called ""pros"". Faithless electors exist. These electors totally ignore what the people have to say and cast their own vote. This occurred in the 1960's with hawaii and louisiana, and when vice president nixon validated only his opponents electors, he made sure to do so without ""establishing a president"", though it can happen again.

We should all agree with Nixon, carter, and dole on the fact that this system isn't fair. Our voices as individuals aren't heard, and we just vote for the state of electors. We, the people of the united states of America wish to do away with the electoral college.",0
97e70fa4,1,"Dear, Senator Electoral college has been around for centuries and as time changes, things start to evolve and grow along with the time period.

Some things are meant to be changed according to the lifestyle of our people now. Hundreds of years back, the electoral college might have worked for the citizens living during that time. However, this is a new century and many people agree with the fact that the electoral college is out dated and we need to change to the election by popular vote. Firstly, because the people are putting their vote into the hands of a person whom they might not even consider the votes of their state's people. Also, the electoral college causes many issues during the voting period.

To start off, The electoral college is a huge risk that the state's people must take each year.

You never know whether or not your electors will suddenly change their mind and vote for a candidate that you personally didn't want. In the article ""The indefensible electoral college: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" Bradford Plumer states ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes."" Plumer Paragraph 10 What the author is explaining is that during the presidential election, once you vote on your selection for the next president and you give your vote to the state electors you never know if they might change their mind or get scared and choose the incorrect candidate. For example, you choose on Barack Obama for president and you give your vote to the state electors and when it's time to vote... they decide to switch and choose HILARY CLINTON!

Many of the citizens who voted for Barack Obama are now outraged by the thought of their state electors doing such a thing.

If we had elections by popular vote we would be able to choose whom we specifically want for our President and there wouldn't be so much tension between people.

Furthermore, the article ""The indefensible electoral college: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system ae wrong"" Bradford explains ""Back in 1960, Segregationists in the louisiana legislaure nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors whoo would oppose John F. Kennedy."" This quote from the article is saying that the electors could easily manipulate you and change their votes in order to get what they want, forgetting about all the other votes of the people back home waiting for the news that their selection has won the presidency.

The elecoral college completely demolishes the purpose of the people's vote.

Additionally, electoral colleges should be abolished because not everyone feels as strongly about it as they did hundreds of years ago when the process first came about. What had started out as a good idea has slowly turned into a unpredictable disaster. From time to time, People would be let down when they find out that the candidate they had chosen didn't win the election, Why? because their state electors decided that it was okay for them to simply go against everyone else and be selfish by choosing their own candidate for presidency.

Bradford proves this by explaining ""...'faithless' electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please..."" Plumer Paragraph 11 On multiple occasions voters have done exactly that, choosing someone completely different than whom they were supposed to. Many members of the party get angry with such childish behavior because it's selfish, uncalled for, and just disrespectful to go about ignoring the one major duty they had to cast a vote for their selected candidate. The article ""In defense of the electoral college: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president"" Richard A. Posner exclaims ""The electoral college is widely regarded as a anachronism, a nondemocratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the candidate who recieves the most popular votes the winner."" Posner Paragraph 15 What the author is explaining is that the electoral college is an old custom and it's time that it was changed to something new like the election by popular vote.

Time has changed, an so has the political veiws. The election by popular vote is a better opportunity because the state's people get to vote on exactly who they want without any major risks to deal with later on. Also, the election by popular vote is a simple and easier way of electing president.

On the other hand, there are very few reasons that are pointing towards the electoral college being a good idea. For example, The electoral college has a even number of votes which make it easier to have a more predictable outcome of who might win the election. Although, not everyone might get the candidate that they had hoped for originally. The electoral college also comes along with the ""Winnertakeall"" method in which the awarding electoral votes induces the candidates running for the presidency.

However, this is only based on the candidate that has the most popular votes.

There are various reasons to consider the electoral college but many of them are followed by an overload of reasons to keep the electoral college in use.

Lastly, the election by popular vote should be used instead of the electoral college. The electoral college comes along with many complications and difficulties unlike the election by popular vote it has a simple and easier way of choosing who you want in the next presidency. Many people feel that you should change over to the election by popular vote to benefit all of the state's people so that they can have a more acurrate estimation of who they might have as their new president.

According to Bradford, the electoral college is ""...Unfair, outdated, and irrational."" Plumer paragraph 14 It's about time we got rid of it and changed the way we elected our new president.",0
9822572d,0,"People all over the world use cars to drive to work or take their children to school. To most people, the automobile is an everyday part of life. But there are downsides to the extreme usage of cars. Some people are noting this trend and are beginning to limit their car usage. Two of the many advantages of limiting the use of cars are that it promotes alternative forms of transportation and it also reduces air pollution.

One positive effect of less cars is the improvement of other forms of transportation. In the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", by Elisabeth Rosenthal, the author talks about a carfree town, Vauban, Germany.Because there are not cars, people are forced to use other forms of transportation. Instead of using cars, mothers and their children walk everywhere, people ride their bikes to the store, and a tram is used to go to downtown Freiburg. Another place where transportation has benefited from a carfree society, is Bogota, Columbia. According to the article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", written by Andrew Selsky, since carfree day began, bicycle and pedestrianfriendly areas have been improved. For example, since the 1990s, 118 miles of bicycle paths have been built in Bogota. ""Parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"", writes Selsky. Promotion of other transportation, such as walking, is just one of many benefits of limiting car usage.

Another major advantage of limiting the use of cars is the reduction of air pollution. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"", Rosenthal writes in ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"". By driving less, we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. ""Paris bans driving due to smog,"" by Robert Duffer, is a prime example of the reduction of air pollution after limiting car usage. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"", writes Duffer. One Friday, the smog of Paris ""rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world"". On the following Monday, motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 31 fine. After only one day with less cars on the roads, the smog had nearly dissappeared. This shows that even a day with less cars can make a huge difference in the amount of air pollution. Rosenthal's article, "" The End of Car Culture"", states that many sociologists believe that if the pattern of less cars continues, ""it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment"" because transortation is America's second largest sourse of carbon emissions. Less air polution is a very important advantage of less cars.

Overall, there are many advantages of limiting the use of cars. Not only does it promote and improve other forms of transportation, but it also decreases the amount of smog and air pollution, which are harming our environment.",0
982966d0,0,"Cars most are used by workers, mothers, and pretty much all people in any urban area, they get us from point A to point B. But, as much as we use automobiles do we really need them? They produce smog, endanger our children and folk, and make life more stressing for us all. This can be fixed though, many places around the world have stoped using cars and even went to the length of banning them! Most importantly though they have opened our eyes to the atmospheric destruction that is caused by cars and ways we can do without them.

In Paris, a few days after nearrecord pollution, France banned driving for a couple days to clear the air or drivers will be fined up to 22 euros, or 31 dollars in America. ""Congestion was down 60% in the capital of France, after five days of intensifying in smog that rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world,"" says Robert Duffer, a journalist for Paris Robert Duffer, par. 14. This amazing number just shows how even reducing the use of cars cut back the smog by over half! Imagine what our air could be like if we didn't use cars, it would help the ill and our children could breathe easily. And surprisingly enough, there are places already that do this act of banning cars and enforce it.

In Vauban, Germany there is a community of people who live in this fashion. Street parking, garages, and even driveways at homes are banned from this quaint suburban area. And, if you do own a car you have to pay almost 40,000 to park it, needless to say over 70% of families of the area don't own a car and 57% sold theirs to move to the area. A mother of two and resident of the area, Heidrun Wlater, says, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" Elisabeth Rosenthal par. 3. And true to their word these kinds of urban areas have become popular in Europe and even in New York.

Car free areas have not been limited to just Europe though in America, with its large areas of urban annd suburban ideals, is now changing the way the way we think about cars. In April 2013, the miles driven per person was 9% lower than it was in January 1995 32. Although small, this cultural change in the way we are using cars is significant. Michael Sivak, a research professor at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute says, ""What most intrigues me is that the rates of car ownershipper household and pe person started to come down 2 or 3 years before the downturn, I think that means something more fundamental is going on,"" Elisabeth Rosenthal par. 33. The fact that America is changing the way we use cars is just another indicator that we should stop all together and join this carfree revolution.

To wrap it up, cars are hurting the air and they need to be cut back before we burn a hole through our atmoshpere. We're not alone in this carfree quest, many areas Europe and nothern America have started to implement this way of thinking. And lastly, this ideal is most needed in America's packed cities, the hazzard of smog and other pollution is hurt our citizens and needs to be stoped before it has longterm effect on our children. Please consider this, car in the long run are bad for the economy but, as well our health. It's snowing on Mt. Fuji.",0
98c25593,0,"Believe it or not there are ways people may be harming the environment without actually knowing it. If you really think about it though there are many ways you can help prevent harm to the environment. One of them is limiting car usage. The advantages to giving limits to this could be very helpful to restoring our world.

A city in Germany has gone the extra mile to solve problems due to car use. What the residents of Vauban, an upscale suburban community have done is, they have all given up their cars. Street parking, driveways, and garages are not allowed. The only way to park is to buy a parking spot along with your home for 40,000. Because of this movement 70 percent of families there do not own cars and 57 percent sold theirs to move to Vauban. A media trainer and mother of two said that when she had a car she was always tense but now is much happier. This no car movement is called ""smart planning"". A reason it started is because studies have shown that passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in europe and up to 50 percent in america. The basic ideas from Vauban are being adopted around the world attempting to make suburbs more compact with less space for parking. Now in the US many agencies are promoting car reduced communities. Also legislators are starting to act. Many say public transport in suburbs will play a much larger role in a new 6 year federal transportation bill to be approved this year. More suburbs like this one could change the world.

In Paris there had been days of nearrecord pollution. To help clear the city's air Paris enforced a partial driving ban. Monday, motorists with even numbered liscence plates were forced to leave their cars at home or pay a 31 fine. Rejecting the fine resulted in having your car impounded. As a result 60 percent of congestion was down in France's capitol. The smog due to car usage was cleared enough on monday to rescind the ban for odd numbered plates the next day. In Columbia a similar day is taken place every year. A car free day where people hiked, biked, skated and took buses to work instead of driving their cars. If you violated this you would be fined 25. Even in rainy weather people participated just to help lower stress and air pollution. This campaign has sparked a revolution. It has also created the construction of 118 miles of bike paths, parks, and sports centers. It has caused the replacement of pitted sidewalks with broad smooth ones, cut traffic, and new resturants and upscale shopping districts have appeared. If every country had a day like this we could make a unbelievable difference.

According to recent studies Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less, and getting fewer liscences each year. Even though America has basically been the birthplace of cars and is one of the world's prime car cultures its love seems to be cooling down. The number of miles driven in the US peaked in 2005 and steadily declined in the years following. In april 2009 the number of miles driven per person was 9 percent below its peak and equal to where it was in 1995. Part of the problem has most definitely been recession but as the economy recovers the decrease in driving has not changed. According to a research proffessor at University Of Michigan car ownership per household started to lower two to three years before the downturn. If this trend persists it will have benificial implications for carbon emmissions and the environment. One of the things causing this is the internet which allows people to feel more connected to eachother without driving to meet friends. Also people carpooling and biking have helped. There has been a large drop in peoples age 1620 getting their liscence. They organize summer jobs and their social lives around where they can walk or take public transportation, or carpool. Between 2001 and 2009 driving by young people decreased 23 percent. All of this helps conserve resources, lower emissions, and improve safety.

In conclusion there are many advantages to limiting car usage. Many communities have taken part of this trend and it is rapidly being recognized around the world. Taking part in this helps the community and environment. Anyone can do it.",0
98e4b8f8,0,"Whether if it's a law in a country, the source of pollution or the cause of deaths, the usage of cars have its disadvantages and have been limited. However, driving cars have its advantages when individuals limit the use of it.

Using cars to reach a destination causes pollution according to experts, who are correct. According to paragraph 5, ""experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions tailpipe...Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Because of this there has been efforts in the past two decades to make cities safer and easier to breathe in. A city that faces these pollution problems is Paris, which made authorities to prohibit driving. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" This is the right thing to do because after this law was implemented there was less congestion. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog."" Pollution also has more of an impact depending on the temperature and day. ""Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layers of air to trap car emissions."" Also there are cities where using cars are near impossible, because of the laws that the governmental officials had enforced. An example of a city with these laws is Vauban, Germany. ""Street Parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. vaughn's streets are completely carfree.""' However, There are advantages when individuals drive less. Owners of the public transportation have taken action. They subliminally convinced drivers to reduce pollution and dangerous accidental by offering free transportation. ""Public transit was free of charge from Friday to Monday."" When this was taken into action, smog was cleared in cities. ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" When individuals drive less they are exposed to new activities that they have never experienced when driving. People can experience activities in places such as in Bogota, Colombia. ""In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" The main goal for this was to advocate other transportation in order to reduce pollution. There are also other factors that can substitute the place of driving. A suggestion was made by Mimi Sheller, who is a sociology professor at Drexel University and director of the University's Policy center and Mobilities Research. She said that ""The Internet makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends."" Also that ""the rise in cellphones and carpooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangments, including the evolution of shared services for getting to work."" Bill Ford, who is the executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company has also suggested factors for safety and transportation. ""He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which 'pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety.'"" Using cars for transporation is mostly a problem, even if authorities have enforced a law for it, if it causes pollution or even danger in cities. But, it can only be a good thing if individuals are limiting the usage of it.",0
9926ba6f,0,"Cars are benefits for getting you from point A to point B, but there are many other ways you can receive transportation that way. Cars can also get you there quicker, but its not worth what we are doing to our environment and ourselves. There are three major advantages about limiting your car use. It will help out our environment with the air pollution you can hear the peacefulness of birds and kids playing, and its a financial rest.

First and foremost, it will help out with our air pollution. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog...""14. The gas we use to fuel up our vehicles is polluting the environment when we use it. If we used Paris as an example, we can have odd and even driving days for odd and even license plates 11. That means only half the people with cars would be driving on the road each day which could alter the air pollution. Another reliable example is Bogota, once a year they have a car free day to limit the air pollution 20. Carlos Arturo Plaza believes, ""it's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" 24.

In addition, the neighborhood or city you are in wouldn't be as loud. Have you ever imagined a peaceful environment with no car horns or engine? Heidrun Walter said she was always tense and now she is happy without her car, because she can hear the swiss of bicycles and the chatterring of children playing 3. Rarely do I ever have peaceful moments unless I'm inside school, or at the neighborhood library. For example, a peaceful walk to school can mentally prepare me for my day ahead, and save my mother gas money.

The amount of money one pays for a car could be equilvalent to amount some else pays for their house. Also, when you get the car, you have to put gas in it for your engine to power up. Limited car use wouldn't just effect you as a person, but the economy as a whole. ""In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport"" 9. If we reduced our car usage, the United States wouldn't have to spend 80 percent of appropriations to highways and they could even it out more to other transportation use. Plus, if you didn't have to pay for gas every week just imagine how much money that would save you.

Limited car use doesn't just effect you financially, but it also contributes positively to the environment. In additon, more peaceful moments can be added to your agenda of things to do. Cars are reliable for their speed and transportation, but when it comes to long term effects, I don't know if its really worth the risk.",0
99306fd7,0,"There are so many advantages of limiting car usage. In source one, the vaughn's streets are completely ""carfree"". This is for the good of not cluttering the streets with so many cars but actually making more space and less cars on the streets. In source one, it says ""while there hace been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs."" That right there says they have been trying to reduce car usage for a while now and convince citizens that transportation can be better to use. Instead of having over a million cars on the streets or high ways or anywhere, many people can come together and take transportation train or bus to where ever they need to go. It also makes time for walking, which is a very good exercise. Many people have become lazy and take their car to drive to the store thats right there on the corner instead of walking. Many people have taken car usage over the limits and don't realize how it is polluting our air.

Pollution is a big problem in our ecosystem now and days. Many people don't clearly see this and don't take the time to process in how bad its making earth. Pollution has gone up over the years and decades after decades we have tried to stop it. In source two, it says ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals."" Why? Well because of the exaggerated use of cars. They have tried to reduce the usage in order to make their air cleaner and better. They have gotten the idea of limiting car usage by ordering people with evennumbered license plates to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine on Mondays. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day. With this new policy, it has shown better air in the city of Paris by Monday. I believe this is a great forced rule. We need to change our ways and work better in making our air cleaner.

Traffic jams is another downfall of using cars. With so many cars out in the streets it causes the air to have so much smog. Many people have participated in bike riding and walking, but not only is it exercise for your health but it keeps away from people using their cars. With so many people participating this action, not only has it made better air burt also constructed and cropped up new restaurants and shopping districts. They cleared the side walk to make it smoother and cut traffic, as said in source three. This is all in Bogota, Columbia. They said it has made a drastic change in their community with better air and I believe it has made their air better and way reduced smog.

In the United States, President Obama's goal was to curb the United States' greenhouse gas emissions. This has led to many people participating in this action. A very big amount of Americans are buying fewer cars and driving less and fewer licences as each year goes by as said in source four. To keep this at a going rate each year I believe citizens should work harder to improve more in this situation as in car pooling, bicycle and public transportation.

In conclusion, there are so many advantages in reducing car usage. Better air, better community and healthier citizens.",0
993b117d,0,"Ever since cars were invented, they have widely been used as the primary source of transportation. They became so commonplace that their widespread use started to introduce negative impacts. As a result, some countries, or cities, have recently put in place programs or events to limit, or decrease, the amount of car usage in that area. There are many advantages to limiting car usage, including that not using cars is better for the environment and that it allows the city to improve itself.

In recent years, the environment has become a worldwide concern one of the advantages to limiting car usage is that it will positively impact the environment. Today, people all over the world are paying attention to what they can do to help the environment, meaning that this is an advantage that will appeal to a widespread audience. One way that limiting car usage will help is that it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Elisabeth Rosenthal's essay ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", she writes, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 2 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"". By limiting the usage of cars, the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted into the world would decrease substantially. While the idea that everyone would stop using their cars and the gas emissions caused by them would disappear completely is unrealistic, the prospect that a majority of the emissions could do so is perfectly reasonable. The reduction of these emissions would mean that the air quality would increase and be overall healthier for both all the world's population and all the wildlife across the world. Robert Duffer provides another example of how less car usage would impact the environment in his essay, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"". According to the article, an intense smog had covered Paris for five days, when the city decided to ban car usage over the course of two days. The cause for the smog was thought to be the high use of diesel fuel in France, with 67 percent of cars using it over gasoline, about 14 percent higher than the rest of Western Europe. The plan for the ban had been that cars with evennumbered license plates to not be used the first day and for ones with oddnumbered license plates not to be used the next day. In actuality, cars with oddnumbered plates were never banned from driving since the smog had cleared just after the first day. This shows the impact of limiting car usage. In just one day, a smog that was comarable to the one in Beijing, China, one of the most polluted cities in the world, was removed considerably after just half the normal amount of cars were used over the course of a day. If this was used all over the world, the result would be even more significant. This evidence supports that limiting car use is good for the environment in more ways than one.

Additionally, the limited use of cars opens many opportunities for cities to improve themselves by adding new features or improving upon old ones. In the article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky, the changes that the Columbian city of Bogota has gone through in response to less car use are discussed. The changes are a direct result of the city's Day Without Cars campaign, where car use is banned for the whole city for one day out of a year. It reads, ""It has seen the construction of 118 mile of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American city, according to Mockus, the city's mayor. Parks and sports centers have also bloomed throughout the cityuneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"". These additions are in response to the city's inhabitants using alternative transport. Since cars could not be used, the public had to get to where they were heading by other means. Bogota was able to use the situation to improve itself by either fixing things already in place or adding new ones competely. Another way that a city improved itself as a result of limited car use is shown by Elisabeth Rosenthal in her essay ""In German Suburn Life Goes On Without Cars"". She writes, ""While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs"". One of the results of applying this idea to suburbs is that stores are placed within walking distance of houses rather than in a mall next to a highway. Vauban, the city where the changes took place, is taking advantage of the opportunities to open new stores. This change would not only create more business for the strore itself but improve the economy of the city by increasing spending. The overall impact that limiting car use has had on citites is that it provides opportunity for the city to improve itself.

There are many advantages to limiting car use. Not only does it improve the environment by removing smog and reducing greenhouse gas emission, but it also allows the area to improve itself by building new features. For this reason, limited car use should be seen as an overall positive idea.",0
9955b24c,0,"""But America's love affair with its vehicles seems to be cooling"", quote from the excerpt ""The End of Car Culture"", explains that people in the United States have started to become less dependent on cars. Not only Americans, but people all around the world such as people from Germany, France, etc. Reasonings for the recent drop in car usage is that there are problems with air pollution, bikes and other transportation that do not involve the use of cars also give place more space to make more town centers and sports complexes, and cars can be a very difficult machine that causes many problems for people everyday.

Smog has become a very big problem for France. France has blamed diesel fuel as the reason for the smog problems. Diesel is favored more than gasoline due to a tax policy, diesel makes up over 67 percent of vehicles in France. The smog in France was so heavy that it, ""rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world"" according to an article by Robert Duffer. Smog is a very big issue that should not be taking place it can cause many health problems. France decided that the smog was getting out of hand so they began a ""Carfree day"", this meant that people would not be using their cars for a whole day and some people would not agree with this idea. France started these ""Carfree days"" with the people who had even numbered license plates and then the next day would have cars with odd numbered license plate would not drive their cars. The consequence for not following this rule was a 31.00 or 22euro fine. Many people were fined the next few days and twenty seven people had their cars impounded due to their reaction of the fine. This ""Carfree day"" helped to reduce the smog problem in France.

When people use any type of transportation other than a car they would be able to have many more places to go and have a good time. When people are using cars and other motor vehicles they are also causing more and more construction for new roads and places for cars to be able to park. If people rode bikes and walked more than we would have more places for people to build shops and complexes that are all together and easy to get to. In Vauban, Germany most residents there live a life without the use of cars. ""The streets of Vauban are completely ""carfree"" except the main thoroughfare"", stated in the Article by Elisabeth Rosenthal. Only 30 percent of people in Vauban's familys own cars, the other 70 percent do not own cars. More than half of that 70 percent sold their cars just to live in Vauban. In Vauban they have begun to create more sidewalks that are better accesible for bikes and walking. This has created more room for people to construct new stores and places that are walkable distance for citizens, so less car usage could lead to many new places such as shops, stores and even new sports complexes.

Cars can be very difficult machines that cause many problems for people everyday. They can just stop in a matter of seconds and people would not know what happened, causing people to get their cars checked out at a carshop and paying more money to get the problem fixed. If people began walking or using bikes as transportation they would not only be saving money but would lower the problems they would be having getting to and from places. Not using cars can save so much money for people because they would not have to pay much gas and they would not have to go to get their cars fixed almost every year. Even with bikes there might be a problem such as getting a flat tire or the chain popping off, even those little things would cost only a few dollars where as a trip to the carshop would cost a least 100.00 out of pocket.

Limiting the use of cars can potentially save places from smog and more air pollution. Not using cars as much can leave more space for places to be built, instead of using the space as a parking lot people could use that space as a place for shopping or sports complex. Carfree day could even be a very helpful idea that might change the peoples minds to use other types of transportation besides a car. Having no cars could save a numerous amount of money for a lot of people. They will save money by not having to get a lot of gas and they will save money on not having to fix their cars almost every year. So limiting the use of cars could become a potential idea that can help people around the world.",0
997fadd7,1,"Dear Mr. State Senator, I have been a citizen of the United States for my entire life, and through my studies, research, and personal experiences with the Electoral College system, I have come to the conclusion that the Electoral college system is not only an out of date way of casting a vote, but also an ineffective way of electing a president. I believe that the popular vote both directly reflects and accurately shows which politician citizens have chosen will best lead our country. The Electoral College is merely a way for politicians to attempt to swing the vote in their favor by paying more attention to states that contain more electors. Politicians should be concerned about gaining the votes of individuals, regardless of how many Electoral College members their states contain.

There is very little need for the electoral college even to exist at all. There is absolutely no point in having two ways for collecting the votes of citizens when all that the system requires is for one of the candidates to gather more votes than the other. Having the Electoral College does not help the voting process and therefore will only harm or make the process of electing a president ineffective. In many cases, the votes of the Electoral College go against what the popular votes want and tend to cause an unwanted politician to go into office. I am not the only citizen concerned about this system, there are people all across the United States who dislike the Electoral College and who see that it constantly gets in the way of electing a decent president into office.

There have been politicians, Chamber of Commerce members, and everyday citizens who have stood up against this awefull Electoral College and who have realized just how terrible and ineffective it is. Putting this system out of commission will be no easy task, but if enough citizens like myself write to their local, state, and federal congress members, change just might be possible. Though a group effort would be required to destroy this system, it would be extremely difficult to convince politicians and presidents that have been in office for years to destroy this College that allowed for them to go into office. It would also be exceptionally difficult to get all three branches of the United States government to destroy the Electoral College, adderall.. it would only take the president's veto to stop it from being removed.

There are counter claims to mine that I'm sure you will recieve within your time in office, counter claims that you should'nt ignore. I think that you should look over all of the evidence, all of the facts, and all of the sources that you can inorder to form your opinion as to whether or not the Electoral College should stay, or it should be terminated. Some of the claims that you will recieve will not have much basis and will most likely state that the system has been in existence ever since the founding of the United States. These claims are not based on evidence of the system being correct or being fair, these calims are based on a fear of change. Change tends to scare people, especially when their power of voting may be altered due to a major change to the U.S. government. But over the past several decades alone, our country has undergone many wonderful changes and experiences that have positively affected its citizens and its laws.

Two of these changes include the desegregating of schools and the right for women to vote. These changes are extremely positive, just like the destroying of the Electoral College would be. It would have a positive impact on all of the country's citizens and would allow for the United States to show that it too can change and adapt for the better.

I am not writing this letter to you because i think that you can single handidly change the voting system of the United States, I am writing this letter to you because I have faith that you can help change the opinion of your fellow politicians and State leaders. I hope that you use the facts and research that I have presented to you today and continue to gather more evidence on the Electoral College system and why it is holding back our country from properly electing its presidents.

Thank you very much for both your time and your consideration, I wish you luck on changing the system and informing others about the problem.",0
99a76936,0,"Cars in this century are being band for multiple reasons. To most people, cars are a hastle and a pain to deal with. Advantages to limiting car usage are the less parking areas and more community buildings, the reduction of smogpolution, and more exercise for Americans. Most cars are getting better with the limitation on gas and more on battery, but we should still limit cars in general.

If you walk along the streets in New York, you will see that along every sidewalk there is a parking strip and around every corner there is a parking lot. What if those parking spots were gone? We could have larger and more store then we have now, plus we could have larger sidewalks to bike and walk on. In Vauban, Germany, generally street parking, driveways, and home garages are forbidden. The house owners are allowed to own cars, but transportation is limited due to the limited parking areas. Suburban inhabitants mainly use a source of public transportation because of how cheap and easy it is.

Smog is a fume that comes from cars and lingers around that area. It makes the whole area fill up with gas that it looks like a huge fog bank. China is the worst contributor to smog due to all its factories which make cars. Paris is trying to limit the amount of smog in their area so they restricted the use of cars for five days. After the five days, Paris cleared up and the people there were able to see a lot clearer.

America is known to be a fat country. All the people in American sit around and eat everything, are really lazy, and rely to much on machines. If we cut down on machines, including cars, a whole lot of Americans would lose a lot of weight. Larger sidewalks would help a whole lot for bikes. Bikes would give you exercise and help you be self relient instead on relying on the car. A professor at The University of Michigan has a son who lives is San francisco, who he says has a car but never uses it. He always uses the public transportation, and why's that? More than likely it is because in San francisco the traffic changes rapidly and you don't know if you will hit bad traffic. Also, San francisco is a beautiful place to be, and he may want to enjoy the view in that area.

Cars have taken over the United States in many ways that we know about but don't care or don't do anything about it.. America and everwhere else could have a lot more stores and get more exercise if parking lots, parking spots along the sidewalk, and some cars are gone. Smog is not a good gas to have lingering around where a whole bunch of people are walking and living. Cars are great, no question, we can live a healthier life if we didnt have them.",0
9a7bb4ac,0,"There are plenty of advantages of limiting car usage, like it will help lower green house gases, it will help save money, and its a great way to get exercise.

Don't get me wrong I love driving and all but it's effecting our ecosystem. Just think if one day out of every week we rode our bikes, or we car pooled, or we took the bus think of how much smog would go away. In source 2 it talks about how they enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. On Monday motorist with evennumbered licence plates were ordered to leave there cars at home same went for oddnumbered licence plates the following day. With in five days sixty pecent of the smog was cleared. And they only did it for five days, imagine if every city in the world did this once a month. In source one it states that passenger cars are responsible fro twelve percent of green house gas emissions in Europe, and up to fifty percent in some parts of the United States. In source one it also talks about a city in Germany named Vauban. Vauban is a city that has banned cars. There is a main thoroughfare , where the tram runs to downtown Freiburg, and and a ffew streets on the edge of the community but ther e are only two places to parklarge garages on the outside of town. And it cost 40,000 dollars along witha home. If we had cities like this here in the U.S. it would be so much better and there wouldnt be so much pollution.

By limiting the usage on cars it will help save money. Think if you walked or rode you're bike to work everyday then you wouldnt have to pay for gas. Gas is typically three to four dollars so if you wanted to put thirty gallons of gas in you car it could cost you ninety dollars. Thats a lot of money to spend on gas and thats not even a full tank for some people. Sure if you ride you bike to work everyday you might have to fix it but you're gonna have to fix your car at some point to and bike parts are so much cheaper than car parts so you'd be saving money there too. And if you walked you would'mt have to even worry about fixing your bike. It might take you longer to get to where you need to go but think you'll be saving money and the Earth. You don't even have to ride your bike or walk, you can car pool or take the bus. You still have to pay for the bus but its way cheaper than paying for gas.

If you're limiting your car usage and walking or riding your bike to work everyday, which maens you'll be getting exercise. Most people don't get the exercise they need so by limiting your car usage not only are you helping the environment you're getting the daily exercise you need. Even if you're riding the bus you're gonna have to get to the bus stop some how. And they even have a place to put your bike on the bus so if the bus does'tn take you all the way to where you need to go you can ride your bike the rest of the way.

So limiting your car usage is'nt all that bad. I mean I don't know anyone who does'nt want to help eliminate green house gases, save money and get exercise while doing it.",0
9a85011d,1,"The Electoral College is a system that should no longer be used because it is based on an outdated system from the first years of our country's independence. It would be much more beneficial to use the popular vote as the final vote. One reason is that one candidate can get more votes, but still lose the election! Another is that many states never get to see the potential president speak, as to make their descion. Lastly voting would be easier to count and to understand for citizens and those who work the election.

In 2000, the electoral college failed to properly represent our country's people. More people voted for Al Gore, but Bush still won the election. In the states where Bush did win, it made the people who voted for Al Gore insignificant and their votes would never again be considered. Even if in every state a particular candidate won by one vote, that person would still get every electoral vote, because they won the state, this is mostly an issue in large states. This is unfair to the losing candidate because their voters never really got a chance. If it was a popular vote, voting would be much more direct and easier to understand. Citizens might even be unaware that they aren't really voting for the president, they are voting for their electoral college representative. With popular vote, there would be no more confusion, and no more worrying about comparing the two voting methods.

Another reason is that some states may never get a chance to see their potential president speak. Potential presidents tend to go speak in swing states, or states that may vote either for them or for their opponent, since it is based on the states vote not the individual people. When a president goes to speak in a swing state they are convincing people that it will be a better choice to vote for them, not the other candidate. If somebody lived in Rhode Island, for example, they would never get the chance to see their potential president speak, therefore they would have to make their descion based on television speeches, newspaper articles, etc.

Also states that tend to vote one way or another often do not get visited because there is no point in trying to convince a state to vote for you that is definitley already going to vote you, to vote for you, and vice versa. Swing states with high populations are really the only states that are visited. It is no promise that the potential president will go to every state or even every region, but they will more likely than not visit different states than they would have before. If popular vote decided who would become president, it likely would no longer be true for presidents to only visit swing states.

Last, the entire election process would be much more simplistic. There would be a whole group of people who no longer would have to be a part of the process, and the less people, the less mistakes. Also each state could still add up their votes, then add all the state's votes together and voila, the president has been chosen, by the people. There would be no more arguments as to who really won the election, as in popular vote versus electoral college. Also there would be much less of a chance for a tie, the more numbers the less each number is worth. Overall, the electoral college adds unecessary complications to a potentially simple system.

The popular voting system would still be difficult to take care of, but much better than the previous system, the despised electoral college. Throughout the years we have seen twice where our course of history could have been radically changed, with a different president. The popular vote system would increase the power of the people, allow more people to see the president speak, and get rid of unecessary complications and confusion of the electoral college.",0
9ae1aa94,1,"The Declaration of Independence granted us the right to control our government. Thomas Jefferson once stated, ""When a nations government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of its people to abolish it and establish a new government."" After viewing the articles Source 1:""What Is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the Federal register, Source 2: ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer, and Source 3:""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner it seems clear that the Electoral Colleges have lessened the power of the people in our nation. With the Electoral College method of selecting our nations new president the people of our nation become less empowered, they may cast their vote but the choice of president is never truly theirs. The Electoral Colleges drive people away from voting because they see the election as if their vote will not matter. To further empower the citizens of the United States the Electoral Colleges should be abolished.

Throughout our nations history the majority vote has lost due to being outvoted when it comes to Electoral Colleges. Because of the majority vote losing out to Electoral Colleges, people have come to believe their vote will not matter in the long run. In Source 2 Plumer declares, ""faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate"". With this method of selection for our country's president, the vote is never certain. The slate of electors that the people essentially vote for may or may not stick to the original plan. This ties back into people losing hope that their vote will not matter because they trust the electors to vote their candidate into office, when the electors could go either way. Another key point is, the candidates may not campaign in states that have a lower number of electoral votes. In Source 1 the Office of the Federal Register also asserted, ""Most states have a 'winnertakeall' system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate"". Due to the Electoral College system being based off population some states have more of a say than others. Whenever a state decides their votes for Electoral Colleges the state typically contributes every vote it has to one candidate. When this occurs the state's people may be misrepresented.

Electoral Colleges do not reflect the democratic style of government we have had for hundreds of years. In Source 3 Posner states, ""it is the electors who elect the president, not the people"". Ever since the United States has been around our lifestyle has been purely democratic. The people are supposed to the empowering body of our government and their voice is the one that should be heard. But since we have the Electoral College the voice of the people has become muffled. No longer is the presidential election a democratic event, but one that is decided through the votes of only a few chosen American citizens. Plumer observed in Source 2 that, ""During the 2000 campaign, 17 states didn't see the candidates at all"". If the people of America are truly part of our governing body then they must see the candidates and hear what they have to say. The Electoral College has driven candidates away from states that will not have much say. These states are then left to make a decision for themselves and decide based on their personal preference, they are never able to truly hear what these candidates may or may not have to offer.

On the other hand, Electoral Colleges do have a lack of uncertainty. As Posner said in Source 3, ""the dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible but it's less likey than a dispute over the popular vote"". The Electoral College provides the American people with a certainty of outcome. Whenever a state decides where its Electoral votes are going the candidate typically wins by a landslide electoralvote victory.

Although the Electoral College has a few appealing qualities, it is mostly an unfair system for the United States. The colleges should not have the power to decide the president, that should be the people that reside in the country's choice. Thomas Jefferson spoke of the people taking control of their country's government and the citizens of America should do just that if they are ever to escape the grasp of the Electoral Colleges.",0
9aeb2766,0,"It seems that almost everyone I know has a car. However, cars are the creators of a large number of problems. There are a number of reasons that less car usage would be beneficial to our society. This could include limiting pollution and congestion, improving health, as well as saving money.

Cars are responsible for a large part of greenhouse gas and carbon emissions. Cutting car usage would immensely help our environment, which is a goal that many people want to achieve. In some cities in the United States of America, cars are responsible for as much as 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Some cities, like Beijing, China are so polluted, that smog is abundant throughout much of the city, making walking and other outdoor physical activities very unpleasant. Limiting car usage would help narrow that pollution a lot. Our environment has been negatively affected for a long time due to car usage, so it is time for that to change.

While many people would say that cars are a necessary means of transportation, there are many other available sources to cut car usage. These sources could include walking, bicycling, skating, taking a bus, carpooling, as well as many other activities. Not only do some of those activities not pollute our environment, but they are also healthy exercises. Cars are also a large reason for accidents and injuries. A large number of people die or get injured every day due to car crashes. While many people are safe drivers, car accidents are almost unavoidable.

Limiting car usage is another way of saving money, which is something that just about everyone I know wants to do. You end up spending a lot of hard earned money on gas or insurance rates because of cars. I know that many of my teenage friends are always bugging their parents for gas money. By using other means of transportation, that money could be saved and spent on something worthwhile to you.

By now, you should see all the positive effects of limiting car usage. While cars are a large part of transportation, there are a number of available sources of transportation that can be used instead. I hope that next time you are planning on going somewhere, whether it be spending time with friends or going to work, you will think about another source of transportation besides a car.",0
9b24ed72,1,"To whome this may concern the electoral college is out dated and unfair. Examples of this would be that bias can take up a big part of it. For example if an electoral does not like who is running for president on the winning side they can bend the votes into there favor. Another example would be in the case of a tie the election would be given to the house of representatives witch would be another unfair vote, because each representative stands for everyone in the state. So if the representative in MA was demcrait and the representative in TX was republican then the morty vote would most likely go to the republicans.

Other examples of how unfair the system is the ""winner take all"" system. Reasons it is unfair is that the the running candidates don't go to states if they no they are going to win or not. Some states don't even get to see the adds for some candidates because that stat morty is either repubclain or democrat. That is unfair to the people that are in the opposite party in that state. Futher more the system is unfair to people in states where the morty is something different from the party they are in.

Last but not least the system is out dated. The electoral college has been around since the constution was writen but since then it has gone down hill with the bias and morty votes. Examples of this can be found int the two parragraphs above as well as in this one. Another example why is out dated and unfair is the people most likely do not have a say in who they pick. a reason for this would be the bias the members of the electoral have to a candidate. The vote they cast has a grater power over ours and can sway the vote to there favor is they want to. More reasons would be how the electoral college has been around since the constution. although other systems from that time still seem to work this one does not and it will continue to fail until it just stops working altogether.

In concluestion the electoral college needs to be changed due to the bias in the system along with the unfairness of the system. Also the age of the system and the fact that it seems to keep failing,And not showing any signs that it will get better. Or help with elections in a fair and approiate way. Later on in other elections.",0
9b43fd10,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, I believe that the way our elections are run are not what is best for the United States. The Electoral College is changing the way that we originally set out to vote and is making things unfair for the citizens who vote. I propose that the Electoral College is taken away all together in order for elections to be more fair, and more like the original intention of the U.S. With most states following the winner takes all idea, the winner of the general public may not be the candidate that wins the elections. These times are rare, but they happened before there is nothing that is stopping them from happening again.

A lot of voters who are not very well educated may not even understand what the electoral college is or what they are actually voting for when they vote. Instead of voting for the candidate that they want as the next president, they are voting for a group of electors that decide who will win. Sometimes, the electors that are assigned to that candidate will not vote for them. This process also seems to discriminate against the less populated states because they don't have as much a say in the college and are often forgotten in the rush of propaganda and aren't really aware of who they should pick and why they should pick them. In The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by bradford Plumer, Plumer explains that one of the best arguments against the Electoral College is that the rate of disaster is so high. In 2000, there was a electoral crisis based upon the Electoral College, because Al Gore received more individual votes, but George W. Bush still won the election.

Another reason that this process is so unstable is the way that it makes voters feel about voting. In large states, where this a majority of either republican or democrats, voters may think that if they are in the minority, and the other party will surely win the election, what's the point of voting. If there was no Electoral College, the votes that they put in could contribute to the greater pool of that parties voters, while with Electoral College the votes are pointless and basically disappear. That, to me, is robbing the citizens of the U.S. of their right to vote. According to Richard A. Posner, the Electoral College restores some of the weight that the large states hold in a presidental election. However, the large states may not have all of one party and those other votes can really make a difference.

Some argue that a few votes can not do a lot and that the Electoral College is a far more organized way to conduct the voting. But every vote counts, and if every voter understood why they were voting for who they were voting for then the president may be a majority favorite. It seems unfair that the president of the United States, the most important man in the country, is not truely picked by the voters, but by the Elctoral College. The Office of the Federal Register says that the electors that are selected are chosen by the candidates political party but that stae laws differ on how they are specifically selected. This way does not seem like the best way of performing the task and I can see how it results in issues. Trusting the weight of the United Stated on the the backs iof only 538 electors is not the most stable way to perform an election. Why trust a select group with this descion if the whole United States can contribute to it?

I think that it is criticall that we change the idea of an Electoral College to the idea that all of the people in the United States are able to contribute equally to who should be the next president based on what they believe is right. bradfordd Plummer believes that one of the most worrying thoughts is that there will be a tie with the electors. If that were to occur the elction would fall into the hands of the House of Representitives, resulting in all the states, no matter what their population is, having the same amount of votes, casuing a president that may be very far away than what the majority of the United States actually wants. This may seem unlikely but in fact there have already been many close calls. In 1968, only 41,971 votes would have deadlockes the election. In 1976 a tie would have happened if 5,559 voters in Hawaii, and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way The Indefensibel Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong, by Bradofrd Plummer. A tie may occur and if it does, A lot of citizens would be very upset that the president did not win by popularity, but by the Electoral College.

There are many reasons that the Elctoral College is unfair to the voters of the U.S. State inequality, diaster, ties, and people loosing the urge to vote. The list goes on and on and if this doesn't make you see what is wrong with this system than I don't know what will. I hope you take this information to good use and use it to tear down this unfair system once and for all. If we really want to be a democracy, than we have to do away with this system. Many of Americans believe that this is the best way and several have published interesting papers on that topic that may chaneg the minds of people who are still for it. I hope this dream to get rid of the unfair and terrible system that is the Electoral College is accomplished soon.",0
9b753df1,1,"The Electoral College is a process that should be around for plenty of years to come.

It was established by our founding father as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. It's a simple process in which a running candidate would need a majority of 270 electoral votes.

Our founding fathers came up with this process in order for the election of a President to run smoothly. When using the Electoral College you have an exact percentage of the outcome of the votes, no guessing or estimating. The Electoral College has a method of awarding electoral votes, inducing the candidates to focus their campaign efforts on the tossup states. This is because voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign, making it easier for the candidates to study what the certain states needs are and convincing them that if they vote for them, their needs will be met. Some may say that the winnertakeall system isn't fair to some states because most of the candidates don't even bother going to the states that they know they have no chance in winning. Well this can be argued by saying that this method may help the candidates because if they know that they have no chance in winning in some states, they might specifically prepare a certain speech that may persuade the state to vote for them. Also no voter's vote swings a national election.

The electoral college has many ways that can help a candidate win the election and it might make things more easier for himher. The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have a transregional appeal. This means if the voter is from the south, they have no reason to campaign heavily in those sates. Instead they can spend more time in states that need a little more convincing fot the candidate to gain their vote. It also restores some of the weight in the political balance that a large states loses by virtue of the malappotrionment of the Senate decreed in the constitution. Some may say that the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote is something to worry about. But the Electoral College avoids the problem of there being a runoff election. If there was no Electoral College, this would put pressure for runoff elections, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, which it invariably produces a clear winner.

So all in all, the Electoral College should be kept and stay the way it is. It isn't complicated and makes the election run more smoothly. It provides multiple ways for a candidate to win the vote of a certain state and avoids major problem during the election.",0
9b7bf56a,1,"The Electoral College was created with good intentions, but it has many vital flaws which allow for very unfair outcomes. The electoral college is an outdated, and irrational way to choose the president of our country for the next four years. It allows for silly tricks to be played you can win the presidency with a mere forty percent of the country in support of you. You can completely ignore some of your voters, as you're guaranteed to either win or lose heavily biased states, and you can gain massive numbers of electoral votes due to one more vote for a side in a state count. The system even allows for massive corruption to go unpunished, which is one of the biggest offenses in our country.

The electoral college's biggest flaw may perhaps be its ability to elect a president that doesn't even appeal to half of the country. According to source two, Al Gore ""won the popular vote but lost the presidency."" Al Gore had a significant victory in popular vote for the nation, yet still was denied presidency due to the electoral college's vote assignment system. If we did away with the electoral college, each and every person would have an equal say, and would be equally important to the candidates. Even source three agrees that the trust in our electors is occasionally betrayed, albeit rarely.

Currently, the candidates can completely ignore portions of our country. Republicans have a strongly biased voter base in the south so much so that generally speaking, the Republicans never have a single rally or major ad. According source two, states like South Carolina almost never vote Democrat. It's so rare, that if you lost, you offended the group that has voted unquestioningly for your party since the system has been put into place. If the electoral college system didn't exist, the thirty percent of southern Democrats would have a say, which would make advertising and campaigning all over the country much more vital.

The electoral college system also allows for an astonishing amount of corruption with no punishment. If a state manages to vote one hundred percent Democrat, rogue electors can still cast their vote for the Republican candidate and this isn't against the rules. We're essentially putting the next four years of our country into the hands of 538 electors, and holding them to the lowest possible degree of accountability. Again, source three clearly states ""and that trust is rarely betrayed."" While it's rare, it's still more than possible, and can be quite disastrous.

Some may argue that the electoral college system puts into place a system of certainty and safety, for both the candidates and the people. This, however, is quite far from the truth. According to source three, ""the residents of other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised."" While this source claims that ignoring biased parts of the population, this is quite far from the truth. People are being entirely ignored by the powerful politicians that are supposed to represent them. That doesn't sound very democratic and fair to me. People begin to feel discouraged and that their vote doesn't count, and this is quite close to the being the case. Only onehalf of elligable citizens voted in the 2012 election, which means that one half didn't. Half of our country isn't bothering to vote in the elections because the electoral college system completely negates their vote.

Our country prides itself on being ""the land of the free, and the home of the brave,"" yet our people are being discouraged at every turn by our government. The popular opinion of our people is that the government is out to get us, and there's not much evidence to contradict that. The electoral college system allows for the government to be run by men who didn't fairly win over our country, and isn't accurately representing our views. It's rife with corruption, and allows money to buy power. If we remove this system in favor of a popular vote election would encourage more popular policy, make our government closer to the people, and have little to no negative impact on our country.",0
9b7c31e7,1,"Abolishing the Electoral College sounds like an excellent idea. The election by popular vote is most definetely without a doubt, more fair for the people. Why are 538 people the ones who get to decide who becomes president and not the rest of us? The Electoral College is outdated and too old for today society. Lets get rid of this while we can.

The Electoral College was made many years ago by the founding fathers, this can tell you it is outdated. People used to have completely different political views back then, we need a fresh start on how we want it today because things have changed. We the people should vote on what we want now an Electoral College as. a popular vote by the people and decide since it has been over a thousand years later.

""The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational"" says Bradford Plumer in source two. Plumer is right about this, the electoral college is very unfair. How can 538 people decide what happens for the rest of us? It should not be like this, everyone should be equal and all vote then go with the most popular vote for the president. We need to change our ways now before the next election.

Some people may argue like Richard Posner in source three that ""the Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue.."", basically saying the electoral college makes things more equal and fair. What is not fair is that everyone doesn't get to vote directly only the electors do. Many people don't agree with Posner and they shouldn't because the electoral college is the wrong way to run things.

Lets make changes to our future, and abolish the Electoral college. We need to have an election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Fairness and equality is the route we need to take.",0
9bd765d3,1,"To whom it may concern, I have recently been enlightened on what Electoral College is all about. According to ""What Is the Electoral college?"" Electoral college is a compromise between election of the president by a vote in congress and the election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. It consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. As quoted also from ""What Is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the Federal Register.

First of all, the Electoral College should be kept because no, one region has the ability to elect a president. A certain region can gather all it's people to favorite one of the candidates, but it still won't be enough to reach a biased conclusion in the final election. The candidates also cannot count on one of their favorite states or even regions for them to win because, with only regional or state appeal, it will become unlikely for them to be a successful president.

In addition, having The Electoral College will ensure that the larger states can't overrule the smaller state based on population. It balances the weight of more populated states to smaller populated states. This is good because now, the smaller populated states will feel that they actually have power in the Election process instead of feeling left out due to a larger population. This is also significant because now the candidates won't aim their campaigning only towards the higher populated states. They will go all around the country trying to emphasize their importance in winning the campaign.

In conclusion, the obvious solution here is to keep using the Electoral College process. It not only ensures that one state or region does not have enough votes alone to sway the election, it allows the smaller populated states to have just as big of a say in the election as the larger states. The procedure of using The Electoral college has been around for quite a while now and it's clear why. It is the most beneficial way of ensuring that the right candidate will get into office, based off of the right terms.",0
9ca473ca,0,"Many people in todays society tend to travel by car, but there is advantages to limiting car usage. Limiting car usage can stop pollution, and puts people in general in a more active environment. So, there are many other ways of transportation.

In the article, carFree cities it talks a lot about the advantages of not driving a car. For example, according to the passage ""Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."" This being said, you can conclude that more people are being more active. Furthermore, the passage says ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the United States."" This meaning that some places in the United states gases are half of the areas pollution.

There are many more advantages to limiting car usage, and if other people do it so will the world. For example, according to the passage ""Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangle square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life."" Moreover, in the passage it also says ""But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking."" Furthermore, ""In this new approach, store are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distance highway."" This meaning the world has a solution to solve the usage of cars. By making suburbs you will be walking distance away from your destination. This also saves so much money, if you were to drive you would have to waste gas. It is also more of a benefit for one who walks, rides their bike, or runs by giving them the benefit of exercise.

By limiting the usage of cars, bike trails, parks, and sports centers have been a big hit. For example, according to the passage, ""The day without cars is part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s."" Moreover, ""It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths."" This being said, the need to make such a long bike path means that more people are joining in on the limiting usage of cars, which is a benefit for us humans, and the fresh air that we breathe. People are also becoming more active, for example according to the passage ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaces by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic"" Since the parks and sports centers have been blooming people are being more active. New side walks are being replaced so people can actually walk on them, the cut of traffic means less people are driving. In big cities, it just might be faster to get to your destination by riding a bike.

In conclusion, there are so many advantages to limiting car usage. It helps by lowering the percent of pollution, on top of that it also helps save money. By walking or riding your bike to your destination can benefit you in many ways. It also helps by making the world a better place. People seem to be happier when they see other being active, so the next time one thinks to drive a walking distance, rethink your decision.",0
9ca8602a,1,"Mr Senator, After being informed of the United State's combination othe the electoral college and election by popular vote, I was asked wether or not we should keep the electoral college or change the election to just a popular vote. I thought about this for a while and I believe the electoral college is beneficial to the results of the election.

We are Americans. We can be innovative and change the world but we can also be lazy and uneducated. While most Americans are informed about the election and who is running, Mickey Mouse is still the most popular writein on the ballot. Why not have a group of citizens who represent our state and party have a say in who should be president? ""..each party slects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee"" Source 3. The electoral college is a group of sophisticated men and women who do this as their job. While the average American is tending to family, working or watching tv, their electors are learning the viewpoints of the presidential nominees and deciding with one they think would be the best leader of our country. Why would it be anything but harmful to our country if we got rid of it?

I understand that you might be saying that voters don't vote for the president and electors overrule the popular vote. Electors are just an easier and more equal way of distributing the votes and electing a president. Only in rare cases has the electoral vote overruled the popular vote. Have you ever thought there might be a reason behind that though? Assuming the government isn't majorly corrupt and the elections are fixed, wouldnt you think that the slate you voted for should be trusted? Maybe they know something you don't or have witnessed the candidates actions in the past that could've swayed their vote. Citizens are keen but they do not know everything that goes on behind the scenes.

The Electoral College makes sure that there is a transregional appeal. Not one area can overrule the other votes. This is very important because it evens out the votes and reduces risks of a split country who doesn't want to follow a president elected by the South. Popular vote alone doesn't do this. If we just go by who was the most votes from citizens then If there is ever a great divide in which party want which president it could also lead to a divide in the country itself. This could even lead to a civil war and make these 50 states notso united. The fact that we have a system to keep order doesn't mean that we should get rid of it just because people want their writein ballot of a cartoon character to mean more.

Keeping the Electoral College is necessary for the unity of our country. We should trust our slate of electors to vote the way we want them to. If they don't, the blame shouldn't automatically be put upon them. Since we elected the trustworthy slate, shouldn't we believe they have the best interest of the country and their party in mind? The Electoral College should stay as it is. This system keeps order, balances votes, and 99% of the time it works.",0
9cc2d8df,1,"Dear Senator of Florida, What is the point of people voting if they are not really getting a say in who they are really voting for? The Electoral College has a bigger say then the thousands of of people who vote. How can a group of peoples say mean more then thousands of people in the United States. Also, the ""WinnerTakeAll"" system does not help anymore then the Electoral college does. What is so special about the Electoral College that they get picked specially to make their vote count on who wins or loses the election?

Their has been many mishappens because of the Electoral College. For example, from an excerpt called ""The Idefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong"" says ""The single argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worst."" This shows that the electoral college does do damage to the United States because they let a huge crisis happen during the elections. They could have let it get even worst because they allow it to and make it easy to make things worst in certain crisis.

I feel like you should give the people more of a say because half of the people that vote probably don't even know that they are not actually voting for the president. They probably vote thinking that they are voting for the president not for the electoral college to see who will end up on the board. The Electoral College is overall unfair to the voters. Voters pay to vote, to what pay the Electoral College to vote and make their say so important it is sad. The reason it is sad is because all kids want to do when their younger is vote because they feel like it symbolizes them growing up and like they get a real say in who the next president is or the senate anything just as longs as they get a say. But truthful their not getting a say in who will be the next senate, treasurer, or president their actually picking the board who will be picking for them.

Even the People once wanted to abolish the Electoral College. These People were Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO. Turned out their not the only ones according to the exerpt from ""The Indefensible Electoral College: why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong."" is sates ""They're not alone according to a gallop poll in 2000 taken shortly after Al Gore thanks the quirks of the electoral college won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of the voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" It also states that ""This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency."" This show how the elections are in a way screwed up because they already in a way know how many votes a certain person is going to get and how many votes the other person is going to get. They practicly alredy know who is going to win the election before the voting even begins because the board already has it all planned out.

So really thier is no need for the Electoral College because all they do is make the competion unfair for the other person going for the election. Also, because they have cause or been a part of problems and mishappens. In an article it mentions ""Perhaps moat worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, were staes delegation vote on president."" Also, when you are voting for the VicePresident you are not actually voting the senat picks who the VicePresident is. The Electoral College is overall unfair to the voters and the people running in the election.",0
9cceb571,0,"CarFree Cities Humans almost feel the need to own a car almost as much as they feel the need to own a phone. The automobile industry has been a growing industry since World War 2. There are so many advantages to limiting car usage. Saving on gas and getting good exercise are just a few of the great advantages of limiting car usage.

Vauban, Germany understands that according to Source 1 which talks about how they have given up their cars! Not only is it saving them a ton of money on gas, car insurance, car payments, and fixing parts, it also gives them all great exercise. If everyone walks everywhere everyday the whole city will be fit in no time. Another advantage to the loss of cars, no car accidents. 180,000 people die a year due to car accidents. The death's in this city will be reduced drastically due to no cars. This no car movement is a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere as a component of a movement called ""smart planning"".

Source 2 talks about how Paris has banned driving due to smog. Congestion went down 60 percent in the capital of France. Delivery companies in Paris complained of lost revenue, while exceptions were made for plugin cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers. The advantages of limiting car usage here is the you'd never have to worry about there being smog outside or snow etc. Limiting car usage, you wouldn't have to worry about the weather being so terrible that you can't drive in smog or heavy rain and have a car accident.

Bogota, Colombia joins the no car movement for what is known as ""CarFree Day"". Source 3 discusses the day without cars in Bogota, Colombia. It is an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s. It's seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American city, according to their city's mayor. Limiting car usage in this city could be great for a lot of reasons. One being they are the only LatinAmerican city to have covered 118 miles of bicycle paths. Their parks and sports centers are now blooming throughout the city. It's uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks.

Source 4 talks about the End of Car Culture. Studies have shown that as the years go on, driving is becoming less and less popular which is sad for many automobile industries worldwide. In America, the partial cause of the decrease in car usage is the unemployment rate being so low, it's not like someone has to go to work. Gas is becoming to expensive, why would people even want to have cars if they can barely afford them? Riding a bicycle is beneficial for more money in your pocket and more healthiness for your body.",0
9cf17956,0,"""No one cares about the environment."" said no one ever. The environment we live in, wether its a crowded city like NewYork, or Paris, or even a regular suburban community, is a wonderful place. There is one issue though that has spread among communities, and that is the high amount of car usage. Having a car and being able to track to great distances in a short amount of time is great, but look at what cars do to the environment. Also when it comes to buying a car, you're basically throwing your bank account out the window. And dont get me started with the worries of having your children play in the streets.

Now, lets discuss the crazy amount of money you have to throw away on a car. You either throw away a fortune on a good car, that runs good, and then end up taking years to pay it off, or you buy a cheap, beat up car, that is always in need of repair. Either way it is a lose, lose situation. Why buy these insanely priced cars when you can buy a nice bike that moves perfectly. At around five hundred dollars, to a thousand dollars a bike is easily the way to go. A bonus to buying a nice bike instead of a car, is that while you ride your bike, you'll get into shape in no time at all. Now if you need to track a great distance that riding a bike can not get you to fast enough, buses or mobile transport have bike racks on them so you can ride a bus to the nearest position to where you need to be then simply ride your bike for the remainder of the distance.

The main issue here with cars for most people, is that there is a large amount of pollution that comes with driving a car. In Paris the pollution from cars were so bad that Paris had to put a temporary ban on driving to help clear out all of the smog that was in the sky. Also, in America car pollution is the second largest source of pollution emissions. There is no other way to say it, cars make up a lot of the earths pollution, and when the time comes that people start to die down on using cars the world will be a much healthier place to be in.

Now you can not tell me that there is not at least one parent who will read this next statement and not agree more. Less cars, safer streets. Every mom, dad, brother, sister, or any kind of other relative have worried about their family playing in the streets. There are millions of accidents every year in the world that result in people getting hit by cars and killed, or seriously injured. With less cars on the streets the world will be a much safer place for kids, and even adults, as there is drunk drivers you have to look out for, or reckless drivers who dont even have a license.

All together limiting car usage will have multiple benefits to the world, and even your own community. One being you dont have to pay for a car when they start going out of style, another being the worlds pollution will lower at a huge rate, and last that the roads we live, and breathe on will be a much safer place. Limit your car usage and make the word a better place on step at a time.",0
9cf53db9,1,"Every four years there is an election. The election is used to decide who our president will be for the next four years. The Electoral College is currently being used for our elections. The articles ""Does the Electoral College Work?"" and ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard Posner believes the Electoral College should continue to stay in use. On the other hand, the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer believes that the Electoral College should be removed from the system of electing the President. While the Electoral College has been in use for a majority of the time, it is time to start a different process called popular vote.

The Electoral College has been in place for many years and has produced good results. One good thing the Electoral College does is it prevents a candidate from becoming President if they only have regional appeal. This is crucial because ""a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president"" Posner. With the Electoral College in place it makes it impossible to for a candidate with only regional appeal to become president because no region has enough electoral votes to elect them. Another helpful thing the Electoral College does is it has a certainty of outcome, so it is less likely for disputes than popular votes. It is less likely for disputes because ""the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote"" Posner. Even if a state has a few more votes for the Electoral College it still creates a huge victory. Even though the Electoral College has produces some good results, presidents being elected through popular vote will be better, more efficient, and more equal.

Again, the popular vote will be more fair. It will be more fair because a president with more popular votes will win. In the Electoral College, a candidate with the most popular votes does not ensure victory because the other candidate may have more electoral votes. This happened in 2000 when Al Gore got more popular votes, but lost the presidency Plumer. The Electoral College is not fair to the citizens of this country and to the candidates. If more people prefer one candidate over the other, then the president should clearly clearly be them. The Electoral College is also not fair because if there is a tie, then the vote goes to the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives' ""selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people"" Plumer. The majority of the House of Representatives is Republicans, so the president elected will be reflected by that, and it will not give the Democrats equal representation. All in all, popular vote should be used to determine the President because it is a more fair and an equal way to do so.

Equally important, popular vote should be used to elect the President because then candidates and voters will pay attention to the campaign. With the Electoral College candidates only spend time trying to win the votes of the ""swing states."" They will not pay attention to the states that they already know have their vote. In fact, in the 2000 campaign, there were seventeen states that the candidates never visited. Two of those are Rhode Island and South Carolina Plumer. Every state should be able to see the candidates so the voters get to really know who they are voting for, so they will make a better decision. Also, with the Electoral College people in states that know their vote will not matter will not pay attention to the campaign. A person such as, a ""Republican in California... have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by popular vote"" Posner. Everyones opinion should matter and should be taken into account when electing the President. To summarize, popular vote is the only way to ensure that the voters get all the knowledge they need to elect the President, and so that everyone's vote matters.

In conclusion, electing the President is a painstaking task and should be done using popular vote, not the Electoral College. The President of the United States plays an important role in our country. The President has to make many difficult decisions, and those decisions should be a reflection of the entire country. It should not just reflect the certain states that contributed their electoral vote.",0
9d230a78,1,"""Abolish the electoral college!"" is a famous statement that was made by Bob Dole on whether or not it would be a good idea to keep the electoral college. Though others may disagree and say that our founding fathers established the Electoral College. Also that it was established with the mindset of helping the American people, but i would like to think otherwise. I believe that the we should change the system by which we vote the president of the United States into election by popular vote. For many years we have been using the concept of the Electoral College and for many years, it has lead to unfair calls and the placing of bad leadership in our country. In the article titled, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"", the author defines what the electoral collage system really is, the author states, "" Under the electoral collage system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" This system is an unfair system, and can not be trusted. It time for change.

The electoral collage is a dishonesty to voters, it is an unfair system. In ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"", the author makes a good claim. He or she talks about the winner takes all system that is affiliated with the electoral college. In the 13th paragraph the author specifically says, "" Because of the winnertakeall system in each tate, candidates don't spend time in states they know have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races ""swing"" state."" That shows how unfair it is to us as the American people. Certain states may not get a chance to see who their choices are. They are forced to make a decision based on the little we know and the majority of the knowledge comes form the media which is a very unreliable source. "" During the2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all."" That shows how little our voices are heard in a desion that is crucial for how we go about and make decisions in our everyday lives. We the American people have to rely on states such as Ohio for who our president will be.

There is dishonesty every where you go. More so in the electoral college. When the electors are chosen we have no say so. The state legislatures are the ones responsible for picking the electors. In paragraph 11 of ""The indefinsible Electoral College"", the author makes a remark that everyone should put into regards. It says ""That those electors could always defy the will of the people."" Just like people can lie about their age, electors san also fib about their position or party in which they are representing. The author also mentions in paragraph 11, : In the same vein, ""faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever the please.""Not everyone can be trusted, and the dishonesty is another reason why we should do away with the electoral college and change to election by popular vote. With the election by popular, we are assured that there is fair play even though some of us may not get our voice heard completely.

People who are for the concept of the electoral college may argue other wise. For instance, in the article called, ""In Defense of the Electoral College"", the author argues that "" The Electoral College despite its lack of democratic pedigree all are practical reasons, not liberal or conservative reasons"", meaning its idea of support. I believe the Electoral College is an overrated nor practical.

I am in favor of abolishing the electoral collage amd changing to election of by popular vote. With the system of election of popular vote, you will be sure that the system is fair,honest, and speakes the voices of the American people. As a sentor you should take the best interest of the American people to heart.",0
9d266bfd,0,"People in today's society practically depend on their cars to get them to and from work, to buy groceries for their families, and just for the purpose of getting out of the house. Although, with billions of people driving cars every single day, it has quite a negative effect on the environment. It is in our nature to think that without a car, you could not go anywhere or do anything for that matter. Recently, cities around the world have been banning the use of cars and charging citizens with fines if cars become in use. The reasoning for this is the increased amount of pollution that diesel fuel is causing. Thus, making it difficult to breathe, walk outside, and live our everyday life.

One major problem in the use of diesel fuel has been the pollutants in the air which lead to an extreme amount of smog. Recently, Paris has had more smog than any other European capital. They knew that something had to be done to stop this, so they started a new ""carfree"" law. This resulted in a fine of 31 for the citizens who used their cars. Soon after that law had become intact, almost 4,000 drivers were fined, and just about 27 people had their cars impounded that day for their reaction to the fine.

The United States of America had long been one of the world's most prime car cultures. It is the birthplace of some of the very first car models. A lot of big cities in the U.S have a huge amount of driving going on. For example, New York City, San Fransico, Miami, Los Angeles, ect. This is leaving the country with a large amount of pollutants in the atmosphere. After President Obama's ambitions to decrease the amount of diesel fuel use, recent studies have shown that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and are even having a decrease in the amount of licenses permitted as each year passes. In 2013, the amount of miles driven per person was about 9 percent under the usual American peak. With the large amount of citizens living in this country and the number of people only rising, this small decrease has had a very positive effect on the environment.

With almost the entire world in on this new, ""carfree"" trend, people have been perfectly fine letting go of their cars and taking on the world just by foot. In the city of Vauban, Germany the citizens there would much rather pioneer their way through life than to own a car according to Heidrun Walter, who is a resident of Vauban. ""I'm much happier this way."" She claims. Back on the other side of Earth, people are becoming more and more encouraged to use plugin cars, hybrids, and cars carrying 3 or more passengers. This decreases the amount of fuel being burned, and a happier and healthier environment for us all to live in.

In conclusion, I believe that the decrease in the amount of cars in use has recently had a very positive effect on our environment. This has all come to show that you don't always need a car to get where you want and to do the things that you need to do. Or, if you feel the need for a car that you can rely on a friend for carpooling or purchasing a plugin car which are becoming much more popular and useful in today's society. Always remember to keep our environment happy and healthy, and always making each day better by putting the amount of diesel fuels burned by car use and the effects it has into consideration.",0
9d3a9a2c,0,"Cars are usually in most peoples every day lives. We drive them to work, school and many other purposes. Cars have been around for over one hundred years but are people really ready to limit car usage? In a lot of cases around the whole entire world the answer is yes. Their are many reasons to own an automobile, however their is a lot of reasons not to own an automobile as well.

A main topic now around the globe is the environment. Not all cars are going to kill the environment but if you put too many cars in one area it can weaken an environment, this is including cities. Cars can cause a substance called smog which is terrible for the environment or a local residence such as a city or town. As a matter of fact Paris as inforced a partial driving ban to clear the smog of its city. Beijing, China is probably one of smogs worst victims. It is known as one of the most polluted city in the entire world! Sadly, cars are a huge part of the creation of smog. Smog is horrifically bad for the environment for a huge reason, and that reason is not being able to breathe.

Cars take up a lot of space in towns and cities across the entire globe. These areas are packed with roads, that take up many space of the area. imagine what it would be like with no streets, turnpike, roads in general. If you did imagine a world without roads you would see nothing but fields, trees, wildlife of every sort. If not wildlife you would see uncrowned cities with buildings that are close and not so hard to get to. People are adopting this idea around the entire world. These cities are easy and very manageable to go through. The environment is unbelievably clean in these cities and make life in general less of a hastle. This may not be the way of the future but it is a great idea!

Every car has a bad side to them. Not on the car itself but what it can do to you. Cars make a lot of people angry. How do cars make people angry you might ask? Their is a thing in the car community called traffic. If you drive a car chances are you have been in traffic before. Traffic can cause anger which some people like to call road rage. Sadly a lot of people have lost their lives to road rage by getting into car accidents. Car accidents take the lives of many people in the world. A lot of things can take peoples lives but cars cause some of the most deaths in the world. It is not true that a world withot cars would be more safe but the fact is, cars can be a very dangerouse tool.

People use cars almost everywhere in this world but the question still remains, are people ready to limit car usage? Many people have their opinions about car usage and we may never know the answer to this question. If you think about it we have only been driving cars for a little over one hundred years. Us humans have been living on this earth for thousands of years and have been driving cars for only a little over one hundred. Cars are being more produced now than ever and I think will stay progressing for the future years to come. In reality most people need a car to live their lives. The way things are looking like now, chances are needing a car to live a normal life is going to progress in the folowing years of the future.",0
9d878bc1,0,"Transportation by a vehicle like a car is very common these days. It's an efficient way to travel for the most part, and has been used as an option for traveling since the early 1900s. Although cars have many upsides, they also have downsides too. By limiting car usage in more places, there could be many advantages. First, it could improve safety. Also, it will conserve resources. And lastly, limiting car usage will allow a tremendous decrease in pollution.

Limiting car usage will improve safety in a number of ways. By limiting car usage, there will most likely be a decrease in deaths since many car accidents result in fatality. It is not only cars colliding with other cars that is the issue it is cars having the power to destroy most things it comes in contact with. Cars are not toys but rather death machines. They have the ability to cause major damage which is why if limited usage is enforced, there will most likely be less accidents resulting in majorminor injuries or even death. There are many options for getting around besides using a car. For example, there are electric scooters, mopeds, skateboards, rollerskates, bicycles, and even good oldfashioned walking. While some of these could potentially be dangerous, they are probably not as dangerous as driving a car.

Another reason limiting car usage could be beneficial is the conservation of resources. Cars are heavy machinery and need an abundance of fuel to keep them going for years and years. What powers most vehicles currently is fossil fuel. Fossil fuel is not an everlasting resource and will be gone someday. Now there are some cars that run on electricity, but for the most part, cars around the world run on fossil fuel. Considering that there are about one to two cars per household nowadays, that would mean both cars are probably getting filled with gas or even being charged with electricity which could run your electricity bill through the roof. Since this applies to most people around the world, think of the resources being used daily. This usage of resources could be lessened by just limiting the usage of cars.

The last benefit of limiting car usage is less air pollution. Cars run on fossil fuel, as I stated in the previous paragraph. When a car is being driven, that fuel exits the car in a gas state. This gas form of fuel is very harmful to the environment. With so many cars on the road today, the atmosphere is already polluted a great deal.

Usually you will see signs that read ""No Idling"" outside of a store or any public area where cars are allowed which means that when you are parked, and are going to be parked for an extended period of time, you should turn your car off so that it does not let out gas. In Paris, a partial driving ban was actually enforced so that the amount of smog in the air would decrease. That is how much the usage of cars can affect an environment.

Overall, setting a limitation on car usage in more places can have benefits. It could improve safety, conserve resources, and allow for less pollution to the environment. With these reasons, I don't see many reasons for people to frown upon this idea.",0
9dbd5eae,0,"Uiing cari today ii polauting the air we breath in everyday, worie and wroie. Having a world free of cari would not only help with air polaution, but with everyone'i iafety ai wela. In German iuburbi 70 percent of vaughn'i familiei do not own cari, and 57 percent iold a car to move in the German Suburb. They would iela thier cari, and live without a car, and live a leii itreiiful life. ""When I had a car I wai alwayi tenie. I'm much happier thii way"" iaid Heidrun Walter, a mother of two. I'm iure Heidrun wain't the only one who felt like that.

Having no car wouldd take more itreii of your life then you think. You wouldn't have to pay a car payment every month. You wouldn't have to worry about having to pay for gai to get around. Laitly you wouldn't have to worry about getting into a car accident every time you got behind the wheel of a car.

""Ala of our development iince World war la hai been centered on the car, and that wila have to change"" iaid David Goldberg. Goldberg ii right. We put moit of our attention and development into cari, and focui more on them than we realay ihould. We don't realay realize what damage cari are cauiing ui yet, and probably won't realize for a long time from now.

after dayi of nearrecord polaution, Parii enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. On Monday motoriit with even numbered licenie platei were orded to leave thier cari at home or iuffer a 31 fine. The iame would apply to odd number platei the folaowing day. They ihould not only be doing thii in Parii but everywhere to reduce the air polaution. The fine ihould be higher alio to thoie who don't folaow the rulei. Unleii you havea real emergency to uie your car the day you are not iuppoie to then don't uie it.

Not uiing cari would be a huge problem iolver to moit of ui. It wila help with air polaution. It wila help with finacial problemi by not having to worry about car paymenti or money for gai. Laitly it wila help wiith the itreii in people'i livei and lower it.",0
9dc5efb4,0,"Cars have always been apart of American culture. From the ""...birth place of the Model Tthe home of Detroit the place where Wilson Pickett immortalized ""mustang Sally'""The End of Car Culture, Rosenthal Cars and automobile have impacted our everyday lifes from going to the store to hanging out with friends, but car usage has been steadily decreasing and for all the right reasons.

A new movement is trending everywhere,it's called ""smart planning"". It's simple, separate suburban life from auto use. In doing so this movement is going to help out the economy and also the environment. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" emphasis on original That many emissionsarehorrible for the environment and even worse for our pockets, because they're just going up in smoke.New citiesare rising and are acctuly trying to adopt this trend by making cities denser, which means that all the stores and your work place are in walking distance. By being able to walk to your local shopping store or favorite move theatre means that you're saving gas, and by saving gas the ecodimey is saving money which will make prices in all the stores and other businesses cheaper for the consumer, you!

The infamous smog is not only in Bejing, or the United States, but also in The City of Love. ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals...Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London..."" Paragraph 17, Duffer The city is not so lovely as you'd think it would be, but the trend has cought onin Paris! Not only that but it also has been great for the environment. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog...The smog rivaled Begjing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" Paragraph 14, Duffer Most people would think ""I could never do that! No one could live like that and still make a living!"" Honestly though, it's been doing the city of Bogota in Colombia, a city comprimised of 7 million citizens a favor. They held a event for only one day evey year since the mid 1990s to improve and ""...promote alternive transportation and reduce smog."" Paragraph 21, Selsky Doing this has sparked a revolution of change thoughout the whole city. More people are willing to walk insted of drive to help the environment and the place they live in, and the city is giving right back to them! ""Parks and sports centers have also bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut trafic and new restaruants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" Paragraph 28, Selsky Just one day a week could cut down smog and other green house gasses a lot and help our enviromentand the edodomey.

Back in the 1950's people had to use cars to do eveything. From talking to a friend face to face to going to the nearest resturant. But now you can do all of that in your own living room, due to technology that has advanced us to be able to use Facetime, Skype, or Oovoo to talk to our friends face to face using out phone, tablet, or personal computer. And to drive anywhere we need to we have apps the diliver taxies to our houses for us.""...the Internet makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends...Likewise the rise in cellphones and carpooling apps have facilitated more flexiable commuting arrangements, including the evolution of shared can services fro getting to work."" Paragraph 35, Rosenthal Working everyday will effect this because no one wants to miss work. Missing work means less money and creates more stress for the person missing work. By saving maybe 10 on gas that day you're missing out on the 125 you could've made by working, but there's another solution to this also. Carpool! Even if you're driving the car yourself or you're in the car you're saving fule and money. Once a week you could to this to stop in increes of smog in our environment and even help with traffic jams. And without traffic jams eveyone is less stressed out and a lot more happier.

By not using our cars as much,we can help ourselves and everyone aroud us by making a better world that makes it better for our children, or even our childrens' children. We can save money by just taking one day off of not driving. We should limit car use so we can stop car accedents from happening, getting stressed in traffic jams, to helping out the economical heart of the United States,and just to make our world a better place to have fun and thrivein.",0
9df99b46,0,"""Less Cars"" ""Vrroooom vroom,"" that is all that people hear when they step outside in the city along with honks and angry people, and police chasing people speeding. What if that was not what you had to hear all the time? What if that sounds would only be heard once every few hours or days? Thus can be a reality with limitation of car usage people would be happier, there would be less smog in the sky, the global health would go up.

With less cars comes less trouble. in Andrew Selsky's artical ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota,"" he states "" millions of Colombians Hiked, biked, skated or took the bus to work tduring carfree day"" this caused the ""streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" Because of the carfree day there were less people on the road, less traffic, and less stress about getting to work. When there is no one driving and almost everyone is taking bikes or walking, it seems like it would make small sidewalks congested it does not, because, as Andrew Selsky says, ""throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks..."" This helps make transit even easier and less hectic. In Elisabeth Rosanthal's artical, ""In German Suburb, Life Gose On Without Cars,"" she asked someone in a carless community how they felt about not having a car, she said ""'When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way.'"" People are happier without cars and without the stress that comes with them. Having less cars would also make places less polluted.

With less cars there would be less pollution in the air and less greenhouse gases that we would emit as a society. In Robert buffer's artical, ""Paris bans driving due to smog,"" he states that "" after days of nearrecord pollution"" in Paris the city officials ""enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. In Paris action was only taken when the smog made carrying out their day difficult, instead of before it got to that point. Some might say that if the imediate threat had not been there none of the citizens would have lisened to the ban but they might listen to the banning of cars now that they see how bad it can get. In Bogota, Andrew Selsky states that ""the goal of the Day Without Cars is to promote alternitive transportation and reduce smog."" This helps the enviroment and the people living there, especially those with asthma and those with heart disease can develop better exercise habits.

With less cars means more walking and less greenhouse gases. Many of the people that do not choose to ride the bus or a taxi, as Andrew Selsky says, ""hiked, biked"" or ""skated. This means that these people were exercising and getting fit, even if it was just one day. Imagine if it was not just one day though what if carfree day was carfree week, or month. This would decrease obesity in children and adults, along with lowering the hisk for heart contitions. Carfree weeks or months would make the enviroment better but also make it better for people with asthma. Less smog would mean people with asthma would be able to breathe easier in places like New York. Improving the health of people on a global scale.

Limiting car usage would be an amazing thing if it was on a global scale. Carfree days once every year are a great start to improving the planet. Car limitation would mean happier people, less pollution in the sky, and an improved standard of living. Less cars equal a better planet for every one.",0
9e132522,1,"The dispute over keeping the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote has been going on for awhile. ""The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress."" Source 1. However not everyone thinks this is fair. ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" Source 2 So as a result, it is not the people voting for their president, but it is the slate electors. Voting should be based off of popular vote because the electors might not always be picked fairly, the ""winnertakeall system,"" and what happens when there is a tie.

""Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates themselves."" Source 2 This can be a problem because voters can not control who their electors vote for, because now the decision is in their hands. Also, voters sometimes will get confused about the electors and then will vote for the wrong candidate. The electoral college is also unfair because of the winnertakeall system. According to source 2, ""candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races."" Another common concern in the electoral voting process is ""What happens when there is a tie?"" If there is a tie, the election then goes to The House of Representatives where they then have the state delegations vote on the president. This is your country, so don't you want to have a say on who runs it? ""Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect then will of the people."" Source 2 In Conclusion, we should change voting to popular vote. ""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational."" Source 2 The Electoral College is not always fair, and at times can be uncertain. As the people we should be able to vote for our president, and not have to leave it up to The House of representatives to make the right choice for us.",0
9e7b420d,1,"I wholeheartedly believe the United States should keep the electoral College because the people voting are more legit, the voters are more educated in government topics than most, and citizens still have a say in the vote. Some citizens need to realize that electing a president is a big deal. Electors have more knowledge than most citizens about those government choices and which is best for The United States. Just because it says a citizen is qualified to vote does not always mean that person is making the correct decision. The electoral college electors uses their votes on legit reasons and what can benefit their country.

Electoral College is the way to go because the people voting are more legit. These Electors see what the people who are running for president and vice president have to offer. If they feel it is more beneficial than what the other presidentvice president has to offer, they will vote for that president. Most citizens understand what the president and vice president is trying to do for their country but the other citizens who are only voting because they can, do not. These citizens still effect the elect of the president and vice president and that's why the electoral college is a must have.

Electors are usually more educated in government topics than most citizens. The electors are people from the House of Representatives and Senators also. For those Representatives and those Senators to get there, they study about the United States and it's government. When Presidents and Vice presidents state what they are willing to do for the country, those electors know if it is appropriate and necessary and which one makes more sense or benefits the country more than the other. Not that Citizens would understand the best choice for the country but more likely than not an electors would make a more educated choice than a citizen would.

Even though the electors are voting, Citizens vote still count and matter. Citizens vote for the elector who is voting for the president that the citizens wants to vote for. A citizen can vote for a certain amount of electors who pledged to vote for the desired President and Vice President. If those electors won the statewide election, that desired President and Vice president would get those certain amount of electoral votes. It all depends on the citizens to choose the electors and whoever gets the majority vote, gets the electoral votes.

In Conclusion, the electoral college definitely should stay and help choose the better President and Vice President. The electors have a more legit reason to their choice than most citizens voting, since the electors are based on Representatives and Senators, they are more educated in that government matter, and even though it is electoral votes, the citizens vote count and matter. Without the electoral college, citizens who voted for a president can lose because the people who voted for the other president didn't think about the advantage and disadvantage of that president. Even if it was the better choice, the president can have ideas that don't benefit the voter. Electoral college who be kept and help all citizens choice the more reliable President and Vice President.",0
9ec053c0,1,"In America, presidents are voted in by the electoral college. The electoral college is a process of electors from all the states that vote for the president and vice president. There are 538 electors, and you need 270 votes of that 538 to be elected. The electoral college is how we have been electing all of the presidents in America, but the president ought to be elected by a majority vote of the people, not by some fascist in a room voting for us.

Furthermore, the office of the federal register gladly explains the process of the electoral college and it has some holes. bradford Plumer explains in his article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why Even The best laid defenses are wrong"" says ""at the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters."" He goes on and exemplifies the fact that the way the votes are cast and counted could be in fact more individually based. Maybe Mr. Plumer is wrong and the electoral college is the best thing for us, but, most people would agree that if we could all vote and have every individual vote counted, we would have a fair election and the true winner would be voted in.

Perhaps in ""Five Reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president"" by Richard A. Posner, an electoral college would be good to have because of run off and big states and so forth. But plainly put, if we could just count voters as people of one nation, not individual states, we could have an efficient running election. For example: say there is 300 million people in America and the president needed 150,000,001 votes to win, then the majority rules factor can be initiated and there will be no run off, no problems with big states, no problem with swing states, and the certainty of outcome of everyone's president will be decided by majority.

Last but not least, all of the authors of the articles have great arguments and have concluded as so. ""what have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of commerce, and the AFLCIO all, in their time, agreed on? Answer: Abolishing the electoral college!"" Bradford Plumer couldnt have summarized it better. If former presidents and other powerful organizations can can agree on abolishing the outdated electoral college then why cant we just get rid of it.

Finally, the electoral college is an old and untrustworthy system of lection currently used in the united states. perhaps if we could try the majority rules and have every legal voter counted as an individual, the election process would be more faithful. All in all, with time comes changes, and with chnges comes broad new spectrums of possibilities. But for the time being we should all be proactive in staying in motion with modernization, and every little change counts. Abolishing the electoral college is an innocent and small step in the right direction.",0
9ec29a28,1,"Dear me.senator, My name is PROPER_NAME. The Electoral College is a great way to choose the President, but at the same time it isn't because it's not fair for everyone. That is why i believe the Electoral college system should be no more.

""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states."" It's not only not fair to the voters, but it also isn't fair to the people trying to campaign to be President. Everyone should have the opportunity to run for President. They may have something meaningful to say and you never know if they actually have the potential to be the President or not if you don't give them a chance.

""The winnertakeall method of awarding electoral votes includes the candidatesas we saw in 2012 election to focus their campaign efforts on the tossup states...Voters in the tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaignto really listen to the competing candidatesknowing they are going to decide the election."" Yes, the tossup states like Florida or California are most likely to be more recognized and listened to, but it is not fair to the ""swing"" states. They are just as good as the people who want to be President in the other states, too. Do you think it is fair that a man in Oklahoma is running for President, but no one is paying attention to him because he lives in a state that is rarely mentioned? No! He deserves a chance too!

So in conclusion the Electoral system may be great but, your vote should be counted also. It shouldn't only get to be the electors decision on who gets to be President, but it also shouldn't be based off the more known states. Give other states, ""swing"" states, a chance too. That is why i say the electoral system should be no more.

Thank you for your time.",0
9eef0839,0,"There are many advantages to limiting car usage. The majority of people that own a car have a lot of stress due to gas money and paying for the car. Owning a car is a serious expense. There are other types of transportation that can be useful for the people.

According to Source 1, in Vauban, Germany 70 percent of the people that live there do not own a car, and 57 percent sold a car in order to move there. People were starting to realize that when they owned a car they would always be tense. After getting rid of the car, they have been much happier and less stressed.

Since there are less cars in the streets of Germany, people have stopped and realized how beautiful everything was. Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, is now relived as she walks the verdant streets where she can hear the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children.

In Paris, France due to the cold nights and warm days, the car emissions have been trapped by the warmer layer of air. Sometimes, weather can be the effect of something bad happening to your car. In the everyday world, people have been killed and have been in serious accidents. Not only because of the weather but also because of the lack of responsibility and concentration it takes to drive a vehicle.

As said in Source 3, in Bogota, Colombia many people do not drive cars. The majority of Colombians hike, bike, skate, or take buses to work or wherever they need to go. The goal of this is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Carlos Arturo Plaza, a businessman, said ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" while he was riding his bicycle along with his wife next to him.

As people ride bike or hike or even just walk around their city, they can see and learn many new things just by being more aware of their surroundings. Cars have been in this world for a long period of time already. It's time to take a break from the madness and start realizing how beautiful life is and how beautiful it can be by not destroying it with such a machine. Not only will there be less stress, but the world will be a lot more safer than it was.",0
9f345348,0,"Humankind has always been fascinated with the concept of cars. Motorized vehicles that effortlessly take you from one area to another when compared to more traditional methods such as walking. Everyone wanted a car for themselves to become a part of the innovation. But as time has passed, we now realized that it was naive of us to think cars were going to revolutionize transport, as some of the more simpler ways of transport bike riding, bus outshined car ownership in practicality and efficiency.

Now more than ever, alternative transportation methods are being promoted heavily in order to reduce the amount of pollution in the atmosphere. A shining example of this is in Paris, France ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", source two, where the government took the initiative to limit the usage of vehicles to reduce the amount of smog in the city.

Paris, one of the most idolized cities in the world, was at a point where the density of smog and pollutants in the air rivaled Beijing, China, one of the most polluted cities in the world. However, after the driving ban in Paris, the city saw a drastic reduction in the amount of pollutants in the air, as it dropped down from 147 micrograms of particulate mattercubic meter. Not only that, but Paris also saw an improvement in car traffic, dropping down to 40 percent of what it originally was five days after the ban.

With all this in mind, how does this benefit the population without looking at the pollution reduction? This can also benefit us physically and psychologically. In Bogota, Colombia, a generally congested city, filled with traffic jams and other problems Mayor Antanas Mockus promoted alternative transportation in the ""Day Without Cars event""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota, source 3. In an effort to encourage public transportation in the city of 7 million inhabitants, Mockus promoted an event in which the only form of motorized transportation available was taxi cabs and bus rides. This mean that the people took the opportunity to bike, walk, hike from one point to another. Subsequently, this also indirectly promoted physical fitness and a stress release for people wanting to take the chance to enjoy their day. As Carlos Plaza evidently states that it is a great way to take away stress, while on a bike ride with his wife. Colombia has also opened up new bike path, parks, and sports centers, which is all the more proof that this initiative is promoting physical fitness and psychological wellness.

One could argue that this revolution of alternative transportation could have negative consequences on car industries and other businesses that rely on personal vehicle, and they wouldn't be wrong. But this phenomenon doesn't necessarily have to hurt anyone, as these same industries can promote their time and resources on projects that also promote alternative transportation. Just as well, in recent years, the amount of people getting driver's licenses and relying on personal vehicles has seen a significant decline, such as the amount of young prople driving decreaed 23 percent from 2001 to 2009, or when a study showed the amount of miles driven by the average American peaked in 2005 and steadily declined since then The End of Car Culture, Source 4. People started to see the efficiency of alternative transportation, and capitalized on the opportunity to make transportation more accessible to everyone. Whether its from the expanding bicycle paths in New York City, to the Bay Area Rapid Transport in San Francisco, these are just a few examples of the steadily growing list of cities promoting more accessible transportation.

So with all of this in mind, there is irrefutable evidence that the more simpler methods of alternative transportation to limit vehicular usage is more efficient and practical. As seen in Paris where the city saw a significant drop in the amount of smog the city contained. Or when Bogota where an event that banned vehicular usage promoted physical and psychological wellness. People opting for alternative transportation is the global phenomenon that benefits us in more ways than we can imagine. There""s no doubt that the older, more traditional methods of transportation out perform personal vehicles in efficiency.",0
9f45f83a,1,"The Electoral College has been in the Constitution since out founding fathers established it. It was an agreement between election of the President by a vote in congress and election of President by a popular vote of citizens.

As we all know the Electoral College is a process which is the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and counting of the electoral votes by Congress. There are two political parties. Democrats and Republicans. Electors are usually chosen by the person running for office's political party, but each state has their different views on how they are selected and what their responsibilities are. When the time comes, usually every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, presidential elections are held. This is the day citizens go out to their local polls and help their electors vote for President. It's not the citizens themselves who vote for the President, when citizens vote they're actually voting for their candidates electors. The process of the Electoral College has been carried on since it was first put into the constitution. So, why change it now?

The Electoral College consists of over 538 electors and a majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. The citizens vote sometime in November in polls and wait for the election of the new President. As stated before, the citizens vote does not elect the president, it helps the electors choose. However, that doesn't mean that the citizens don't have a purpose in voting. Popular vote is part of an election as well. It is rare that the Electoral College is higher in numbers that its popular votes. This is sometimes because states award electoral votes on a winnertakesall rubric.

This process requires a candidate to have transregional appeal, meaning there aren't favorites. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. This also means the presidential candidate will not gain any electoral votes by increasing his popularity in states they know they'll win in. This is a highly unlikely result that will outcome as a successful president. If this were to occur, voters in other states would feel discouraged and feel as if their votes do not count. This is why the Electoral College has this as a requirement.

In most tossup states, voters are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign and deciding or knowing who that they will decide to be president. They are most likely thoughtful voters and are perferred to be the ones to decide the election. In big states, the Electoral College adjusts the weight in the political balance that these states lose by population. In additon, large states get more attention of candidates in a campaign that the smaller states do.

These are just few of many resons why the Electoral college should stay as is. If they were to change the Electoral College, what would they do to elect a president? It would be chaotic and the people may rebel. In conclusion, keeping the Electoral College as it is should be the only process to elect a president.",0
9f9af133,1,"The founding father's wanted a good amount of power to the people so the president wont have full control over the country. With the electorsal collage in act it will give less power to the people, gives more power to the electorss, and the disaster factor.

The electorsal collage gives less power to the people. This is true because the people have to vote for a electors instead of the president himself. People may get confuse on who is voting for who. Ultimately the only types of votes that actually matter end up being the electorss votes. Sometimes ""faithless"" electorss have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please. This makes the peoples votes almost worthless.

Electoral collage gives more power to the electorss. The founding father wanted to give power to all the people not small groups of them. state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electorss, and that those electorss could always defy the will of the people. This means the electorss have the vote not the people. When the actual people vote they basically fliped a coin hopeing that some person they don't know voted for the right guy. The electorss vote is what matters not the peoples.

The single best argument against the electorsal collage is what we might call the disaster factor. The 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse. State legislatures pick the electorss, and these electorss can disregard the people's votes and pick who ever they want. Back in 1960, segregationists in the louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the democratic electorss with new electorss who would oppose John F. Kennedy.

The electorsal collage system is a bad idea because it gives less power to the people, gives more to the electorss, and it is a disaster factor.",0
9fcd2d02,0,"In the world today you will see cars just about everywhere, whether it be a toyota pirus, or an 1999 honda civic. Car no doubly have been one of the largest, if not, the greatest inventions this world has ever seen. Although nowadays when we start to talk negativially about the car, people seem to turn their heads away to avoid the question. Reducing the use of cars in the world would be massively beneficial to the environment, and not only that, everyday life. Limiting car usage will help reduce pollution into the atmosphere through reducing carbon emissions, it will help save money and also it will help reduce stress and tense mindset.

One of the largest benefits of reducing car usage in the world is the reduction of greenhouse gases being released in to the atmosphere coming out the exhaust pipes of cars. According to In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars up to 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come from cars in car congested areas. In the passage the text explains how a social experiment turned into a growing trend in Europe today. In suburban town of Vauban, many people have utitmatly given up their cars. How this was done you may ask? In the town driveways are forbidden swell as home garages. Car Ownership isnt forbidden though,but to own a car is quite difficult and costly. With only two places to park in the whole town, it makes ownership very difficult. The lifestyle of people here without cars ultimately reduced stress and increased health, and much happier and healthier lifestyles were made. Another example will be in Paris, France. After the city received near recordbreaking pollution in the air, Paris officials took action. They banned driving for two days to attempt to reduce carbon emissions. The way they enforced this rule was by fines throughout the city for no cooperation. On that monday on the first day of the ban, only 4000 fines were given. Many people were complained of inconvience and companies complained of lost revenue, Although the incovencies, the ban for just one day reduced the smog almost completely and allowed for Pairs to lift the scheduled ban on that tuesday. So even though in some places the reduction of car usage may cause incovience, the reduction carbon emissions cant go unnoticed, and it is huge advantage.

Reduction of the usage of cars will not only reduce Greenhouse gases but it will also help people conserve and save money and stay stress free. Limiting car usage will save you money a couple ways, one of which is not having to fuel up your car to save money. Fuel prices are always moving up and down, but more recently they have been very high. For many people they are spending over 50 dollars at the pump just to dirve 50 or so miles. With reduction of car usage people wont have to spend as much money at the pump. Reduction of car usage will also help reduce spending money because it wont allow to buy things at certain stores that you have to drive too, and things like that. Another advantage of the reduction of the usage of the car is the reduce in stress for a person. In town of Vauban, Heidrun Waltert said, ""When I had a car, i was always tense. Im much happier this way."" This way he mean the way without a car.",0
a002a6ef,0,"People use cars everyday, but limiting car usage can be very beneficial. There are many advantages when limiting car usage. Limiting car usage can clear smog, reduce traffic, and it make people less stressed. Many people use cars, but that number has decreased over the last few years. There are many other ways to get to a place rather than using cars. We are now open to many options of transportation. Cars can be used, but there should be limits.

Limiting car usage can clear pollution, particularly smog. For example,""Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middleclass families from Chicago to Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions rom tailpipe""Rosenthal. Cars are an impediment to the efforts of trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With the limiting of car usage, those greenhouse gas emissions can surely decrease a lot. It will make the air healthier for people to live, and for future generations. Smog and greenhouse gas emissions can reduce greatly if cars have limited usage.

Not using cars can make people happy,less stressed out, and relieved of tension. People don't have to worry about their cars, and paying for gas and other things when they don't use their cars. For instance,""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way""Rosenthal. A woman is saying he is happier when he doesn't use his car. Another example is ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution""Selsky. Both of those claims are very true. It does take away stress for him, while it reduces pollution. That's a winwin. With less stress and tension, people will be happier in their lives and there might be less problems in society. Limiting car usage can have really great impacts on people's happiness.

Reducing the usage of cars can also reduce traffic, making it easier for other people that use cars. In France,""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital""Duffer. 60 percent is a big amount of traffic. I'm pretty sure that that would satisfy alot of people. No traffic means less accidents, and less people worried about being late to school or work. Only a crazy person would actually want to be in traffic. There would also be less noise of cars, and more peaceful sounds. Limiting the usage of cars can guarantee the satisfaction of people that normally go through traffic, and those who don't like it.

There are many reasons to limit the usage of cars because there are so many advantages. People will be less stressed and more happy, there will be less traffic, and the air will be less polluted with smog and greenhouse gas emissions. The possibilites are endless. It is very simple less cars, more benefits. People need to realize that having cars may have some benefits when trying to get somewhere, but it makes more sense not to because there are so many advantages. Limited car usage can benefit people in many ways.",0
a01b9d00,1,"Dear Senator of Florida, Electoral Colleges are big parts in the presidential elections, but I don't think we should use them anymore, I think we should elect our president by popular vote.

Why should Electoral Colleges not be used anymore? They should'nt be used anymore because as it states in paragraph 10, source 2 that "" Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" Meaning that who you vote for goes through the system and then if all the electors felt like you did the electors would give the votes towards that candidate. But if they didnt feel the same way as the majority of the voters than maybe another candidate would end up with more electoral votes.

Another example is the 2000 elections, Al Gore received more individual votes than George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266, it says in source number 2. If the majority of people vote for one person, why does another become President? It doesn seem fair to me, if the people vote for what they want they should get what they asked for.

In the diagram in source 3, it shows the amount of votes each state gets if you look at the difference in the numbers you can see why this is not fair. For example Rhode Island has only 1 vote but California has 55, if the whole state of Rhode Island votes for the same candidate and only 51% of California votes for a Candidate, who do you think the upper hand willgo for? Oh yeah! California's vote. And that goes for a lot of states, half of the country can vote for the same president but they have a small amount of votes and California has 55! Its not fair at all.",0
a01ee7e7,0,"Cars most people use them for transportation. It's our lazy way of getting to places.

Automobiles benefit us plenty when it comes to getting from point A to point B, but they also have a big negative impact. Cars are responsible for a huge amount of pollution like greenhouse gas emissions and smog. If we were to limit car usage, we could decrease the amount of stress and pollution emitted into the air, as well as give our community a chance to improve.

In Vauban, Germany, residents have given up their cars and have no problem doing so. Cars are generally not allowed, forbidden some would say, in this district. vaughn's streets are pretty much ""carfree"". Of course car ownership is still allowed, with the exception that you have to be able to find a place to park since there are only two places large garages at the end of the development, where a carowner can buy a space for 40,000, along with a home. ""When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" Heidrun Walter stated, a mother of two. Experts say automobiles are a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe. In Europe, passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States. Paris participated in a driving ban, which violators suffered a fine of 22euro31. Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals, for example, last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter while Brussels had 114 PM and 79.7 PM in London. Since Paris participated in this ban, 60 percent of Paris' smog has cleared.

In Bogota, Columbia, the city held a carfree day, leaving the streets eerily devoid of traffic jams. It was the third year in a row cars have been banned with only buses and taxis permitted to this Day Without Cars. Their goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog as well. Violators here faced 25 fines. Even with occasional bad weather, people still participated in this event. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said Carlos Arturo Plaza, a business man, as he rode a twoseated bicycle with his wife. The Day Without Cars allowed parks and sports centers to bloom, uneven sidewalks to be replaced wih broad smooth sidewalks, new restaurants and upscale shopping districs to crop up, and rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic.

In the United States, Americans are starting to buy fewer cars, drive less, and get fewer licenses as each year passes partially because cashstrapped Americans couldn't afford new cars. If this pattern continues, which many sociologists believe, it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the enviornment. Even though reducing automobile transportation could have negative implications for car industries, the positive affects are much more important. In this generation, the internet allows people to connect without having to drive to meet friends. At the Mobile World Congress last year in Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, laid out a business plan for a world in which personal vehicle ownership is impractical or undesirable. Ford proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which ""pedesrtian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety."" In conclusion, cars are starting to be less and less of a neccesity, and more and more people are starting to notice that automobiles are just hurting the enviornment. By limiting car use, it can limit stress, help the enviornment as well as communities to improve, save time, conserve resources and improvee safety. There are plenty of other ways to get transportation that are less damaging and dangerous, like bicycles and walking. Of course it may take a little longer to get places without a car, but you can always ride a bus, or enjoy the scenery while riding a bike or walking.",0
a09bc43c,1,"The Electoral College consists of more cons than pros. The systems that the unprogrammed engineers work on are complicated vast perspectives. When a president gets elected the most voters and does not receive presidency, wouldn't that confuse you. Popular voting is an effective way to give a candidate presidency simply because the people want that candidate to be the one responsible for the United States. The Electoral College needs to change the way it picks its president. Otherwise, the U.S. would be vulnerable to a president that most people completely denied for the other candidate.

The thing with popular voting is that people can get the president they want. When the elections are based on which candidate has the most popular votes, there are no crazy tricks or a hidden trump card. All you have is a candidate that deserves to be the president of the United States. A good example is Al Gore and his presidency crisis. Most voters looked up to him as president. It was only until the quirks of the electoral college stole his opportunity of becoming president thanks to the system of the electoral college we have today. The situation that makes this crisis even worse is how the voters for the actual electors themselves cannot control whether they win the election or lose. This means that if we keep the routine of the electoral college we have now, there are many opportunities for an unwanted elector. Therefore, leading to an unwanted president.

Ever since 2000, many people have been suffering from economics and industry. This is the simple result of a bad electoral college system. The people of course should have most of the perks in picking a president. If the president is bad at his job in making the U.S. habitable, then the electors are to blame for making a huge mistake. Many doors are opened to sudden changes and confusing decisions. John F. Kennedy could've lost his position since all of the votes didn't necessarily go to him. There's a valid reason why people vote for a candidate. To pick the president they know suits them best.

I will admit to this though. Popular voting is not the accurate way to go through with. I mean there are situations where people just pick a president because he looks professional. Others are simply racist and go for the white candidate or even viseversa. Popular voting is not perfect in the sense of the psychological opinions of the voters themselves. Besides, all of the people living in american soil are different minded. There is literally no way to immediately recognize who the voter is and why his reasons for voting are wrong. There is also nothing we can do since people are allowed to vote for whatever reasons they want.

Due to all of the information given to me about Al Gore and unwanted electors, it is the best solution to change the system to popular voting. Both sides of the arguments have strong reasons to either keep their system or change the way the electoral college is run. Meanwhile, lets be honest. There have been more political downfall with the system we have now that can be fixed with popular voting. Even though there are people that vote for selfish and unreliable reasons, there is still a balance of the people who want this president and the people who don't. The U.S. is consisted of minds that think completely different in the sense of human nature. We don't live in a utopia where everyone agrees with eachother. Now, being able to let the U.S.",0
a0a6bf23,1,"The Electoral College system is not something American citizens should experience. Theis system of voting has many flaws, even some of the top political leaders such as richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter agree. I believe that we should get rid of the electoral college system and change it to election by popular vote for president for these reasons, It is unfair to voters and the electoral college has a big disaster factor.

The electoral college system is very unfair towards voters. Under this system voters aren't even voting for president, rather they are voting for a slate of electors who vote for the president. Ins't that the whole point of voting for president that you actually vote for president? Well under this system it is impossible. In source 2 it gives the example, ""If you lived in Texas, for instance, and you wanted to vote for John Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the offchance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry would get 34 electoral votes"". As show in this statement when voters want to vote for president they dont actually vote for president, in turn they vote for electoral votes. This defeats the whole purpose of Americans voting for their president. This goes against the American ideal that American is a Democracy in which people vote for their leaders. Another reason why this system is unfair to voters is because of its winnertakeall system in each state. According to source 2 "", candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all,"" This in turn is unfair to those people in the states where candidates didn't visit. As mentioned in source 1 ""Most states have a ""winnertakeall"" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate"". This statement is not at all fair. It is saying that the electors of the winning candidates team are rewarded while the other electors on the other side are not. How is this in any way fair towards the oposing teams electors? All of this is caused by the winnertakeall system caused by electoral college, which again is unfair to many American citizens.

Another reason why we should get rid of the electoral college system is because of its disaster factor. Americans should considers themselves lucky due to the whole 2000 election crisis which was the biggest in a century. This system allows for much worse to happen during these elections. Getting rid of it is one of the only ways to solve that problem. This system causes many problems, for example source 2 states ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy. P"" This shows that this system has caused many mishaps in the past that could occur again. The American people should not be subject to these disasters. Another disaster factor that goes along with the electoral college system is that some electors have not voted for their own party, causing a disturbance in the voting. Source 2 states ""In the same vein, ""faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please..."" In no way shape or form is this fair towards the candidates party's. This infidelity can sway the predicted outcome of the election. Resulting in a surprise for many of America's citizens when they see the voting results. This electoral college system can cause many different problems resulting in disasters. A few have already happened in the past, as mentioned, and America shouldn't have to endure another one. This is why we should eliminate the electoral college system and change to election by popular vote for president.

All and all, the electoral college is unfair and disasterous. It causes many issues with the voting for President in America. Many Americans believe that is system is definatly not working. This is why we need to change to election by popular vote. Famous politition Bob Dole one stated, ""Abolish the electoral college!"" and he seems to be right.",0
a0b6c998,1,"I argue in favor of keeping the electoral college because of the fact that if the popular vote and the vote in congress were to fail, there would be a backup way of casting, counting and recording votes by a qualified group of citizens, as stated in the first paragraph of the prompt. I believe the Electoral College should not be abolished also, for the reason that each candidate for president has an amount of electors chosen, varying on the state laws in effect in the given state he or she is being elected from. Also, an advantage of the Electoral College is also that the winning presidential candidate is awarded all of the electors in most states, except Maine and Nebraska, stated in the seventh paragraph.

The College also identifies which electors will represent your state at the meeting of electors, as well as the presidential candidate. Just like almost anything, the Electoral College has flaws, such as electors can be any person not holding public office, and, depending on the state, whoever selects electors may vary. Plus, not everyone can control who their electors vote for, but the Electoral College has been in effect for over 200 years, established by the founding fathers themselves in the Constitution, so why not trust that they knew what they were doing? Besides, when each party selects a slate of electors, they put their trust, which, might I add, is rarely betrayed. But there is the problem that not all winners of electoral votes will not win the national vote such an instance happened in 2000, when Al Gore had more popular votes than George Bush, yet fewer electoral votes. Even so, that was the first time since 1888, as said in paragraph 16.

There are a few practical reasons the Electoral College, even though it lacks a democratic pedigree, should be retained. Reason one is a certainty of outcome. An example is in the 2012 election, when Obama recieved 61.7 percent of electoral votes, while rodney recieved 51.3 percent of popular votes. A tie, is also possible, seeing as the total number of votes, 538, is even. Another example is how the electoral college restores some of the weight in political balance, in which large states, populationwise, lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution. The subject of the Electoral Coolege's method of selecting a president is controversial in the sense that it may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state, such as Democrats in Texas, or Republicans in California,when they know their vote will have no effect, their incentive is much less than if it were picked by popular vote.",0
a0d26ca2,1,"The Electoral College is a process which occurs in the United States to help determine the president for the next four years of the entire nation. It is a very controversial topic and a plethora of people want to disregard the Electoral College. People want to vote for their president, but ultimately they are voting for the electors of the state who represent the president in the end. The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. It makes the voters feel like they have less power when they are voting and when people of a nation feel that way, they lose interest and lose the desire to vote for their country because they feel like their vote will not count or have and affect.

At the end of paragraph 10, two questions are asked, ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for?"" and ""Do voters get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate?"". The answers werenot always and sometimes. If a system or process confuses people enough where they vote for the wrong candidate they desired, then that system needs to go. That system is the Electoral College.

The single best argument against the electoral college is the disaster factor. With a name like that, you know this system cannot be good. Also, 3 high ranking officials and a couple of them that opposed the electoral college, were former presidents. They were Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bob Dole. The electoral confused system works like this. Voters vote for a slate of electors who in turn are the ones who elect the president. Is'nt the whole point of the election to vote for your candidate that you would like to win, and not his employees'? When a state votes for a president and has their majority vote, then the amount of electors in the state are what counts towards the voting polls. The state electors could be anyone not holding office at that time. Furthermore, electoral votes can possible end in a tie due to the fact that there is an even number of electors, 568, which is a big worry in the result of the election. Compared to electoral votes, there is only 55 representatives in California, but there is 35 million people in the state. A tie almost guaranteed, will not happen with that comparison.

A winner take all system is in play with the electoral college process. The system consists of when a president wins an election then all electors part or even somewhat representing that candidate are now with the president. Also bigger states have more representatives and the candidates focus more on those states to try and win them over. it leaves the smaller states like Wyoming and South Dakota, for example, to be left out of the equation and not be focused on too much in the process.

All in all, the elctorall college and process needs to be abolished and is not fair to the people of the nation voting and being taken advantage of.",0
a0e37d2c,1,"Dear, state senator The Electoral College should be removed from our way of voting we should change it to election by popular vote for the president of the United States because state senators are voting for our president and not us. As stated by Mr. Bradford Plumer in his article "" The Indefensive Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong "".

"" Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for John Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the offchance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry would get 34 electoral votes."" This claim tells how the president is choose and its not by our votes its by the slate of electors votes.

Also,the Electoral College should be removed from our way of voting we should change it to election by popular vote for the president of the United States because the electoral college is a disaster waiting to happen. Mr. Bradford Plumer states in his "" The Indefensive Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong."" "" The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse."" The importance of this quote is because it tells us that there could be more disasters to come from the Electoral College.

The Electoral College should stay our way of voting because with it we avoid runoff elections. Mr. Richard A. Posner states in his article "" In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" that we avoid runoff elections. "" The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent of plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electotal College 301 and 370 electoral votes, respectively.There is pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner...."" The importance in the counterclaim is that it shows that the Electoral College process had a clear winner.

Also, the Electoral College should stay our way of voting because of majority vote.The Office of the Federal Register states in their article "" What is the Electoral College?"" in the third paragraph. "" The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state's entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House od Representatives plus two for your Senators...."" This quote shows how each state has so many electors.

In conclusion, the Electoral College is both good and bad for our voting system. Some systems are wrong and some are right but its a hard decision to make with the Electoral College because its both wrong and right. We dont need no disasters in the voting system we already have enough disaters in the world that we live in.",0
a0fa9be5,1,"Dear Senator, I want to change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States because it is easier and makes a lot more sense. When you vote by the Electoral College, you are actually voting for your candidates electors. When you vote for the electors, it doesn't necessarily mean they will vote for their candidate. Voters can't always control who their electors vote for, as stated in ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always."" There is a single argument against the Electoral College is best known as the disaster factor. In 1960, segregationists who were in the Louisiana Legislature succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with electors that would oppose John F. Kennedy. They did this so that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy. In almost the same way, ""faithless"" electors sometimes refuse to vote for their party's candidate. Instead they cast a deciding vote for whoever they want.

The electors and segregationists in the Electoral College think they can do whatever they please. They make decisions that wouldn't be fair to the voters or the candidates. If the voter votes for a certain candidate but the elector votes for a different candidate, this could cause trouble and madness within the election. The Electoral College is not always fair. However, if we switch to the election of the popular votes, the election would be fair. The candidates would be chosen based on the number of votes they got from voters, not by who the electors want to vote for.

People also worry about the prospect of a tie in the Electoral College. If this happens, the election would be handed over to the House of Representatives. Then the state delegations would vote on the president. In this case, the Senate would choose the vicepresident.""Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative in Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters"". From this context, we can say that the House's selection can barely be expected to reflect the will of the people.

I think the Electoral College is not accurate and the electors in it are not very fair. If someone elects a certain candidate, but the elector votes for someone else, there really isn't a purpose for people to vote. If people don't vote, then our country won't have a president. The Electoral College can take this country downhill in several ways. We should let the people decide who they want to run their country. That way, the voting will be more fair, easier, and not as many bad things could happen while the process of voting is going on. I think the Electoral College should not be the way that our country's citizens should vote by.",0
a12db4d7,0,"Cars may have some advantages, but the world, would be a better place if we limited car usage. The benefits of limiting our usage of cars is, it will help improve the environment, there are healthy alternatives, and not using cars as much will decrease stress that people have.

Decreasing our car usage will improve the environment. In the artical ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, he says "" Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" In France they banned even numbered licence plates from driving, for one day, and one day was all it took for the high levels of smog to decrease. In another article ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal it talks about the decrease usage of cars through the years, paragraph 34 says "" If the pattern persistsand many sociologists believe it willit will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment."" If the people keep slowing down on using cars, which scientist believe it will, there will be better carbon e,issions in the air, and the air will be better. Limiting car usage will help make our environment better.

Walking, biking, and skating are all exercises that help you stay fit, but they are also a healthy alternative to cars. A artical published in the Seattle Times called ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky describes the day that is trending all over the world, the day cars are banned. People in these countries, in this case Colombia ""hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work"" Banning car usage encourages people to get up and walk, run, or bike because they can't use their car. In the town Vauban, Germany a car free town, people walk everywhere, because the town has no cars. In the town ""...where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."" The people in this town are walking and staying fit everyday.

One last benifit of limited car usage is it causes people less stress. Heidrun Walter , a mother of two who lives in Vauban, Germany, says "" When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier now."" Once Walter sold her car she was relived, she didn't have to worry about making her next car payment, when she would have to get gas again, or how much money gas was. Getting rid of her car relived her stress. Not using cars will decrease the amount of stress in society.

Over all, limiting are car usage would greatly benifit us, it will help keep the environment clean, keep our people healthy, and it will cause people less stress.",0
a130e934,0,"For many years people have been using cars to get around to do their important tasks. The stress every individual has to go through just to make it through the day could be difficult. It is better if we create a car free world. Just picture you waking up in the morning peacefully without the sounds of car motors turning on or the smell of smoke in the air. With the reduction of cars, the planet would be a healthier and safer place to live on.

Limiting car usage can have a numerous amount of advantages to citizens. With all the issues every country has, the most important one is the emission of green house gases. With the use of less cars, the green house gas percentage rate will go down significantly. In source 3 it says ""Its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" As this event starts to happen the Earths atmosphere will start to recover and there would be less traffic on the roads. In source 3, Bogota Colombia has a program named the ""Day Without Cars."" This program has a goal to promote another way of transportation to the people and to reduce smog in their capital city. While it on their third year, ""people are generating a revolutionary change..."" said Enrique rivera. Since this event is becoming more successful parks and sports centers have been used more throughout the city. In source 2, Pari has a situation of smog too. They decided to created a ""partial driving ban"" which allowed the air to be cleared in Paris but also fined 4,000 drivers with the cost of 22euros 31 or impounded cars for their ""reaction of the fine."" Another advantage citizens have to limiting car usage is that it lowers the cost of individual of paying their car bills and the amount of gas which is really high. With other types transportation like public buses, walking or riding a bicycle this effort helps to conserve resources that are about to disappear since we use them too much and it improves our safety with the reduction of having car accidents due to traffic jams. In source 1 Vauban, Germany their is a community that has 5,500 resident that do not own a car. This community restricts car into their streets. This community is a ""lowcar suburban life"" that has a wallkway,stores on the main street and some distant highways with the help of public transportation.

As we continue our effort into establishing a ""car free"" community it will benefit us in the future. While we reduced the percentage of green house gases in the air then the government will not have to worry about one problem and move to something that needs to be fixed right away. All the taxes we've have beeen paying will to crisis outside of our country. If we expand these no car communties that Colombia and Germany have then there will be a ""shift in American behavior"" source 4 states. Americans love cars but as the years passed by from ""20052013 the miles driven per persons have slowly decereased 9 percent."" Hopefully,as the next few year it will make a difference.

Even though us humans love cars their is a limit into how much we should use them. But as we grow we will have a healthier and dafer planet to live on, spend less moeny on cars and more money on important nessesites, and it woyukd create a better future for our children an their families.",0
a15c21cf,0,"Limiting car usage has many advantages, from saving money, from helping save the planet. We spend tons and tons of dollars on a simple fossil fuel just so we can get around. Although, having a car may be nice, but also you may need to think about the long term consequences that are yet to come. For example, driving around while fun, is dangerous, you are facing the threats of drunk drivers, people not paying attention or something in general going wonky with your car, or how incredibly expensive cars are, you must buy the gas fill it up almost every two days, you will have to pay for any damages and also for the tune ups. Cars arent just expensive but they also do loads of damage to the environment. Cars, create fumes that are let out into the atmosphere that contributes to global warming. Sure, it may be nice to drive a big bubba truck with huge tires, some smoke stacks and to be able to ""roll coal"" but also think about what that does to the earth, it helps melt glaciers causing polar bears to be hot and hungry.

Driving a car may be convenient, but when something is convenient something else has to suffer. This something else would be the environment, there is less and less clean air for us to breathe, everything is getting hotter and everyone is suffering. Smog is one of the most relevant and visible issues, especially in bigger cities. Smog is a mixture of smoke, and fog, this smoke coming from vehicles and mostly factories. Going into a major city like New York City may be fun but while your there look around and notice the thick layer of smog. You are breathing all of that through out your body. While New York City may not be the foggiest city around such as Beijing Source 2: Paris bans driving due to smog, Line 14 but it is still an on going issue everywhere.

All in all, leaving your car at home and taking a bike to work instead can have many health benefits but also many environmental benefits, so next time you think about bringing your car to work, think of the polar bears and the future of the environment.",0
a1800618,0,"Goodmorning fellow citizens , i hope you all are having a wonderful day! Could that possibly be because you all walked or rode your bike to this meeting today? The reason behind that is because there are many advantages tolimiting car usage. You are less tense and happier , , smog free air , and you can have fun with it! Bringing together your community. Now , who's up for a challenge.

CarFree Cities as in Source 1:""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"" , by Elisabeth Rosenthal , made really good points.First i would say , not having your car makes you stress free. 70% of vaughn's families do not own cars , and 50% sold a car to move here. ""When i had a car i was always tense. Im much happier this way"" , said Heidrun Walter , a media trainer and mother of two , as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor. People are giving up their cars because they claim it's more to life. In the United States , the environmental Protection Agency is promoting ""car reduced"" communities , and legislators are starting to act.

Source 2: ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" , by Robert Duffer , talks about ""healthier"" air. So , another advantage would be to have smogfree air. Congestion was down 60% in the capital of France after five days of intensifying smog. Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions , diesel fuel was to blame. Delivery companies complained of lost revenue and Public transit was free of charge from Friday Monday , according to BBC. The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for odd numbered plates on Tuesday. This way the air we breath doesn't harm us.

Source 3: ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" , by Andrew Selsky is exciting.Lastly i would like to state , you can have fun with not having a car bringing together your community. In a program millions of Columbians hiked , biked , skated , or took buses to work during a carfree day. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution , "" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife. Parks and sports centers also have bloomed and new improvements have been made everywhere. Source 4: ""The End of Car Culture"" , by Elisabeth Rosenthal explains thegreenhouse effect also , and the change it's had on the economy.

In my closing remarks i would like to say overall the advantages of limiting car usage is amazing! We can have fun with it and improve global warming and our economy. Who wants to help me tell the mayor this situation? I'm about to give in my car right now! You are less tense , smogfree air , and your community can join in. Now i ask again......",0
a1939e1f,0,"Why drive when you can use many other alternatives ! There are many reasons why the citizens in my town and all across the world should limit car use. Three really good reasons are, to limit pollution, to lower stress, healthier life style.

My first reason for thinking that we should limit are car usage because it is a very big cause of pollution. In the article written by Elisabeth Rosenthal she states ""Passenger cars are responsible for up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" Pollution is a very serious is that could easily be stop or reduced. Its also can be as simple as walking to your destination, car pooling, or even taking the bus. In the cities of Paris in France to help to reduce the smog and pollution they banned driving even numbered license plates from driving on one day and banned odd numbers on the next, Alternating every other day. Enough smog and pollution cleared one of the following days that the lifted the ban on odd numbered plates they were allowed to drive. These all always very easy ways to help stop pollution.

The second the reason why I thinking that we should limit our car use is if were to use them less it could lower our stress levels. The cities of Bogota, Colombia have day in which no one use a car for the whole day unless its public transportation or a taxis. One citizen claimed during car free day that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" Another citizen who lives in a community where the streets are completly ""carfree"" says ""When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"". If the citizens of the world were to cut down on the use of air polluting vehicles it could also not only less polluted place but also more calm and less stressed out people.

My final reason for agreeing with idea of limiting car usage is if we drive less we could all lead healthier lifestyles. Imagine how many calories you can burn by walking to corner store or taking a bike to your nearest walmart. The health benefits are endless. If you think about it sitting in the car barley moving to do anything you dont loose any calories at all. So why not walk, run, or jog instead.

In conclusion i think it would be best for all us to cut down the use of driving. My three reason are, to limit pollution, to lower stress, healthier life style. This would benefit not only us but to future generations of the world.",0
a1b43308,0,"As an American citizen, I am aware that cars are a big form of transportation. For me that is my way of getting everywhere. But I never really thought about the consequences of driving a car or even that there may be advantages to not driving one. Other countries have realized that their are advantages and are working on promoting citizens to use other types of transportation. Through out the world many countries are pushing for ""carfree"" areas and eventually ""carfree"" countries. Many of these countries are trying different strategies to accomplish this goal. Some examples would be Paris, where they only permit certain cars to drive each day depending on their license plate number, as found in source 2, parts of Germany are creating ""carfree"" communities and if you want to have a car you must pay 40,000 dollars in order to park in a parking garage in the front of the community, according to source 1, even Cities in Colombia promote what they call a Day Without Cars, as said in source 3. Even though here in the United States we haven't enforced any laws against driving, some citizens are choosing to not to drive. These countries are creating these new lifestyles in order to prevent air pollution, take away the stress of driving on the roads, and to bring the communities closer together.

As many people may already know, cars release greenhouse gasses that are harmful to our environment. As said in source 1, ""Passenger cars are responsible for up to 12 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions into the environment."" Parts of Germany are working to solve this issue by creating ""carfree"" communities. Some of these communities house up to 5500 residents. This change is getting a positive reaction, with more people moving into these communities than predicted. This is a movement called ""smart planning"" which is a trend that is growing and spreading into many parts of Europe, some parts of the United States and elsewhere.

Paris however is trying a different strategy that doesnt require people moving into completely new areas. They are now enforcing laws permitting certain cars to drive on their designated days. For example, on Mondays drivers who's cars have evennumbered license plates must leave their cars at home and find a different form of transportation for that day or else they will be fined 22euros31. So far 4,000 drivers have been fined. Paris's goal is also to cut down the emission of harmful gasses into the environment but mainly trying to reduce smog. Since deisel fuel is a large contributor and the majority of the vehicles in Paris run on diesel fuel they are cutting down the number days you are allowed to drive.

Colombia is also using Paris' strategy, but their ""carfree"" days are limited to once every year. Colombia has been using this stategy for 3 years and each year getting a better turnout of people participating. Violators who choose to drive on this day known as the Day Without Cars day, are fined 25. Their goal is to promote alternative transportation, interaction between citizens, limit individuals stress levels, and reduce smog. Heidrun Walter, a citizen in Colombia quoted, ""When I drive my car I'm always tense. I'm much happier when I'm not behind the wheel."" Haidrun is just one of many citizens who have expressed their interest in this new method.

After looking at the consequences of driving a car, and seeing the multiple advantages of not having one has changed my perspective on things. I know the feeling of being stressed when driving and I've always thought, if I could I would choose a different form of transportation. After seeing other countries promoting their citizens to choose alternative forms of transportation, I now hope the United States will enforce something similar. Not only do you help the environment but it is safer for yourself and everyone around you. Living a lifestyle with no air pollution, stress, or traffic jams will be safer and more efficient. Hopefully every other citizens perspective on this will change, if it hasn't already. I'm lookinf forward to seeing you walking next to me on the sidewalk.",0
a1bfbd12,0,"When each person drives a dieseltussling car, it is like several thousand smoke covered knives being thrown at the soft protective blanket up in the sky. Pollution is destroying our ozone and our environment, but now we need to face our ramifications. Autos are causing cities to form new laws banning these leeches from being driven. Car usage should be limited, because if we dont, our pollution will be worse than it already is, and using a healthy alternative to transportation will lead to a healthier life style.

Pollution produced by our main method of transportation is killing our planet. We live on the wonderful planet earth which has been generous to provide us with a home and food so we can survive, but when our home is destroyed, we will soon become extinct. Global warming is a famous term heard around the globe, and this word is not used lightly. Our world is heating up due to the many green house gasses produced by the emissions of the cars we use. These green house gasses can not escape our atmosphere which then is heated up by the sun and is melting our polar ice caps. These ice caps, not only will flood multiple cities, killing thousands if they do not escape in time, but they also hold our natural fresh water reserve. The green house gasses are affecting our seas and our skies as well. An article called Paris Bans Sriving Due to Smog , written by Robert Duffer, states that ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog... The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" Beijing is also one of the worlds most populated countries. The terrifying smog and the rising seas are not the only factors leading to our demise. The green house gasses are producing holes in our ozone that protect us from harmful sun rays. Without the ozone, the world would not be habitable because of all the cancer humans will have by just standing in direct sunlight. We are the world, and by killing the world, we eradicate our whole species. We need to help our world with some healthy substitutions to cars.

There are several different ways transportation could be healthy for both the environment and ourselves. The worlds obesity population is higher than ever. An average amount of calories we need to consume per day is about 2000 calories and most of the world are consuming way over that limit. If we supply bicycles to cities, we could burn off those extra calories by just going to public places, events,and even jobs. Biking and walking to places not only work out your physical apearance, but also keeps our mind healthy. Exercise trigger neurotransmitters in your brain to fire off endorphins, like adrenaline, which keeps your body moving and working without putting strain on your muscles. Exercise also fires off dopamine in your mind which produces a sense of joy. Elisabeth Rosenthal wrote an article named "" In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars "" which interviews people from germany about their lifestyle. ""'When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."" Life is much more jovial with no cars, and germany knows it.

There are already different countries that have moderated and replaced their walking smoke factories to their fat burning bikes. We need to follow in their foot steps and moderate if we do not want to be left in the dark ages. The government needs to limit the amount of usage for cars, because the constant use of autos will lead to out doom via pollution, and without cars, people are more likley to live more healthy and happy lifestyle.",0
a1ff36b0,1,"Dear senator, the system we have today used to elect the president, the Electoral College, must be changed. Instead, we should elect the president by means of a popular vote. The Electoral College is unecessary and complicated, and not to mention, outdated. Source 1 says that the Electoral College was established in the Constitution by the founding fathers. This begs the question, how can a system so old still be practical and in use today? This system, therefore, needs to be replaced by a national popular vote.

There are so many things that could go wrong with the Electoral College, such as a tie, in which the decision would go to the House of Representatives. According to Source 2, if this were to happen, than, ""the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters."" This, of course, would not reflect the nation's vote, and would anger millions of people. If we elected the president by a popular vote, than the chances of this happening would be significantly more slim.

Another flaw of the Electoral College is that even if a presidential nominee won the popular vote, they could still lose the election. Even though some may argue that this occasion is highly unlikely, this has actually happened twice before, in 1888 and 2000, according to Source 3. ""It is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote... It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes."" This is a major flaw of the Electoral College system, which is very frustrating to millions of people. Imagine how you would feel if your candidate won the majority of the nation's vote, but still lost the election because of this horrible voting system. This unfair incidence could be avoided, if only we got rid of the Electoral College, and replaced it with the simple, fair, and straightforward method of the popular vote.

The popular vote is the preferred voting system in the United States. According to Source 2, ""over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" If this is the preferred voting system, and the Electoral College has so many flaws, why not change to using the popular vote? It only makes sense. Not to mention, if the Electoral College were to be thrown out, then maybe more people would come out to vote, which is important. We would then have a more accurate representation of who the nation wants as their leader.

Some may argue that the Electoral College is a good system of electing the president, that the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they established it, and that it ""produces a clear winner,"" Source 3. But, the information given above disproves these unvalid arguements. If the Electoral College is such a great system, than why can a nominee who won the majority of the nation's votes still win the election? Will it always produce a clear winner? What about the event of a tie? Or, what about when the ""winner"" did not win the majority of the votes?

In conclusion, the replacement of this flawed system known as the Electoral College by a national popular vote is absolutely necessary. The people are pushing for a change, and I strongly urge you, senator, to acknowledge this issue.",0
a20be030,0,"Over the course of years new technologies have been invented to better our life style. there have been inventions like trains,airplanes and boats to better our transportion however there is one transportion vehicle that has spun up many controversies. The automobile or ""car"" as most people call it has spanwed more harm than good rates of pollution have risen and smog can be found almost anywhere. Limiting the usage of cars should a solution due to the advantage of reduced pollution, less green house gas and it could even make a person happier!

As most industrial inventions cars do produce tons of smog due to Diesel fuel a chemical found in cars. Smog has been such a issue that the city of paris actully had to enforce a law that would ban cars for a few days. This law was so stressed that any one caught driving would bee fined 22 euros in which converted in dollars would add up to 31 dollars. Paris had more smog than any other european capital they had about 147 micrograms compared to London on the other hand which only had 79.7. With such high numbers of micrograms the intensity of the smog worsend causing the extreme idea of banning cars. This example should be a reason on why we should reduce the usage of automobiles so that extreme measures are not acted on but more importantly the possibility of having pure of cleansed oxygen.

In alliance of having minimum pollution safety is also one advantage that reducing driving may enhance according too Bill Ford executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company stated that the plan of reducing usage of cars did bring a safer world for pedestrians not only does is bring about safety but it does conserve natural resources like oil that may take hundreds of years to replenish. We need to keep in mine that as inhabitants of earth we must care and value every natural resource. We only have one planet and we must protect it. Reducing driving has been such a triumph that a mother of two even said ""When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" once again this statement only poves that reducing the usage of automobiles is a better life style for all.

All in all reducing driving does bring some great advantages and should really be consider as a plan to make the world a better place. this plan should be acted upon all over the world.",0
a23c6a2c,0,"Cars are creating an harmful environment with problems such as smog and traffic. Reduction on car usage can help these problems. Although cars may be a faster transportation, they add on to the havoc of the environment. Reducing car usage has many advantages. It would help develop a better environment and improve people's well being.

An advantage of reduction of car usage is it helps develop a better environment to live in. Some areas which have cars create a lot of smog which is unhealthy for the environment. For example, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog"" Duffer. Smog is formed by cold nights and warm days which causes the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions. Without so many cars, this issue can decrease. It will help the environment progress and be safer for everyone. Statistics show that ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" Rosenthal. Cars are causing air pollution. If cars are still the dominant transportation, the environment will still suffer from air pollution such as smog. It's safer to use a large vehicle such as a bus to get around because a bus can hold many more people than a car and would ultimately give off less gas than the population of people who use cars. Another safe way around town would be vehicles which don't give off gases into the air such as bicycles. A safer environment is a better environment.

Another advantage of reduction of cars is improvement of people's well being. With air pollution from cars, humans inhale toxic gases which can be detrimental to their bodies. If car usage plunders, people's bodies will feel better. A businessman said ""It's good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" Plaza. Lowering the number of cars being used helps relieve stress. Nobody wants to be stressed out from traffic or being late to work. With cars there is always a place where there is traffic. Ultimately, reduction of car usage has numerous effects that benefit the society. A media trainer and mother of two stated, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" Walter. Without a car, you don't have to worry about being severely injured since most of the population would transfer to the use of bikes or walking. Because the population would start a trend of riding bikes and walking, most of the roadways would now be unecessary to have and they could be built into something fundamental such as a park, a housing area, or a food market. There would be less worries altogether and this could be more beneficial to the society.

There are many positive effects from reducing car usage. Environment will progress and people's well being will improve. It's beneficial for everyone to limit the use of cars and find other transportation. There would be a safer environment from less smog and rushhour restrictions. Also, the environment will be peoplefriendly from more parks and sports centers. Limiting car usage effects society positively.",0
a2586b3a,1,"Dear State Senator of Florida, I believe that we should keep the Electoral College. The Electoral College has been a huge part of America since our founding fathers, who established this process. This process helps keep America in order in and in line. Where would our country be without it? We would be lost and confused with no direction to follow. The Electoral College helps keep America's voting process organized, which is key to a well functioning country. Which is why I believe that we should absolutely keep the Electoral College so that our voting process stays organized and because it has kept our country functioning since the very beginning.

I believe we should keep the Electoral College because it has kept our country functioning since the very beginning. Our founding fathers were the ones the establish the Electoral College which means it has been around since the beginning of our country. We should not change this tradition of America because it has seemed to kept us running smoothly for this long so why would we want to change that for no reason? If we stopped this tradition and changed it to all popular vote from citizens we would be hurting America in a huge way. It would completely change our ways of thinking, living, and running of America. Yes, a lot has changed in America since our founding fathers and yes change is sometimes for the better in our country because things are obviously different now then what they were 200 years ago but change would not be for the better in this situation. Let's say your grandmother, Mr. Senator, has had a peach cobbler recipe in your family for ages and it just takes your breath away with all the flavor and its divine taste, but this recipe is very old. If your grandmother's old recipe taste so delicious you would not want to change one thing about that recipe. Well same with the Electoral College. Its extremely old but it has also kept our country running well and has not failed us yet so we should not change this process just like you would not want to change your grandmothers peach cobbler recipe. This is why I think we should keep the Electoral College because it has kept us going since the beginning and you do not change something just because it is old or thought of being outdated.

Voting for someone to be the head and leader of an organization is an extremely big deal, especially when that organization is a country with laws, citizens, and many other important topics. America needs to have a president willing to stand up for what is right, be there for his people, and run America in a smooth and organized fashion. If the elections were based upon popular vote then imagine what could happen, someone running for president could act like a person who is willing to take on the huge responsibility and stand up for what is right, but when everyone votes for him and they get into office then they turn into a total coward and someone not determined enough to take on the responsibility or take on America. With Electoral College those running for president are also being voted on by Congress and qualified citizens. This makes things run much more smoothly because citizens are still getting to put there two cents in but only if they are qualified which is much more reasonable. Citizens are a huge part of America, they have a lot to do with America running smoothly or not, which is why they should have a say in who runs their country, but no so much of a say that its unorganized and completely on their own opinion. I mean lets face it, us citizens have our flaws and dont always make the best decisions or have the best opinions. Having qualified citizens voting and Congress members voting make it much more understandable. Most Congress members will have been in Office for a very long time which makes them wiser and better to understand the whole voting process, the way America runs, and laws. Most will be able to pick out the better qualities for president out of each of the members running for president. This is why I belive we should keep the Electoral College because it keeps voting organized.

The Electoral College is what keeps our voting process in order. When something gets old you do not throw it away if it still is of good use for you and the Electoral College is definetly still in good shape and is doing our country well so we should not change it because it has kept our country functioning from the beginning and so our voting process stays organized.",0
a29c4aa7,0,"""All of our development since World War ll has been centered on the car and that would have to change' said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation of America. It is imperative that our fellow citizens take the initiative to limit car usage for the whole purpose of saving time,conserving resources,lowering emissions and improving safety for ourselves and others.

Limiting car usage is an effective way in reducing our air pollutionsmog.Most of our greenhouses gases are the result from the use of car or fuel engineered automobiles.

Source 1:In german Suburb,Life Goes On Without Cars states that ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in Europe.. and up to 50 percent in some carintensive area in the United States"", this means that most of our greenhouse gases are resulting from the overusage of cars that emit an abundance of CO2 into the atmosphere which generally has a negative effect on the environment. If car usage were to be limited that would mean the greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced which will then lead to a reduction in air pollution. Implementing the reduction of car usage would have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment,since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions,just behind power plants.

Car usage has contributed to cities low safety level. This is because cities are more denser with the use of more and more cars. If car usage were to be limited that would mean that these cities would be better to walk around in and other alternative transportation methods such as bicycling and public transit have an easier way of getting around to save time according to Source 4: The End of Car Culture.

This implication may have a negative result in lost revenue in the car industry,but which is more important the world we live in or money? There are many more alternatives than using cars that emit greenhouse gases such as plugin cars,hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers as stated in Source 2: Paris Bans Driving due to Smog.

With the reduction in car usage that would mean that the resources that were needed to support the vehicle would be conserved because there would only be a small amoun of it being used. With the reduction in the usage of the fuels then the the remaing amount would be for other purposes that would need it or be saved over time if the US were to need it in the future.

To conclude if limiting car usage would be in then it would just have a positive efeect in the worl we live in. Not only will limiting car use would reduce the amount of smog being produced but it will also increase the United States safety level and conseverve the resources as well.",0
a2b8855e,1,"I would like our election to be cast on popular vote. It would make more sense for us to be able to elect our president by what everyone thinks and not the electoral college because many things can go wrong. The votes in electoral college don't make sense big states have more votes then the little ones so the candidates focus on big states and the other ones are left out because they have two or three votes. Thats why I think we need a different system or just cast it on popular vote.

Just like the 2000's election Bush won that by getting the bigger states when Gore should've won it because he had more popular votes. The electoral college makes no sense and should be taken down. Many people disagree with the electoral college and know its a big scam for the presidents to win by losing. Thats why it should be casted on popular so its fair for people and not on the size of your state.

The electoral college is an outdated, unfair system on voting. It shouldn't be about the state but what all of the country thinks. Popular vote is the best way to calculate who should be president and who not to be. Our nation would be better off with a new system because the electoral college is getting outdated and isn't a good way to vote for who leads our country. We need a new system becausein several places they never seen a candidate or ad to vote in 2000 campaign. Those states didn't see anything because of their electoral votes are small compared to those of the bigger states.

Also you can tie the votes in electoral votes and then we'd have to worry about the vote our House of Representatives would give us. That could be a disaster for us to worry about. Just like Nixon and Clinton had 43 percent of popular vote but winning in the electoral college. Its not fair for most people and it doesn't make sense how he can win but still be losing at the same time. I wouldn't vote until this system is changed because it is completly unfair.

The electoral college is an unfair system that no one wants anymore. We can change our ways of voting so it'll be more fair and it matters on our country's thoughts not our states. Popular vote seems more reasonable and a better way for us to find a good leader. Thats why i think it should be casted on popular vote instead of the electoral college and the United States of America would be better off with what our whole country thinks instead of our size because we represent freedom and need to prove it.",0
a30c3204,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, Freedom to vote for authority figures in America had been an ideal image of government all across the world. However, is our privilege to vote really honest and are the results of elections really in our hands like we think they are? The Electoral College System undoubtedly should be abolished because Americans have the right to have full control over who is elected President and, although some may believe that Electoral Colleges avoid the occurrence of a runoff election, runoff elections may be avoided with much more reasonable methods.

Clearly, election should be determined by popular vote, and not the Electoral College because Americans earned their right to have full control over the representatives in their government. According to Source 2, ""state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and... those electors could always defy the will of the people."" The defenders could be completely indifferent about the voters choices, or situations where swing states are borderline one party or another, and the Electoral College allows a limited selection of people to make the final decision of millions Source 1. The ballots that we vote in don't even effect the results of the election. It is as if these elections are trying to allude citizens from the fact that the only votes that contribute to the adoption of a new president are the electoral votes. Why bother letting us vote for a president, if only the defenders get to make the decisions?

Unquestionably, the Electoral College is not a sound system for presidential election in the United States. In Source 3, Posner states that when there is an unclear plurality in the results of an election, the Electoral College makes it much simpler and more efficient by reducing the number of voters, eliminating the inconvenience factor. This statement appears as a faulty reasoning to have an Electoral College because it is absurd to remove americans right to vote. Maybe, rather than restricting our rights, the result of a runoff election could be resolved by an Electoral College, but the initial vote should be made only by the citizens, fairly. Depending on the defenders to make the final decision of the leaders of our great country is an overlycautious effort to avoid a tie, which could be easily resolved.

You cannot deny, changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States would be extremely beneficial for our country. Citizens would regain their Constitutionalright to vote for the leaders who make major decisions for the entire country. The Electoral College is useful to produce a clear winner in elections, but is evidently not completely necessary and is unfair to voters who want and deserve a say in the outcomePlumer 13, 14. Abolishing this system would cause for a drastically more fair election and greater citizen satisfaction for multitudinous reasons. Please consider. Thank you.",0
a31b6995,1,"Most people think that the electoral college is not reasonable. I don't think they're wrong. The electoral college is very unfair. It is unfair because the people's votes might be overuled, the electoral college is biased, and they may not pay any attention to the people's opinions.

First of all, in some cases the popular vote might not be of any value. Besides, the popular vote doesn't matter in the decision for president it elects members for the electoral college. So if I wanted to vote for a republican president but the electoral college ends up voting for the democrat I would have wasted my time going to vote. Clearly, the electoral college's vote overrules the popular vote.

In addition to overruling the popular vote, the people on the electoral college are biased. If the people who are on the electoral college are biased then, they might not take people's votes into account to their electoral vote. I know no one would want their vote to be ignored so this is another reason why the electoral college should be abolished. If a democracy means the people decide who their leaders are, then why are there other people who might not represent the people chosing our president. Quite obviously, the electoral college is biased and might not care about the popular vote.

Furthermore, even if the people's votes go to the electoral college, the college might not even pay attention to the reasons people give to vote for someone. Most people don't really care that their votes go to deciding who is on the electoral college, but they are missing the point. The electoral college are made up of human beings and they will say no to ideas they don't like. I don't think that the fate of our country should be resting on the idea that if one person doesn't like someone they will reject the idea. Obviously, the electoral college might reject some ideas just because they don't like them.

To conclude, the electoral college cannot be trusted to decide the future of our great nation. This group of electors might be biased, their votes overrule the popular vote, and they might not be open to opinions. Consider these reasons for the electoral college not deciding the future of the United States. These people cannot be trusted to vote for our new president.",0
a38951cc,1,"The Electoral College vote draws many emotions. It has many supporters and many enemies. There was a huge debate over the 2000 election where Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. I believe that the Electoral College destroys some of the integrity of the american democracy. I believe this is due to the winner takes all system of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College says whoever has the majority of votes in a state receives all that states votes. I believe this corrupts the system because so many peoples votes go unaccounted. If one party has 51 percent of the vote the other 49 percent of the votes don't count. This is why I believe that we need to abolish the Electoral College.

In a true democracy the people vote for a president and the ideal behind the Electoral College is that it eliminates uneducated votes. I believe that it doesn't do this very well and may actually harm the system even more. Peoples votes elect electors who elect the President in the Electoral College system. These electors are put in a spot of significant power. The question is who are these electors. It is very possible that they can vote for the opposite party of that which they were elected to vote for. Scandals like this have occurred in the past what is stopping them form continuing in the future.

Another major problem of the Electoral College is with the winner takes all system if a state is known to be a majority one party or another there is no use for someone in the minority party to vote because they have no effect. This allows citizens who are supposed to help elect Americas leaders to be unable to have any say in the government. The ideal behind a democracy is that the people rule and the Electoral College is destroying the democracy because it is restricting people form taking active participation in what they are entitled too as a citizen. Without the Electoral College there might be some uneducated votes but the popular vote upholds the integrity of the democracy that America thrives on. The popular vote also eliminates the chance of any major scandals that could majorly affect the presidential election.",0
a408aa83,0,"Car usage is very popular in this world we have come to know. It used for many means of transportation like going to work, school, social events, or just simply going shopping or hanging out with friends. Those are some up sides to having and using a car. But they are some down sides as well. I will be explaining the down sides of using a car as well as the advantages of limiting car usage.

My first reason in this topic that i have chosen to tell you about are ""Carfree"" cities. what are Carfree cities? well the name says it all is a new project they are working on in europe of this city who is car free. This new city has no cars, no street parking, no driveways or or home garages. Why do they exist? well the obvious answer is to minimize car pollution that are creating green house gases and are polluting the air and more places can adopt this idea and have more ""carfree"" cities so we can save the planet and ultimately save our selves from extinction because we did not know how to maintain our planet clean. Also a thing a like about this new ""Carfree"" city is that theres a main street where theres all the stores at a walking distance like how great is that? u can just take a ten to twenty minute walk and go shopping for anything like grocery, shoes, clothe, restaurants instead of driving to a mall along some distant highway and ultimately that is where everybody is so hanging out with your friends and meeting all up in one place is at a walking distance and if you dont have any friends well you make new friends at this main street because that is where everybody is.

Another great reason for considering less car usage is less traffic. Who does not like less traffic? everybody hates traffic is slow, boring, and annoying. Now if we have less traffic that means we have less commute time when trying to get to work if you have a job that is far from your home and that means you get to work sooner and on time and hopefully get a raise because you feel like you dont get paid enough to do what you do. Also if we have less traffic we have less commute time and what does that mean? well it can mean multiple things like having more time to sleep because you dont have to worry about waking up early to beat the morning traffic like my mom and plenty of other people do. At the end of the day you will be able to get home quicker so you can spend more time with your family and do stuff you usually cant because of the time you spend at traffic.

My last reason is a very important reason and it is simply ""safety"". Think about it, it is simply just common sense. if they are less cars in the road at one time then the chances of car accidents decreases. Now i dont know about you but that sounds like a win win to me. One theres less accidents so theres less people in the hospital so they dont have hospital bills to worry about and less accidents means less traffic as well. And also if you ban the cars for a day or have one of them ""carfree"" cities you have less drunk drivers one because they dont have a car so they will probably just drink at home and two if the bar or where ever is that there going to drink is close enough then they can just ""walk"" there sober and ""walk"" back to the house drunk instead of being in a car a causing a fatal accident.

Ultimately i feel that the usage of cars should be limmited because of many reasons. This reasons are as follows. Less car pollution. living in a carfree city so you are able to walk everywhere. Less traffic, less commute time, having more time to do stuff. and last but not least the safety of drivers. personally i think we should supervise the usage of automobiles and have more ""carfree"" cities and have days where car usage is baned or restricted by some amount.",0
a41f347b,1,"land of the free, the brave, and millions of proud citizens who live in a country that prides itself on its preservation of human rights and everything else that makes up a proper society. However, in order to remain a fair republic that truly takes into account the opinions of all citizens, we must make one major change. The flawed Electoral College must be abolished and replaced with election by popular vote in order to ensure the well being of our country.

Proponents of the Electoral College would gasp in horror at this suggestion, arguing that their systematic method is virtually foolproof. Nevertheless, with a voting method as complicated as the Electoral College, the room for error is far too great. Just look at what happened in 1960, when racist legislators tried to replace the democratic electors chosen by popular vote in order to sabotage John F. Kennedy's chances. Then yet another electoral disaster occurred in 2000. Both of these events could very easily happen again and the consequences of such mistakes are unfathomable. History has been proven to repeat itself, and this is no exception. Who's to say that electors won't just ignore the wishes of voters or that legislators won't manipulate the system? When it comes to choosing our leader, whose actions will ultimately decide whether or not America will continue to survive and thrive, it would be a huge mistake to leave this responsibility to one group of individuals. After all, nobody is perfect.

Furthermore, advocates of the Electoral College make a major fallacy when they claim that voters in swing states are more informed on election information, therefore it's good that the electoral system causes candidates to only focus on them. Just consider the fact that by completely ignoring all of the other states, campaigners are ignoring millions of individuals who deserve to have a say in who will be in charge. Through this one argument, advocates are essentially assuming anyone who doesn't live in a swing state doesn't care about the election as much and therefore they shouldn't have a say in the matter. This is simply not true. In fact, these advocates fail to acknowledge that if voters in other states are not as educated or interested, it is a consequence of the Electoral College. While politicians are focusing all of their time and effort on the thoughtful voters, other citizens don't get the information they need from seeing campaigns and meeting candidates. They are deprived of the opportunity to make an educated decision like swing voters and that is a fault of the college, not the voters themselves.

The problems with the Electoral College only go on. If a tie were to occur, the election would be determined by members of the House of Representatives, who do an even poorer job of representing the people considering each state casts only one vote. Also, due to the fact that the Electoral College mainly operates with the winnertakeall rule, it is easy for individuals in Democratic or Republican states to feel as if their vote doesn't matter.

It is also important to note that at the end of the day, election by popular vote accomplishes the goal of reflecting the opinion of the public far better than election by Electoral College. The popular vote is a clear statement of voters' opinions and is virtually unable to be tampered with. On the other hand, the Electoral College only complicates the situation by introducing a middle man who is prone to bribery and mistakes. Why should we allow candidates to win because of the electoral vote if they do not recieve the overall approval of the public? Compare the opinions of 538 electors to the opinions of hundreds of millions of voters. Evidently, the opinions of all these voters cannot be properly represented by these 538 electors. It's just impossible both logistically and logically.

For all of these reasons, I urge you to change the system to election by popular vote. It is without a doubt the only way this country can continue to be the great nation that it is for centuries to come.",0
a46866b8,1,"Electoral College is the way American people get to chose who they want to represent their state or country. Why get rid of a system that has few flaws and gives people a since of picking their people? Electoral College should be kept because gives candidates a fair chance and lets everyone pick a representation.

To begin, electoral college gives candidates a fair chance. In source 3 it states "" The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."" This explains that even if only a candidate only represent one region of the country electoral college can still give them a chance to win presidency. In source 1 it states "" Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors."" This means electoral college gives a candidate a group of supporters to help him or her win a election.

furthermore, electoral college gives the people a right to pick a representation. In source 1 it states "" The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens"". Everyone who is a United States citizen has the right to vote for who they want for representation for each state. In source 3 it states "" Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign to really listen to the competing candidates knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average, and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election"". Thoughtful votes or people who just vote because everyone else is doing it doesnt matter. Everyone could vote for anyone with electoral college.

""Its official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguements in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguements against direct elections are spurious at best. It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college"". I disagree with this statement because the electoral college gives candidates a fair chance to win electons and the people get to pick who they want to represent their states.

In conclusion, electoral college should be kept because it gives candidates a fair chance and allows the people to pick who they want to represent them.",0
a47cee9d,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, I am writing you concerning a topic that is very important to our country, and the citizens that preside in it. The electoral college is the current method of determining who will be elected as the president of the United states of America. As you know, it does so by allowing our citizens to vote for electors that then choose who they want as president for us. Citizens will most often vote for an elector that has sworn to vote for either the democratic or republican party's candidates for president. However, I don't quite agree with this method of election. Through my research on this subject, I have discovered that not only do these citizens not have the access to vote directly for who they want to run their country, but also that many electors go back on their word and vote for another party's candidate. I believe the system should be changed and the president should be elected through popular vote, and I'm not alone, according to a gallop poll taken in 2000, over 60% of the population agrees with me.

If the popular vote elects the president, every citizen will have their own choice on who they want as a president. In an electoral college, many people will merely have their votes casted aside becausetheir decisions or thoughts aren't the same as eveyone else in their state. Though some people say an electoral college is positive because it requires the candidate have more than just regional appeal, but if people in that state like a specific candidate, even if they vote for an elector, the rest of their state may not like that candidate, and that person's vote will be cast away.

Also, the electoral college doesn't always follow the peoples' vote. For example, if there were to be a tie in the electoral college, the election would be given to the House of Representatives. Since many people vote for a different party candidate than who they vote for, for the House of Representatives, they would not get their vote for president counted for anything, and the House may choose the president they don't want, without getting a say in any of it. Not to mention the 2000 election when Al Gore got more votes overall, but Bush won the presidency due to the unfair, outdated system of the electoral college. The electoral college puts the decision of who will be the president into a couple hundred peoples' hands, instead of every American citizen.

Another reason for changing the method to popular vote is the fact that all of the electors count the same. Since each state only counts for one electoral vote, the one elector from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, will count for the same as the 55 electors from, California, who represent 35 million voters. That simply isn't fair because it's the same as saying the opinions of only 500,000 voters in Wyoming are as influencial and important as the entire 35 million voters' opinions from California. The fact that not all American citizens, promised to be able to vote for who will lead their country and influence their everyday life, are able to do so is absurd.

Many people argue and say that just one vote won't make a difference, but there are 34,500,000 people in California alone that are being disregarded and not counted for anything more than the 500,000 in Wyoming.

Why should the people living in smaller states have more influence than those with larger populations? Why shouldn't those 34.5 million people in California be able to make their own decision and choose their own vote for the President? The entire population of every single state in the United States of America, that has the legal right to do so, should be able to vote, and to have their vote actually counted for something instead of just having their decision made for them by someone they've never even met. With the popular vote deciding who will be president, everyone will matter just the same, which is how it should be since we are all created equal, and we all should have the equal power to decide how our country will be governed and who will govern it, we should all be counted not just the small percentage that is at the top. Thank you for your time and consideration.",0
a4a1c088,1,"The Electoral College was a system thought up by people who lived in a time much different than our own. And in that time, it made sense. It made sure that those who cast their state's votes for president, the electors, were well informed on the issues and the stance of the candidates for those issues. However, now that everyone has access to a wealth of information through the internet, newspapers and television, this is no longer a problem this is why election by popular vote would be a better system.

With the Electoral College, voters don't have a direct say on who becomes president. They have to trust their votes in the hands of people they don't even know. People who could cast their state's votes for any candidate they want. This system is completely unnecessary now that citizens have a wealth of information about the candidates and their stance on certain topics.

If our nation switched to election by popular vote, everyone's vote would matter. In the Electoral College system, many people in states that are decisively one way or the other, don't vote, knowing that the overwhelming majority of the population of their state is against them. This makes certain people, like Democrats in Texas or Republicans in California, feel that their vote has no power. In an election by popular vote however, every vote matters because the people's votes directly decide the president.

Our Founding Fathers were geniuses to have come up with a system that worked so well in their time, however, old methods don't always stand the test of time. Election by popular vote makes more sense in today's world. The Electoral College eliminates the power of some people's votes and puts those that matter in the hands of people who could do whatever they want with them. This is why election by popular vote would be a better system for determining the president than the Electoral College.",0
a5639578,0,"Have you ever walked outside and taken a deep breath of fresh air but then you realise that the air your breathing isnt alll that fresh? Thats because air pollution has greatly increased in recent years and the number one reason for air pollution is the exhaust from your cars. Yes, the amount of cars in the world has increased dramtically in the last 10 years. While this is good that the luxury of owning an auto mobile it has also put a burden on the earth and future generations. while cars have made it easier for our day to day lives the amount of pollution in the world has become too high to not do something about it now. instead of taking the modern convenience of a car what if you decided to ride your bike to work for a change.

The fact that the amount of pollution is ever increasing should be enough of a reason to limit car usage. Instead of driving every time you go somewhere if you just rode a bike or walked when its convenient you could make a difference in the world. You dont have to completely stop driving your car but just limit the amount of times you do drive and that little extra effort will make a big difference in the long run. the world is facing an epidemic in which we could not have clean air for our future generations to be able to take their kids to the park and enjoy a nice day in the sun.

Not only is limiting your car usage better for the environment it is also better for your body. When you decide to ride your bike or walk opposed to driving your car you are getting a work out from doing so. This may not seem like much but when you look at how often you go places the numbers start to add up. In the ten minutes that you would take to go to the bank you could spend fifteen minutes riding your bike and getting exercise multiple times through out the day. thiss can also give you much more free time to do something physically active that you ignored because of a car, with the motivation to go out pollution free you can start up running or even learn how to skate and enjoy the go.

When you decide to make the change and not drive as much you open up endless possibilities for what you could do instead of sitting in one place driving. You become more active in the community and this helps the environment and you as a person. limited driving has been proved to be a great idea in more ways than you would think. Just doing your part can help out.

In conclusion the facts are all here that limited car usage is the best way to go for decreasing air pollution and making you a better you. It will help the future become a brighter and cleaner place to live.",0
a588a1eb,0,"People are finally opening their eyes to the world around them, and realizing the way things are, could be changed. The automotive world is steadily declining, in an attempt to help our world, and it's not all that bad. Less cars are being bought, less emissions are being released into the atmosphere, and people are seeing the advantages of limited car usage.

""Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders."" Derived from the source, "" In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars ""This place is called Vauban, it's a suburb in which 70% of families don't own cars, and 57% actually sold their car to move here. Car ownership is allowed here, there are only two places to park however, and both are very expensive. People in this city alone have not only reduced greenhouse gas emissions, they've helped the world by giving a new perspective on living, and they've even made themselves feel better in the process. Heidrun Walter said, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Advantages of a car reduced community didn't just stop here, other places around the world are seeking out the benefits of limiting car use, and adopting some of the same aspects of this experiment.

""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" The smog was horrible, people were even comparing it to Bejing. The city of Paris was engulfed in the choking air caused by the cars that conjested the streets. ""Last week Paris had 147 micrograms or particulate matter per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London..."" Paris generally had more smog than a number of European capitals. However, the ban worked exceptionally well. The smog had cleared enough in one weekend for the ban to be lifted the following Tuesday. Imagine if every community were to try something like this, just imagine how clean the air would be. Not only would the world be healthier, we'd be healthier ourselves if we just limited car usage even a miniscule amount.

Not only is the world becoming healthier as a whole an advantage to lower car use, all the way down to our communities would become better also. ""The day without cars is an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s."" People go a whole day without using cars, with the exception of buses or taxis, and those that do use cars get fined. The citizens bike and hike and enjoy life without breathing in the smog that usually plagues the air. This event has caused some major improvements to the city. ""It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American city, according to Mockus, the city's mayor."" Also, ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" This entire city has reaped the benefits of just one day without cars. Citizens here have not only began to improve themselves, but have also improved the world around them.

In conclusion, the advantages of limited car usage are finally being noticed throughout the world. Cities are experimenting and gathering results of not only better health in people in these communities, but even better living in the long run. Cities are becoming denser to make walking easier, sports centers and better sidewalks are blooming into city living, and people are even feeling better themselves from these experiments. Throughout the world limting the use of cars is spreading, and every where it goes people are seeing an upside. The more people that try to limit car usage, the better it will be, for the world, and for us as people.",0
a58a4579,1,"The Electoral College should remaining our countries voting system when deciding whom the president of the United States will be. The Electoral College is a process our founding fathers established as a compromise between election of the President by a popular vote made by citizens Source 1, paragraph 1. Citizens elect electors who will then elect the president. This system is affective in many ways and shall not be abolished. These electors are conscious of every decision they make when deciding on our president and are here to look at things we may overlook. They are here to help us make the most affective decision. adderall, this is an enormous decision. It is the decision of whom the president of our country will be.

The Electoral College has 538 electors and a majority of 270 electoral votes are required to elect the President Source 1, paragraph 3. After the presidential election, your governor prepares a ""Certificate of Ascertainment."" This lists the candidates whom ran for president in your state and the names of their respective electors. It is a well organized and thoughtout process. This process helps us make the best decision as a country on whom our future president will be.

In source 2, paragraph 13, it states ""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend much time in states they know they have no chance of winning in."" Candidates don't take their time in these states because they don't want their beliefs and ideas shut down. They spend some time in these states. The electors for each state help them vote wisely, therefore the absence of presence by these candidates should not be a big ordeal. People want to abolish the Electoral College due to citizens not being able to vote for the president yet they do not realize what this system has provided for us. It provides organization and avoids many, many problems that would likely take place without the Electoral College.

In source 3, paragraph 20, discusses how voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign due to the fact they have recieved the most information and attention from the candidates. These voters are the most thoughtful and should be the ones deciding the election. Also, in paragraph 22, also in source 3 it states how there is pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast. That pressure is reduced by the Electoral College because it produces and reveals a clear winner.

The Electoral College was created many years ago and has brought organization to our voting system. Why should we try to fix something that is not broken? Changing the system would be illogical. Electors are wiser at making these final decisions than we are. Wwe deserve an input, which we can all agree we recieve, but we shouldn't make the final decisions of our country aimlessly. Electors are people who know exactly what to look for in a president and they are more knowledgable on the subject. The Electoral College is the wisest process we can use in electing our presidents.",0
a5a50bf5,0,"Everyone has at less had one car in there life time no matter how yes it was or how old or ragidy it was it was a car that was poluting our air and giving off greenhouse gas. Now I would now what i whould do with out my car but then again there are some benefits or advantages you would have if you didn own a car.

We can start off on now much money you would save if you did have a car. Think about gas is about what 2.99 now right? Or lets just say your driving minding your own bessnious and some edit rams in the back of your new Nisson 2015 car and oh lord i dont think you want to talk about how high you insurgents would go up. People in Vaudan and in most of France don't even have cars 70 percent to be exact. Now its not like a law that they can't have veicals just lot of people choose not to have one. How ever if you do own a car you will have pretty much no where to put it. Street parking,driveways and home garages are actually forbidden in some areas. If you still really really want your car you have only two places to put it. One in a large parking garage at the edge of the development or two you can buy a space for 40,000 along with a home. If you never had a car you wouldn't have to spend all that money on gas,insurgents,getting your car repairedfixed,and a parking spot. That's why 57 percent of people sold there car when they moved to Vauba.

The biggest advantage you would have if you didn own a car is that you will be giving back to mother earth. Cars are responsible for 12 perect of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the United States. Cars can also be more stress then there worth having. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter. What do you think scards you the most when your dive? Getting in a car crash and seriousaly injuring yourself or worse die on inpacked right? Why don't you save the stress and the fear. Just give up you car. I know what your think what if i work far away etc? Just take the bus or better yet ride a bike to where ever you need to go or walk get some exercise and brake a little sweat. Or just take one day that we all not us own cars to just see how life would be. That's how BOGOTA got started in Colombia. They have been going it for 3 straight years. There are 7 million cizins people walked,hiked,and even skated. The only vehicals that where permitted where buses and taxis and if it rained it didn't stop them participating. Why can't we do that just for one day? If everyone just took one day that using cars I think i would make a big change.

There are many advantages we all would have if we all didn't have a car but I know it will take time for all of us to make that disitoin but hopful its soom before its to late for us and for the world.",0
a5c3c7a1,1,"Dear State Senator, In this essay I will be explaining why the Electoral College shouldn't be kept,and why we should do a popular vote instead to determine the president of the United States.

In my opinion we should do a popular vote because we U.S. citizens know what we want. The Electoral College may know what they want for themselves as a unit but honestly I think that the United States should stick to a popular vote. In an article I read called ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer it states that state legislatures can technically be picking electors that will always defy the will of the people. I notice this to be very unfair because if electors are always going to defy what we say and want why should we vote. Isn't one of America's 1 catch phrases "" "" well in this case it seems to be "" "". In this article it also states that in many cases "" "" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please! So if the electors can choose for whomever they please why can't we. I also think that the Electoral College is unfair because of the winnertakeall system. Candidates don't have to spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning in. While they go to the states that they know they have a absolute chance of winning in and take those winning votes. So in this case I have to agree with Bob Dole: Abolish the Electoral College!

I also think its wrong that voters can't always control who their voting for because we all the freedom to our own opinions and in the process of the Electoral Collage they are basically just throwing all opinions in the trash. They obviously don't care and I see this as completely irrational and unfair. I know that may use the electoral Collage as a way to keep everyone calm but I think if they were to let the people vote they wouldn't have to be worried about us not being calm because that's us getting what we want and therefore why are we going to complain. I also consider the Electoral Collage electors high class. So in this case they are going to want to vote for the benefit of them, I think this is unfair to the lowerincome families because if the electors choose a president that is going to want to take all the benefits away from lowerincome families how are they going to live? How are they going to survive.""Remember "" power to the people"".",0
a5fd6487,0,"The age of cars has come to a grinding stop. Atleast, That's what the general consensus of these 4 articles seems to be. Although current youth do not see car buying as a major thing in their lives right now, it is highly unlikely it will remain as such because of the structure of an average american lifestyle.

Cars are a massive staple of the world and hold many things together and allow for fast, easy, convenient travel. The young people of today do not currently have to use cars to get where they are going because of many factors such as friends with cars, human powered forms of transportation such as bicycles, skateboards, etc.and pareits with cars. Once these children move away from home to a college or to a job elsewhere they will need a car to maintain a normal lifestyle. We are currently in a second babyboom, this means that there are many young people that do not need cars and thus do not have one, swaying the data away from the ""car culture"". While it is true that some people are trying to reduce their ""carbon footprint"" by driving less and using public transportation, the number of them is very small and irrelevant when compared to all people in the world. Cars maintain a large amount of appeal that cannot be found in any other form of transportation: This appeal is that it is your vehicle, to do whatever you want with and be free, it is also easy and convenient to get from place to place, it is a place to hang out with your friends andor a significant other, it is also faster than any other form of transportation short of a helicopter or plane. Cars have so many benefits that people will not just quit driving because of increased carbon emissions, most of which is not entirely the fault of cars.

While cars do put out a large amount of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, that amount is inconsequential compared to the massive amou its of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanos and by other human creations. One volcanic eruption emits around the same amount of carbon dioxide in a few hours as the entire country of America does in 1015 years. Cars are not the true issue here, the main reason carbon dioxide is on tthe rise is because of the lack of trees and worldwide deforestation. All plant life can convert carbon dioxide into oxygen during photosynthesis, this means that more plant life equals less carbon dioxide. Instead of trying to reduce the number of cars in the world and make life harder on many people, the focus of the world should be to increase the amount of vegetation in the world so as to counterbalance the number of cars in the world.

Cars have long been an important factor in the world social, political, and economical structure. Before the second World War, Fuhrer Adolf Hitler decided that his people needed a cheap, basic car so as to increase Germany's economic prowess. Due to this vision Volkswagen, The people's car, was started. Volkswagen marked the start of cheap, affordable cars for everyday people. Although Germany lost World War II, their technology and ideas diffused to much of the world thanks to American and Soviet research. Their idea of a people's car spread around the world and the 1950's marked the start of massive sprawling suburbs that relied on personal vehicles to get to and from work, the store, school, or anywhere outside of the suburbs. This was a totally new type of lifestyle It wasn't urban life where you could walk or ride a bus wherever you needed, and it wasn't rural where you made everything by hand and didnt travel often. No, this was something entirely new that was brought about because of the advent of cheap affordable personal transportation. Now everyone can get to work relying on only themselves and not bus drivers or train operators, people have a new sense of freedom afforded them by this magnificent new machine, the car.

The same ideas and principles that made cars such an important part of culture and life in the 1950's still remain in our lives today. Cars will remain an important part of world culture until another form of transportation is easier, more convenient, andor cheaper. A car gives its driver a fast, freeing, and flexible form of transportation unparalleled by anything today. Car use should not be limited, it should be encouraged.",0
a623a791,1,"Does athe elecatoral college work? I don'at athink so, buat some people may. I athink athe Uniated Sataates should noat keep athe Elecatoral College and should chose athe presidenat by popular voate. I athink athey should use popular voate for a many of reasons buat I'm only going ato explain a few of my reasons now.

My firsat reason is athaat, under athe elecatoral college, voaters do noat voate for who athey athink should be presidenat buat for elecators who voate for athem. I donat athink athis is righat because athe elecators athey chose may noat choose athe person athey wanated. I athink iat's unfair. Voaters should voate for athe person athey athink should be presidenat.

My nexat reason is athaat athe elecatoral voates may atie. If athis happens, athe elecation will be aturned ato athe House of represenataatives, which would athen voate on athe presidenat and athe Senaate would choose athe vicepresidenat. I athink athis is unfair because I also athink athey should leat athe public voate. I jusat don'at agree wiath someone voating on some one ato voate for you.

Finally, I athink athe elecatoral college is jusat simply unfair ato voaters. Iat's unfair because if candidaates don'at athink athey have a chance in a sataate athey donat spenat much atime athere. They focus more on athe places athey have more of a chance of winning. During athe 2000 campaign, sevenateen sataates didn'at see candidaates aat all and voaters in 25 of athe largesat markeats in athe Uniated sataates didn'at see a single campaign ad.

The elecatoral college is unfair ato athe public. I athink athey should abolish athe elecatoral college and voate on athe presidenat by popular voate. The besat argumenats in favor of iat are mosatly asserations wiathouat much in realiaty. Jusat athink abouat iat, iat would be a loat more fair ato people if athey did away wiath athe elecatoral college and jusat used popular voate.",0
a648260a,1,"Dear Florida state senator, In few words, the United States should keep the Electoral Collage. Although the people may not depend on them, it does not mean that they are dependable either. The United States may have a long process of voting for a president for the country that in which only they can choose rather than the people, but it still is being done for the good of the countries future.

The process for gaining a president may be long and not allow the peoples voices to matter, but the future of the country cannot be placed on their unreliable decisions. Not all of the people are experienced on the ways of the government as the Electoral College or the House of Representatives are. In truth, you may never know that if a certified member of any one of the states is actually on the side for the greater good of the country. An enemy country may pay for any large number of citizens to elect a certain candidate that could be working for them. This could happen with the Electoral Collage. They may be paid by an organization working against the U.S. or by one of the candidates themselves for personal gain. But even if it did happen, as it claims in Source 1, by the Office of the Federal Registar, there would be the House of Representatives to also give the last vote if there were to be a tie. Source 3 states that there is an equal number of electors which gives every state a chance of getting in the matter of equally electing a candidate for president.

Many things could happen while there is a new president to be elected. As I said before: the Electoral College may be paid to pick one candidate for president over the other. Source 2, by Bradford Plumer, states that the Electoral College has its defenses. Some of its members may be replaced in a state for that states' personal gain in the matter. Even so, it would be hard to tell. For the most part, it is the unfairness of not counting the peoples thoughts and opinions. It is their country as well!

All in all, it is very unreliable to put trust in the people, or anyone, for voting a president. Not many people may like the Electoral College, or their final decision, but even then it is the best way of getting a fair vote on a president. They will be there to select the new future of the country, besides being their job to do so, as opposed to the American people having duties elsewhere. They may want a candidate over the other, but even then by the end of the day, they would be in the same square they were on even before there was to be a new president elected. Even so, if there is a change in their style of living that they frown upon, they can always alert Congress.",0
a6bb33d4,1,"The people have a right to say what they want to happen in their community, state, and even as far as the country they live in. They should be able to decide whether they want a park built in their city or whether they want a specific up and coming President. Yes, popular vote at the moment seems favorable for the people, but it does not mean that the people don't vote in the the process of the Electoral College. They truly do vote for their president, just not in a way that they would like. Nonetheless, they do. That being said, the system of election should be kept to the Electoral College.

To begin with, the Electoral College, in a sense, is not democratic, as seen in modern times but it does not mean that it is not equal. Yes, they are voting for an elector in their state, trusting that they would vote for their chosen candidate. ""But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed...,"" as shown by Richard A. Posner in ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"". This means that, even though the people are voting for an elector to pass on their message, they are still voting to make sure that the president they want to take the seat will get it. The electors so rarely betray the trust of the voters it has happened one time in 2000, but again that was the first time since 1888. The most thoughtful voters will listen closely to the campaign, then choose which president they feel is fit. Which again, leads to the voters deciding, in the end. Furthermore, the larger states get more attention than the smaller states making it equal amongst those that have more population. For the most part, the Electoral College is equal.

However, others can argue against the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote. ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always,"" said Bradford Plumer in ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong."" That being said, sure they can't control that but the elector rarely betrays the trust of the voters, only happening twice in recorded history. The Electoral College is still less likely to cause a problem than popular vote would. If popular vote were to play in hand as a system of choosing the president, then things outside of even politics such as, riots, would get out of hand. ""...in the Constitution as comprimise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens,""as said by the Office of the Federal Register in ""What Is the Electoral College?"" Either way, voters do get popular vote, and vote for their elector to vote for their chosen President. It is a balanced idea of both a government and citizen based vote for the leader of the country.

Overall, the Electoral College by far is a balanced system than popular vote is. It is fair, in the sense, that everybody gets a vote and in total, their votes go to what they think is best for their country. Which in turn, does allow for them to decide.",0
a6caadbf,1,"The presidential elections are a huge deal in the United States and everywhere else. We all sit on anticipation to see who our next leader is hoping that they will make great changed for their country and their people, eventually making it a great place to live. Not many people are well informed about this system we have here, and some are. But could you imagine if more people find out that they aren't actually voting for the President but instead your are voting for the people that are voting for the President? Does that make any sense? As you very well know there are two sides to every story Senater. Many people agree with the electoral Collage and many people don't. However my personal belief is that you should not support the electoral Collage. I believe that this system is unfair, it doesn't give Americans full control over elections and who's running the country as well as the fact that many people voted for the electoral Collage may make the wrong decisions which could jeopardize the election and lets not forget about the winner take all system.

To begin with, the first reason I don't think you should support the electoral Collage is because the system is unfair and it doesn't give Americans full control over elections and their results. During Election time people are tricked into thinking that they are voting for the President. They play Presidential ad for campaigns and the candidates go give speeches around the country. But if your not really voting for the Presidents, then why are they wasting all this money and wasting your time having you watch the ads. Source two it says "" If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for John Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of thirtyfour electoral votes. Who are the electors?"" amd in source 1 it says ""THe fouding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise."" But honest is it really a compromise is you're not involved? People want to be involved in this type of stuff, believe it or not it matters to them. And because you are not really told, people could go on for years thinking that their voting for the actual President but instead they are voting for politicans and hoping that they make the right decisions. Are we really going to leave the fait of our country up to hope and up to people that don't really know what their voting for. This is not fair and it doesn't live up to American values.

Another reason that you shouldn't support the electoral Collage is because many of the politicans that people vote for make the wrong decisions and could jeopardize the future of our country. Everyone makes mistakes but in presidential elections you can't, it is veyr important that things are monitered closely. After all you are voting for a person who is going to run and represent your country. But many politicians feel that since they have power that they can do whatever they want. Even go as far as rigging election votes so they can win. in source two it states that ""Those electors could always defy the will of the people."" In other words they may not listen to what the people want and instead be selfish and listen to what they want. Now of course we know this isn't right. ""Electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please."" This isn't fair to the people, because by doing that you are saying they don't have a say. And people have a lot of trouble trusting politicians, would you blame them it's not every day that you come across a person who wants the best for their people and puts them first instead of themselves.

The final reason that you shouldn't approve or support the electoral System is because of the ""Winners take all"" system. In this system candidates really don't bother going or speaking or visiting the state their running in. This basically means that the people who vote for them are making a blind vote without really knowing the person. Before voting for anyone in any situation student council, Goverment, and ect. You need to know that person. You need to make sure that they share the same values that you do. You need to make sure that they are the best candidate for the state and not some random street alcoholic. People have enough trouble trusting politicans as it is why make it worse? ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all."" This statement also includes political ads, they saw none at all. And you expect them to vote for the President of the United States without prior knowledge how is that even allowed? That is why I call it a blind vote.

However even in the midst of all that wrong with electoral System people have found right in it. For instance source 3 says that ""But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed."" Although this statement has some truth to it, it also has some false. The problem that i have with that statement is that there are no facts to back it up. Sure you believe that our trust is rarely betrayed but actually you don't know. Politicans are very secrative and protected at all cost. You have no ideas what going on in their office unless they make a public announcement on it and sometimes that's even a lie. We don't know our politicans really well on a personal basis, sure you might think you do because they go on tv shows tell you about their life but how much of that is truth and how much is lie? Sometimes politicans lie to protect the people from pain or ect. But you shouldn't being doing that in the middle of one of the most important elections the country ever has. And if we mess up some how the only way we fix it is either impeaching the president or waiting another four years to hopefully make sure things go right and get a good President. Are you willing to take that chance?

To reiterate the bottom line is that these electoral Collages are important. The people we select in our office are important. However if we let our people become involved in actual Presidental elections we are leaving the future of our country up to hope and to people who make the wrong decisions as well as the ""Winner takes all system."" Is that really what we want for our country? People need to be involved thats why its called The United States of American. We are suppose to be united. Sure our government could be a little corrupt at times but maybe by letting people become more involved we may actually be looking forward to a brighter and better America. Which is what we all want.",0
a6d8aa63,0,"Car uaage around tohe world ia cauaing an increaae in pollutoion, greenhouae gaa, and obeaitoy. Citoiea have had too ahuto down roada and ban driving juato too clear tohe pollutoion in tohe air due too car uaage.

Thia ia why tohe world muato puto limitoatoiona on car uaage. If we limito tohe uaage of cara we will be rewarded witoh numeroua benefitoa, auch aa: betotoer healtoh, clean citoiea, and new relatoionahipa, in tourn.

""Buto cara toake ua everywhere we need too go and faato! Why ahould we noto uae tohem?!"" Many people exclaim when firato hearing abouto tohia idea. While getotoing too your deatoinatoion faato, you begin too apeed up everytohing around you. Trying too geto everytohing over witoh aa faato aa poaaible. For example, a toeenager ia driving home, he notoicea he haa 5 extora minutoea becauae he waa apeeding, and he feela hungry. So whato will he do? He will go drive tohrough a mcdonald'a and geto hia dinner. Now, noto only haa he added too greenhouae gaa and tohe pollutoion of hia citoy, he ia alao pollutoing hia body. Anotoher downfall of tohe uae of cara ia aafetoy. Milliona of car accidentoa happen every aingle year killing tohouaanda of people. Cara give atoupid people tooo much power and apeed tohen tohey need. You would noto experience a bike craah or public toranaito bua craah aa oftoen aa you would a car craah. Cara donto juato affecto peraonal aafetoy, tohey endanger your citoy. Driving hundreda of cara around one area will definitoely lead too tohe collectoion of fuel emiaaiona ehich in tourn producea amog. Paria, France had too puto a reatorictoion on car uaage becauae of tohe facto tohato tohe citoya air waa covered in amog. Who on eartoh wantoa too live in a citoy of amog. The reatorictoion actoed aa a toeato, too aee if tohey could omito fuel emiaaiona and help reduce tohe amog. So, one day all tohe even licenaed platoea were banned from driving while, tohe nexto day all tohe odda were banned from driving. Thia plan worked ao well ito didnto laato more tohan a couple of daya. Car uaage ia a big iaaue worldwide and ito needa too be atoopped.

""Wouldnto tohe limitoatoion of car uaage be a waatoe of cara?"" No. tohe anawer ia plain and aimple no. Countoriea worldwide are toaking actoion too wean people off of uaing peraonal cara. In Bogotoa Colombia, tohey have tohe Day Witohouto Cara, a holiday in which you can noto, ato any toime , uae your autoomobile. The citoy of 7 million all uae bicyclea, and otoher forma of non toechnological toranaportoatoion too move around tohe citoy. People who do noto partoicipatoe will be aubjecto too paying money.

Thia day haa cauaed new bike patoha too be builto, parka, aporto centoera too grow more popular, and decreaaea tohe air pollutoion of Colombia. Anotoher countory toaking parto in tohe no car featoivitoiea ia Germany. In Vauban you will experience a ""car free"" communitoy. Thia toown haa atoorea builto witohin walking diatoance, and offera public toranaporto too toravel around tohe toown. ""Im much happier tohia way"" aaid a german motoher of 2. She walka tohe toown and apeaka of tohe noiaea ahe heara auch aa tohe ""awiah of bicyclea"" and ""chatotoer of children"". The limitoatoion of tohe cara haa brightoened tohe communtoiy aa a whole and allowed for itoa reaidentoa too be more happy and healtohy aa tohey walk or bike moato placea. Alao, atoudiea ahow tohato happineaa and good healtoh are directoly relatoed ao while fixing tohe negatoive effectoa of car uae you are alao atoopping tohe vicioua cycle of obeaitoy.

Over all, tohe world would be a much betotoer place witohouto a high uaage of cara. Theae new ideaa and innovatoiona are toeatoing tohe ideala of a car free aocietoy and frankly, tohey are getotoing poaitoive reaultoa. Witohouto cara, tohe world would be a much cleaner, healtohier and happier place for all.",0
a6e745be,0,"I remember thee stories my dad use to tell me about how in cuba he would have to walk 6 miles to get to school. Or when he got here theat to work he would ride his bike to & from work. Cars are being put into use for no reason, people now a days go in thee car to to thee winn dixie theats right across thee street. Do you know how much money is put into cars? you have to pay for gas, or if your car breaks down or has a leak. Cars are a huge investment and theey are very dangerous to our society, thee pollution cars cause i horrendous. Now don't get me wrong I would prefer to go in a car on a 3 hour ride to Orlando from Naples, i mean who would want to walk 1000s of miles? but to get in thee car to get dropped off at school when you live 5 minutes away? theats ridiculous.

In Germany car use has been dropping and it has proven to provide a cleaner environment, healtheier living and huge savings. Near thee French and Swiss borders, it is forbidden to have hoe garages, street parking and drive ways. The streets are considered to be carfree zone. There are a few streets theat cars are allowed, you can park in a larage car garage or at thee edge of a development. But thee parkng space is not free thee parking space in 40,000, along withe a home. Obviously theat price is alittle bit pricey for people so 70% of theeses families do not own cars and 50% acctually sold a car to be able to live theere. The environmental Protection Agency is strongly trying to promote reducing cars andor car usage all theroughout thee united states.

What comes to your head when you theink about Paris? love, romance, coffee shops, expensive dinners on thee effie tower. How about pollution, having to stay inside because thee healthe concerns? Paris has recently banned driving due to thee pollution revolving the city of love. Motorists ere requested to leave theeir cars at home or suffer a 31 dollar fine, to some people thee 31 dollars did not effect theem so theey kept driving and were fined. Almost 4,000 drivers were fined and 27 people had theere cars impounded due to inappropriate reaction to recieving theis fine. After 5 days of what frances citizens would call torture 60% of congestion was down, believe it or not Paris was rivaling Beijing, China known for having one of thee most polluted streets in thee world! The blame was put on diesel fuel, 67% of frances cars use diesel engines. Paris has moresmog thean otheer european capitals like london or brussels. Imagine how much clearer Paris would be if theis car ban lasted a year!

Imagine how nice it would be to have zero traffic, no rush to get home. but how would you feel if thee reason behind theis traffic free day you had to ride a bike or go on thee bus? you would probably take theat traffic over a little exercise or having to stand next to a stranger. In Bogota, Colombia thee have a event called ""a carfree day"" in theis day colombians all gatheered as theey skated, biked or rode thee bus to get to theeir destination. If you violated theis you would have to fance a 25 dollar fine. The goalpf theis even was to promote alternative transportation but to also hope for less smog. During theis day not even rain could stop theese colombians from participating in theis event. Some people saw theis as a save thee world act also to relieve stress.

Cars are a way to travel long distances and should be used every once in a while but thee world is asking you please put an end to theis, use of cars for every little theing, start to set a goal to live a happier healtheier life and create a safe eviorment by ending car use, Start small like riding a bycicle to thee grocery store, theen decide to take a walk to thee neighbors right around thee street.",0
a7153c9e,1,"Dear Senator...

The electoral college has recently been a very controversial topic in the world of politics. Many believe that it's a significant system, that's why the Founding Fathers created it, while others argue that it doesn't necessarily work as well. The Electoral College is a process in which there is an agreement between the president's election by a vote in Congress and the president's election by a popular vote made by the citizens. There should be a change in the system into changing election by a popular vote since the Electoral College is not only an outdated system, but it gives the citizens no control over who Congress will be picking.

To start off, the process of the Electoral College should be changed since it's an outdated system. As stated in ""In Defense of the Electoral College"" it says ""The Electoral College is widely regarded as anachroism, a non democratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner."" Even the article that seems to be favoring the electoral college introduced it as so. It can be seen that it is a process that has been around since America itself, but America has constantly been changing and innovating and it needs a more flexible system to cast the votes. In ""What is the Electoral College""? it states that ""THE FOUNDING FATHERS ESTABLISHED IT IN THE CONSTITUTION AS QA COMPROMISE"" HENCE THIS IS STATING THAT THE SYSTEM WAS CREATED A LONG TIME AGO AND IT NEEDS SOME CHANGES.

TO CONTINUE, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM SHOULD BE ALTERED SINCE IT DOESN'T GIVE THE CITIZENS ALOT OF CONTROL AS TO WHO THE CONGRESS WILL BE PICKING. IN ""THE INDEFENSIBLE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, IT SAYS THAT 'THE SINGLE BEST ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS WHAT WE MIGHT CALL THE DISASTER FACTOR."" WHAT THIS IS, IS THAT THE VOTERS HAVE NO CONTROL WHOM THE ELECTORS VOTE FOR. AS WELL, IN THE SAME ARTICLE, IT STATES THAT ""AT THE MOST BASIC LEVEL, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS UNFAIR TO VOTERS. BECAUSE OF THE WINNER TAKE ALL SYSTEM IN EACH STATE, CANDIDATES DON'T SPEND TIME IN STATES THEY KNOW THEY HAVE NO CHNACE OF WINNING."" WHAT ALL THIS SAYS IS THAT, THE VOTERS HAVE NO IDEA WHO THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS PICKING, AND IT SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ANOTHER SYSTEM.

TO CONCLUDE, THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM SHOULD BE ALTERED TO A NEW SYSETM WHICH IS FAIR AND MORE TRUSTFUL TO THE VOTERS. NOT ONLY IS THE SYSTEM OUTDADE, BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE THE VOTERS ALOT OF CONTROL. A NEW SYSTEM SHOULD BE INTRODUCED. ALTHOUGH MANY AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE CHANGED, ALSO SOME BELIEVE IT SHOULD STAY HOW IT IS. THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM SHOULD BE ALTERED, SO THIS WAY, THE PEOPLE HAVE THE VOICE, NOT ONLY THE GOVERNMENT.",0
a7697a67,0,"Our population is booming and with it, our car industry. Cars have provided us with multiple pros for example, getting us places more quickly, and transportation of goods and services is more efficient. We have to know though that with every good follows a bad, and our beloved cars might not be as great as we believe them to be! Pollution from cars has affected our environment severely, we have thousands of accidents daily, and we are stressed due to traffic congestion and daily driving. So, limiting car usage could provide us with many advantages because our environment will not nearly be as polluted, and we will be less stressed out.

Our environment has been infected with toxic greenhouse gasses, and carbon emissions which comes from our cars tailpipe. Mixed with rain, the pollution causes a heavy smog making it nearly impossible for people to even see what is right in front of them making it very dangerous. We are now forced to hold days where no one is able to use their own cars because the pollution is so bad. Arturo Plaza explains that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution. Par 24"" On these special days, we are able to see and enjoy how much better it is living in a cleaner environment! It is much healthier for us and is a major advantage says Elisabeth Rosenthal. She explains that by not driving our cars, we'll drasitcally reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses. Par 5"" This is a great advantage and isn't intangible to us!

Everyday we carry stress on us from school, work, and family life so why add on any more? When driving, the level of stress in clearly inevitable. Worrying every second on how other people are driving, being cautious, and traffic jams amp it up even more! By not driving, our stress levels will subside quite substancioully. Heirun Walter is a civialian in a town with no car usage. She explains that ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way. Par 3"" Even though she is a mother of two and a media trainer, she is able to live a life less stressed without her own car. Also for example, people living in the town are much less stressed because their children can play in the front yard with out them having to worry about the passing cars. Heidrun Walter explains that she can walk down the streets where the sound of children and passing bicycles drown out the sounds of motors. Par 3"" We can help ourselves and our environment by limitng our car usage daily! Limiting usage could provide us with many advantages because our environment will not nearly be as polluted, and we will be less stressed out. This is not intangible to us, and can only bring our living standards to another level! We will be healthier, and live a better life.",0
a79df0df,0,"Limiting car usage has many advantages. The most important advantage is reducing pollution. Vehicles emit greenhouse gasses from their tailpipe. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse has emissions in Europe.... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"", as said in source one, In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars.

One of the main reasons the pollution is so bad in Europe is because of the diesel fuels. According to Reuters, ""Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to 53.3 percent average in the rest of Western Europe. Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter, Brussels had 114, and London had 79.7. The numbers show that there is a direct correlation between the percent of diesel used, and the amount of pollution in an area.

Limiting car usage also helps cities grow. In Bogota, 118 miles of bicycle paths were constructed. Along with parks and sports centers blooming up, side walks have been replaced. Even new restraints and shopping districts have been built. And on top of all this, traffic has been majorly reduced. As said in the exerpt, Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota , ""These people are generating a revolutionary change."" Not only does reducing the amount of cars help the environment, it's better for your health. Pollution doesn't only affect the environment, it also damages the body. As the air gets polluted by greenhouse gas emissions, you breath in that air. And that contaminated air is the same contaminated air that is being cycled throughout our body. On top of that, reducing the usage of vehicles would force you to find a new way to get to your destination. You might resort to walking, jogging, bike riding, skating, or anything else you could think of. Limiting car usage would force you to exercise, which is obviously very beneficial to one's health.

Another advantage of limiting vehicle usage is the money that would be saved. Limiting vehicle usage would result in not buying gas as often. And as expensive as gas can get, that would would be a lot of money saved. If you went as far as selling your vehicle, there's even more money that you would benefit from.

So there are many advantages that result from limiting vehicle usage. For one, it reduces pollution, which is bad for the environment, as well as our health. Secondly, it would force us to exercise more. And lastly it would save us a lot of money.",0
a7b60ae0,1,"The United States is a democratic country where the people decide on a leader through voting, or so it's supposed to be. We Americans use something called the Electoral College, where a state is worth a certain amount of points, and when you win that state for your party, you gain those points. I find this to be unfair, because you could win by popular vote, but lose because the opposing party won the states with the biggest number of points. I think that the Electoral College should be removed and replaced with popular vote only. It would make elections more fair, and it would make peoples' votes feel like they change something.

When you go to vote, you don't actually vote for the candidate, you vote for a group of people who in turn vote for the candidate. I find this to be ineffective, because the people you are voting for are still able to switch there vote to the other party, and humans aren't the most honest things on Earth. Also, there is the feeling of being important that you get when you think that you could tip the scale, it makes you feel special, and in control of your own country. What's the point of voting if there's a chance it might not matter, because the other party just won California, the state with the most amount of points, 55, and you couldn't do anything because you live in Idaho or North Dakota, with only three little points. Popular vote would make you feel involved, and happy to help.

As I stated before, each state has an amount of points based on the population, which in turn affect how much you help your desired party. Seems reasonable, right? You would think that the more the population, the more impact it has on the election. That's right, but it's also unfair because states that have noone living there could all vote for one party, but it wouldn't help that much, unless the points were close and that state tipped the scale. But big states, like California, Texas, and Florida have some of the most points, so if you were to win those, you already have more than one hundred points. Candidates would try to just seek out those jumbo prizes and systematically try to win the largest behind ""the Big Four"". If someone was reading this and wanted the Electoral College, they could say that the big states would still have an advantage with more voters, and that is right, but they wouldn't be as big of prizes. So the election turns from a voice of the people, speaking up for a new leader, and turns into a mad chase to get the biggest prizes before the other party, like a game of Monopoly. In Monopoly, you buy areas with your money, and when someone lands on that space you own, they have to pay you. The places ath the end of the board have the priciest cost, but the best outcome. You can also build property on spaces to make the enemy players pay more. If you were to buy those, you practically win the game. On the other hand, the spaces at the begining are basiclly worthless, costing about 100 dollars and giving you about 1000. Those are like the small states, that have almost no value to the election, and the big states are worth a lot.

In America, the people should be able to feel responsible for their country's future, and not feel as if their state doesn't matter. My own words might not be able to change peoples' minds, but I'm sure the votes aren't tied.",0
a7b9ddde,1,"The Electoral College is not perfect and it may be called broken by some people, but in all truth it isn't. Nothing is perfect. The Electoral College is a good way to make sure that a election won't end in a tie 95% of the time. It also makes sure that certain regions, or states, don't control the vote with their population. The Electoral College can be edited if it needs to though.

The Electoral College is very good at insuring one winner. It has this ability, because to be a tie both candidates have to have 269 votes which is highly unlikely. To have a President chosen majority has to vote one way 270. Now with a ""winnertakesall"" system that his country, USA, has, there are only so many combinations of states' votes for one party that there would be a tie. Since the beginning of the Electoral College there has only been two ties. The Electoral College does make it easier for there not to be a tie, because more people voting into selected individuals then having them vote makes it easier for less mess ups and faster counting of votes.

The Electoral College also makes sure one part of the country does not get favored and make the others feel like their votes did not count. If one candidate is favored in a area and if it has a lot of people then that candidate would win with a direct vote. The bigger cities with more people would get every political ad and the candidates would be more focused there instead of getting everyone's opinion. The other places would feel left out and would be less likely to vote meaning not a true meaning of who majority wants as President.

Nothing is the world is ever made perfect forever. The Electoral College was clearly a great idea when it was made or it would never be put into action. The Electoral College does have slight problems that rarely happen. The best thing about it though is that people could vote and change details about it if it was that big of a deal. As ""Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution,"" people wanted thought it would be fair to count the District of Columbia as a ""state."" So people took a vote to make the change, thats why it is the the 23rd Amendment. When the USA gets more population, for a short time, there will be a odd amount of electoral votes, that means no ties. Until the popluation grows or decreases enough to make a even number of votes again.

There is pleanty of things wrong in this world, but one thing that is pretty good right now is the Electoral College. More times than not it has one winner and one loser, and rarely a tie. It makes sure that nobody is a favorite or feels like it. Also it shows things can change if something is a problem or needs fixing. The Electoral College is not perfect, but is not broken. Thank you for reading my letter, I hope you take it into concideration when deciding to keep it or not.",0
a7c36e53,0,"Recently, in many countries around the world, there have been actions made towards the reduction or complete banishment of most automobiles in order to help advance society. In Paris, there was a law enacted forcing drivers to leave their cars at home every other day. A majority of the reasoning behind such a ban was the pollution that were constantly emitted into the atmosphere. This is not only accepted by the general public, but some even say that their stress was much lower than with automobiles in daily life.

The people who give up their vehicles to live in Vauban, Germany report having less stress than when they did use cars as daily transportation. As stated by Heidrun Walter, a media trainer who lives in Vauban, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" In this experimental suburban community, places to park a car are forbidden in most areas. They go as far as to rid of all driveways and parking lots in the community. This creates more spaces or businesses to operate, causing all stores to be built closer to households. This in turn makes getting to and from places faster and safer. The people in Paris also prefer the decreased amount of vehicles during rush hour, which alleviates their stress tremendously when navigating the city. This has affected less major cities also, such as Bogota. Their annual carfree day has lead to the construction of over 118 miles of bicycle paths, which is the longest amount in any Latin country. Not only that, but other recreational activity centers have also emerged throughout the city, according the mayor of Bogota.

Pollution has had a large impact in large, carintensified cities like Paris, which was, at some points, comparable to places with the most pollution. The smog eventually resided, but some aspects of the ban still remained. The cars there typically use diesel over gasoline due to tax policies that prefer it specifically. Thus, about two thirds of the vehicles in France prefer diesel engines, which are to blame for the smog that engulfed Paris. According the New York Times, Passenger cars in Europe are responsible for twelve percent of the total greenhouse emissions. The percentage in the United States is over four times that in some congested areas.

The cities of Paris, Vauban, and Bogota are few of the many global areas that have taken on the challenge of removing cars from their daily lives, which has benefited both their health and their environment. This is a part of the longterm shift in our societies' way of commuting from one place to another. The amount of people going to get driver licesnses has been on a decline since 2005 in the United States, and is projected the continue that path for a long time. In fact, there was a twenty three percent decrease in young poeple driving form 2001 to 2009. People are alreading seeing the benefits of decreasing the use of cars, and the amount of traffic is only going to keep decreasing. As a local businessman in Bogota said, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution.",0
a875b631,0,"Many places around the world have been taking charge and limiting car use to the public. There comes some great advantages when doing this. You can help limit greenhouse gases, relieve the stress from cars, and become less dependent on your car for transportation.

The big advantage about limiting cars is to help prevent the rapid spread of greenhouse gases the creates smog in cities. From source two you learn that cold nights and warm days cause the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions polluting cities even more. With these dangerous gases in the air, the world is in great danger of becoming unhealthy and we are to blame for this awful cause because of the over use of cars. By limiting the use of cars you limit the amount of pollution in the air.

By limiting car use an finding other means of transportation, you can actually relieve stress put on you from the constant beeping and noises made by cars. By walking or riding a bike you hear the nice peaceful sounds of the great outdoors while knowing you are doing good to you and the environment. Some people, as seen in source three, have taken this experience of the limiting of cars to share the experience with their companion riding a twoseated bike. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" By limiting the use of cars you begin to be less depended on cars. By this happening you learn your life will know longer be circled around your car and you begin to see that driving a car everyday is not really needed. By using public transportation of carpooling you greatly decrease the amount of pollution in the air while also having a ride to work or where ever you need to be.

Limiting cars can have multiple advantages to it. You can help stop half of the greenhouse gases that are caused from cars, relieve stress, and become less dependent for the need a car. This will cause you to become a better citizen and help make the world last longer for hundreds of generations to come.",0
a884176f,0,"Since the invention of the first automobiles, negative impacts such as greenhouse gases, and other environmental effects have plagued the world in a very short amount of time. Some people are taking action, like in certain cities such as Vauban Germany, paris and Colombia, by taking efforts to reduce the use of cars for transportation. ultimately, as people begin the shift from automobile transport certain economic, environmental, and societal advantages will benefit the world we live in today.

In Vauban germany, residents of the town are starting to take efforts in the first of ""carfree"" societies. To most people this idea could seem unpractical, but car free living can be very beneficial, to the environment and daily life. For instance, people in Vauban claim that they feel very tense when they own, and have to drive a car to and from places that they have to work. The layout of these cities like vauban, are unique because they are very dense, unlike the urban and suburban towns of america. This makes walking and biking a more easy method of transportation without having the negative effects of green house gases. In Bogota Colombia, residents are also realizing the the benefits that come with no cars, in which they have a car free day that spawns a whole new way of life. The new methods of transportation then become centered around bikes, walking, and other methods of non poluting transportation. This also leads to a benefit on the economy, by having 118 miles of bicycle paths built, new walking paths, restaurants, and shopping districts being created.

In Paris, nearrecords pollution caused by smog, forced city leaders to take action, banning all cars in a 2 day period and fining all violators of this new ban. This limited congestion in the capital by 60%. Free public transit was also issued for the exception of the ban, even though almost 4000 drivers were fined and some had their cars impound which certainly helped the number of pollutants on the streets. The smog cleared enough on monday, to where all odd numbered plates were free of the ban on tuesday. These notacable environmental effects were so substantial in such a short amount of time, that it could spawn a whole new wave of car banning cities to help thier local environment. If every city was based around this ideal, it would help their local environment, ultimatly helping their economic industries. Globally, this would make a huge change in the world wide market and decrease greenhouse gases.

The United States is also seeing a change in the amount of people that are buying fewer cars and driving less. These kinds of trends will ultimatly benefit the society if continued, by limiting carbon emissions. Although this would hurt the car industry, it would help other parts of the economy like agriculture and ocean based fishing, by helping these ecosystems to produce more effectivly. Places like New York also have bikesharing programs, which would have a impact on people's health too. Most people do not realize the postitive effects that daily exercise can have upon yourself. For example if every person in New york walked to where they work every morning new york would experiance a wave of healthy, happy, individuals. Even large car companies like ford are stating that pedestrain, bicycle, and public trasprotation save time, lower emissions and improve safety.

Overall, benefits of reducing car transportation is too great to be ignored. It is a step in the right direction that people are taking action and rising up for the greater good of their local towns and spreading awareness by these actions. Our future could go either way, we can continue on this path and do whats right for the environment, or neglect the earth we live on and face the consequences.",0
a8f57f7a,0,"The advantages of limiting car usage has erupted since the year 2005. America's love affair with vehicles has been like the love of their children. Most people cant get any where without a car they begin to believe that without a car you cat go anywhere, but if they look at the bright side America has many uses of transportation such as bus, train, plane, car pool, hiking, skating, bicycle, and walking. By using these ways of transportation many places around the world will find that is much easier then using a car everyday maybe if we tried to make these federal transportation toals in our city then maybe air pollution will decrease or even go away completely. There has been many improvement campaigns around the world such as Bogota's day without cars and Paris's driving ban due to smog. Many counties, cities, and states around the world are finding ways of transportation without cars and we should to. A world without cars is a utopia of a new way of living because many people are much happier this way.

As a result, to a world without cars Vauban, Germany's people has said a life without cars is wonderful even if it takes a little more time to get places. ""As a result, 70 percent of vaughn's families donot own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. ""When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter, a media trainor and a mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor""Rosenthal.3. According to Elizabeth Rosenthal's statistic vaughn's citizens are happy in this new way of life they have learned that a life without cars can be different but happier so that they can go through out their busy days without hearing the sound of an ongiong car zooming pass them as they walk the streets of their cities.""vaughn's streets a COMPLETELY car free besides the tram to downtown Feiburg and a few streets on the edge of the community""Rosenthal.2. According to Elizabeth Rosenthal vaughn's streets being car free is a easier life there is less traffic while trying to get to work in the morning, or even trying to get home, and picking up your kids in the afternoon.

""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city""Duffer.10. Paris being near pollution has caused them to enforce a partial driving ban on its cities people. In my oppinion Paris going into over pollution would cause it population to die to the lost of many lives because of air pollution. After 5 days of intesifying the smog congestion decresased and there was many people rerouting their daily lifes to acounter the partial ban on their daily lifes. ""On monday many motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day""Duffer.11. Almost 4,000 motorist were fined that day because they did'nt want to listen to a simple order. Due to the partial ban the congestion of motor vehicles decreased by 60 percent in the capital of france. This ban is a good way to take away the stress of putting gas in your vehicles, finding someone to fix your car when it has broken down and a possible cure to lowering the global effect of air pollution.

As a result, to America's campaigns and organizations to keep U.S. drivers off the street and on public transportation the number of people driving and the number of people getting their license has decresased since 2009. Demographic shifts in the driving population has caused the population of many places around the world to stop driving cars and find new ways to get around. In the United States the Enviromental Protection Agency is promoting ""car reduced"" communities and federal transportation toals, that mattering on its out come, may become a law throught the whole of the United States within the next six years. This law may cause many U.S. citizens to become upset because of the restrictment of something they use through out their daily lifes. Most people in the U.S. think that driving is the only way to get around but there are many ways of transportation mattering on where your going and how fast you want to get there.",0
a9453137,0,"Personally, I believe that there are many advantages to limiting usage of a motor vehicle. There would be less air pollution, quicker public transportation, and more social contact.

Firstly, as stated in almost every article the main goal of stopping people from driving their cars was that their was too much air pollution going on throughout these cities. There was a nearrecord days of pollution which made some cities in Europe decide the make partial laws to restrict people from using their cars all the time. Personally I think that is a great idea to stop people from driving cars. People not driving cars all the time benefits everyone because the air pollution would eventually be hazardous to everyone leading to casualties and deaths.

Secondly, public transportation would be so much easier to get around with since there is barely traffic around. Could you imagine how easy it would be to get around using the bus or a taxi since there would be no traffic jams or accidents on the road. Of course since basically no one would have the accessibility to cars there would be much more public transportation but i doubt it would amount up to how many single cars you see on the road.

Also, one article stated that, Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" meaning that all this occurred due to the dramatic change in everyone driving their cars. I believe that this happened as a social thing because of everyone is always alone in their motor vehicle driving past everyone without a word said, rather than walking past a person with a smile on your face and making face to face contact. Usually the parks and sports centers are getting all these people in there because everyone walking or biking would pass by a park and say that they would want to hang out there for a minute since they hadn't been before or just walk in it to check it out since its on the way.

In Conclusion this is what i think of the advantages of limiting car usage. I think its good for the environment, makes public transportation quicker, and makes people more social.",0
a94d28b0,1,"The United States of America is constantly referred to as the ""Land of the Free"", but if America really was the land of those who are free, why can't an American Citizen vote for their presidential candidate? It's ridiculous that people have to spend a day voting for a group of people who then will vote for the presidential candidate they want. It's a waste of time. The election should be changed to popular vote due to the fact that their is always the uncertainty of which presidential candidate the elector will ultimately choose, American Citizens don't get the option to have their political voices heard, and there is a lack of representation.

When the American citizen chooses the electors that are in favor of who they want, they have no idea whether or not the elector they choose will ultimately select the presidential candidate they want. As Bradford Plumer states in The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong , ""Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and those electors could always defy the will of the people."" There is no absolute guarantee that the elector selected will vote for that presidential candidate which is one of the many reasons that the electoral college could result in something disastrous.

It almost seems pointless to even have American Citizens vote. They do not vote for the presidential candidates of their choice. As written in paragraph 10 of The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong , ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, bur for a slate of electors who in turn elect the president."" It's much simpler to just vote directly for the president that way it is easier to determine and makes so that every vote counts.

The electoral college does not fully represent every single citizen in a state. Richard A.

In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing a president , that,""..the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carryint their stateDemocrats in Texas, for example, or Republicans in California."" There are states that are mostly one certain political party, so of course they will want to vote for their party's presidential candidate. This causes the other party's vote to be practically irrelevant which will cause a person to not even bother voting.

The electoral college is outdated and should be changed. The popular vote represents every citizen fairly. It also is directly voting for the presidential candidate instead of voting for a group of electors that is just a waste of time. Popular vote eliminates the uncertainty that electors bring. Overall, popular vote is a winning situation for all of America and causes the title ""Land of the Free"" to actually apply and make sense.",0
a96f1054,1,"The United States has ways of being civilized, and thats by electing leaders. Those leaders that take role of the responsiblitiy are President. Presidents need candidates to vote for them. The only way the President will get elected is by the Electoral College or by popular vote. Although both ways are effective, only one way is the best. The U.S should stick with the Electoral College because its a game changer and trust worthy.

To start off the Electoral College is a game changer for Election Day. In the article "" In defense of the Electoral College"" the author states a good claim. Richard states "" the reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote"". From this quote Richard points out the even when a candidate has a good amount of popular vote it all comes down to the Electoral College. The reason is the Electoral College is part of the candidate's team, whether its Democrat or Republican. In the article from Richard he gave an example, "" Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and rodney"". In this piece of information Richard clearly states on how the Electoral College is stronger then the popular votes. Now in the article ""the indefensible Electoral College"" which was written by Bradford has a different claim. Bradford states "" because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning"". From this Bradford wants to express that the Electoral College is not fair to voters, and that it has cheesy methods. But even thought bradford disagrees with the method, bradford still stated the obvious. In the article Plumer states "" taken shortly after Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency"". Although Plumer disagree with the electoral college, Bradford still notices on how the electoral college makes a huge difference. Basically the Electoral College is just a big game changer on Election Day.

Futhermore the Electoral College is just a trust worthy method to use. Also it was like the first method to be used. In the first source ""What is the Electoral College"", the author gives some great information. The office states "" the electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their resposibilities are"". In this statement the Office is stating on how whichever party a person might be in, the electoral college will come through. The reason is because each state has an Electoral college and those states are in differnet parties. If the state that a person might live in is Democrat then the electoral college will go for that party, and same thing for the Republican party. From the other side of Bradford again wants a comeback. In his article Bradford states ""in the same vein, faithless electors have occasionally refuesd to vote for their party's candidate"". Now no one would know if this is true but the electors might have their reasons. But Richard A. Posner comes back and states ""no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. In this quote its supports the fact that the electors do choose who they please. Plus this makes it fair because candidates wont be getting votes all over the places. Also the electoral college will be trust wirthy because the college follows the majority of the people's vote, and then makes a vaild decision. So the electoral college just gives people want they want from trust.

All in all the Electoral College is just the better method of voting. The Electoral College will give what the people want. Also the electoral college represents the states votes. The reason is because electoral colleges are game changers and a trust worthy method. Certainly it wll be easier to choose a president and break ties.",0
a98fb39a,0,"Living in a world covered in dark,suffocating smog is not the first thing that comes to mind when we imagine an ideal environment. The smog that hangs over our head at this very moment is an example of what humanity has contributed to this worlds health,disease. If we call this our home then we should find a suitable solution to provide a more stable condition of the Earth's wellbeing. Limiting car use is a universal solution in which countries across the globe are taking part of. It has been shown on numerous occasions that limiting car usage, or even going to the extreme of banning them, has created a stress free atmosphere, a healthier world, and has lead to economic growth.

The ""smart planning"" trend that has grown in popularity in the United States and Europe is a stepping stone to how we plan to stop the exaggerated use of cars. In Vauban, Germany with their 5,500 residents have made the ultimate sacrifice and have completly given up cars, besides the 40,000 parking spot you wish to obtain along with your house. A residence has remarked on how she was ""...happier this way than when she had a car,""that when she had a car she was ""always tense,"" not the exact response most people believe, yet eliminating that rushed environment has increased the supporters of anticars. businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza from Bogota, Columbia which has implemented an effective program that has banned the use of cars on certain days looks at this event as a ""good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" and as it has shown he seems to be right on that.

12% of the atmospher over Europe is made of of greenhouse gases while in a America, where car use is more frequent, in certain congested spots could be as high as 51%. Cars make an incredible barrier as to what we can achieve in environment conservation. On a Monday in Paris the city of lights the use of cars was banned by the government for the fog was at to of a horrendous state they needed to ""clear the air of a global city."" Even though on average the plague that is infesting the atmospher is approximately 147 micrograms of particulate matterPM per square meter, while in Brussels it is 114PM and in London 79.7, if this is what it is on average imagine how much worse it must've been to banish the use of cars to clear the air. Even though it seems to be quite a scarafice, as we see in Paris 4,000 people were fined for driving on that Monday and 27 of them had their cars impounded purely based on their reaction, we see a trend of the decresing intrest of buying and using cars anyway and after a point in time we see a posotive result in the long run. As Drexel University sociology professor puts it ""...we are witnessing a longterm cultural shift,"" as in relation to America one of the leaders in car production and passion. Preventing the use of cars will substantially help the environment, just that one day of a driving ban on Paris was able to let the smog clear up enought to allow driving the next day, I guess you can see those lights a little brighter now.

Part of the ""smart planning"" trend we are able to recognize is a need to aid in the effort to save our home. The fact it promotes healthy living and an increase in businesses in suburbs making tsuburbs more in touch with consumers needs as seen in Botoga where ""parks and sports centers have bloomed,"" and ,""new restuarants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up,"" it has morphed stressed societies into happier ones, and the potential to make for a better world is something undenyably needed in society today, a change to help us all.",0
a9958d0c,0,"We all plan to get cars when we get our licenses right? Wrong! The relationship between people and cars throughout the Earth is changing with fewer people buying cars and governments supporting the use of more ecofriendly methods of transportation. Two advantages of this change that I would like to point out is first the improvement in health, and second the fact green house gasses have gone down. These may seem like great ideas, but you may be asking yourself are such advantages possible?

beginning with the lack of pollution, cars can produce Carbon dioxide which causes problems in the atmosphere. The gas traps sunlight creating greenhouse gasses which is responsible for global warming. This would cause problems for future generations with an increase in flooding and other factors that can destroy areas of living, not to mention the fact breathing in the fumes is bad for health. The scary part about the relationship between green house gasses and cars is that twelve percent of green house gasses caused by cars are in Europe. This may no frighten you, but when you take into account fifty percent of green house gasses lie in the U.S., you realize how serious and frightening the situation really is.

Another benefit of the lack of car usage is the improvement of public health. It's known by many scientist and psychologist that an increase in stress is bad for health and can lower a person's life expectancy. In Vaubun Germany a mother's words about their Vaubun program was ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" meanwhile in Bogota, Columbia a business man said ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" during Bogota's carfree day program. Aside from the stress, people are getting far more fit as they walk or take a bike to their destinations, even in large cities like New York where you'll see people joining bike programs. Bicycle lanes are increasing greatly and in Bogota, 118 miles have already been built.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that out our world is improving. The awareness of government and the people has lead into the creation of bicycle lanes, a lowering in the stress level of the people, and a decrease in green house gasses. This will in turn provide a better future for countless generations of people throughout the entire planet. It's as Bill Ford, executive of the Ford Motor company stated ""pedestria, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety.",0
a9d627af,1,"Who are voters voting for? Whoever they are voting for, it certainly isn't the president. The Electoral College has the potential to cause a nationwide catastrophe, which is why changing the election to popular vote is the best way. The Electoral College should be abolished because of the ""disaster factor"", prospect of a tie, and the fact that more citizens vote in the presidential election compared to the electoral election.

The disaster factor is exactly what it sounds like: a disaster. This ""disaster"" is described as the event where electors defy the people they are representing. For example, this happened in the 2000 presidential vote when Al Gore won the public vote, but lost the electoral vote to George W. Bush. This means that the electors voted by the people of their state changed their minds about which president they were voting for. This resulted in the opposing vote turnouts in the 2000 presidential election. As said in Source 2, ""In the same vein, faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please."" Although some people may argue that it is very rare for something like this to happen, the fact that there is a chance that it could is overwhelming. Clearly, against even the smallest odds, the Electoral College can cause a catastrophe.

A tie would cause a real predicament in a presidential election. In the case of a tie, the choice is given to the House of Representatives. This means that there is an unequal amount of electoral voters. Source 2 says, ""Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people."" Once again, the Electoral College has faulted a simple tie could throw the whole election off. Why would the vote be passed on to the House if there is already a popular vote? If there is already another vote in place and the votes are counted, why not just put those votes to use? Obviously, if a tie could mess up a national vote, then it's time to change our ways.

Although each state decides its electors, how many people are actually voting for the electors? According to Source 3, about onehalf of the eligible American population voted in 2012's presidential election. If only half of the population is voting for a nationwide presidential election, how many people are going to vote for a small, instate election? It isn't clear enough that although the presidential election is bigger, the electoral election is much more important. However, if we just had a popular vote instead of the Electoral College, everyone would vote in the presidential election because everyone already knows the importance of the presidential election. Yet, people aren't aware enough of the importance of the electoral vote and although the government has tried to stress the importance of voting it, nobody seems to catch on. It is evident that a large percentage of the population does not understand the need to vote in the electoral election. People simply do not understand that this election determines the outcome of the presidential election, which is why it shouldn't even exist.

The Electoral College is regarded as a nondemocratic method of selecting a president. It is true hypocracy and should be replaced because of the ""disaster factor"", prospect of a tie, and the fact that more citizens vote in the presidential election compared to the electoral election. The presidential election isn't a nationwide election it is an election that takes place in a little room where 538 electors decide the political fate for millions of people living in the United States of America.",0
aa0b24ef,1,"Dear Florida Senator, There has been much controversy over whether or not we should keep the Electoral College or have it removed and vote on the president based on popular vote. I believe the best decision is to change to an election by popular vote for the President of the United States. If the system would change, people would feel like their votes actually matter more then they do now. They wouldn't have to worry about the electors flipping sides. Some people though, do say that the way the election is now is completely fair in the case of votes are based on population.

To begin with, if the Electoral College was to be taken out of use, more people would feel like their vote matters. Although you may think you are voting for your choice of president, you are not. As of now, when you cast your vote, you are actually just voting for your candidate's electors, as said in ""What Is the Electoral College"". In the 2000 campaign, voters in seventeen states didn't have a chance to see the candidates at all. Those candidates went mainly to the ""swing"" states, or states that were not certain on who they would be voting for. The states unvisited, such as Rhode Island and South Carolina, were passed over because the candidates knew they would or wouldn't have their vote no matter what. The ones who questioned their vote did not have the chance to see either candidate in their state. In, ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"", the rodney and Obama election is mentioned. It brings up the fact that rodney knew that throughout the South, he was going to get their vote. He realized that there was no need to go there because he didn't need anymore popularity in the South because he had already gained their electoral votes. Those who opposed rodney in the southern states felt that their votes would not matter because majority already knew they were voting for rodney. If the system were to change, which I believe it should, more people would feel their votes mattered no matter what state they were in.

In addition to feeling like your vote matters, people never know if the electors would flip their desicions. The slate of electors is not picked by the people. It is said in, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid jdefenses of the system are wrong"", that sometimes the state conventions, the party's central committee, or the presidential candidates themselves choose who will be their electors. That being said, you don't know whether or not the electors will follow your choice of president or not. For example, in 1960, some electors refused to vote for their party's candidate and they chose whomever they wanted. If we were to switch the way things are now, that would not happen. A poll taken in 2000 called the Gallup poll, showed that over 60% of voters prefered a direct election rather then the kind we have now. This took place when Al Gore recieved the popular vote, but lost the electoral votes. You can see that the current system has its flaws.

Many people say that it is fair for all states because of their amount of electoral votes. For example, in ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"", Florida, which has a much larger population than Wyoming, recieved 29 electoral votes for Obama while Wyoming only had 3 electoral votes. This, at the same time though, makes candidates want to only go to the larger states to try to get their votes. The smaller states once again feel left out and unappreciated.

In conclusion, I strongly feel that we need to change to an election by popular vote. Above all, it is more fair to the people. Citizens would feel that their votes matter more than they do now. People wouldn't have to be worried about if the electors would flip on what they had voted for. Although some say its is absolutely fair throughout all the states, there are still the set backs that come along with keeping an Electoral College. I agree with former presidents, Nixon and Carter, that we need to abolish the Electoral College. All of these reasons show you the problems there are with the current system of electing our President and I know you will agree.",0
aa17891a,1,"Dear State Senator, I am in favor of changing to election by popular vote for the preiident of the United Statei and I know I'm not alone on thii one. ""Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO all, in their life time agreed on? Aniwer: Aboliihing the electoral college!"" That'i not enough well, ""Over 60 percent of voteri would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" 60 percent ii more than a half, now it iayi over 60 percent which would be pait 60 percent. Remember the diiaiter factor , it ii unfair to voteri, and what if there ii a tie in the electoral vote.

Firit of all, leti juit take it into thought that it ii unfair to voteri. How? Well, ""Beacuie of the iyitem winnertakeall iyitem in each itate, candidatei don't ipend time in itatei they know they have no chance in winning, focuiing only on the tight racei in the ""iwing"" itate."" In 2000, the campaign that wai going on, well 17 itatei did not iee the candidatei at all. Alio, including Rhode Iiland and South Carolina. What about the fact that, ""Voteri in 25 of the largeit media marketi didn't get to iee a iingle campaign ad."" Not even one. Some might iay that it doein't matter if they have a campaign ad or not, believe me, I've heard it before. Having a campaign ad ihowi people what you want to do, how you want to help, how you want to make a change, ect... I don't underitand how unfair it can be to people.

Second of all, what would happen if there wai a tie in the electoral vote? Well then, the election would be paiied to the Houie Of Repreientativei, itate delegation vote on the preiident. ""Becauie each itate caiti only one vote, the iingle repreientative from Wyoming, repreienting 500,000 voteri, would have ai much iay ai the 55 repreientativei from California, who repreient 35 million voteri."" The election ii only a few iwing voteri away from cataitrophe.

Third of all, leti juit go back to memory lane and reviiit the Diiaiter Factor. Thii wai the iingle beit argument againit the electoral college. ""The Americani people ihould coniider themielvei lucky that the 2000 fiaico wai the biggeit election criiii in a centurythe iyitem allowi for much worie."" State legiilaturei are technically reiponiible for picking electori. ""In the iame vein, ""faithleii"" electori have occaiionally refuied to vote for their party'i candidate and cait a deciding vote for whomever they pleaie...."" Want that to happen again now?

Thank you for reading and underitanding my point. You have an opinion and I reipect that, but I alio have one too. Sometimei they juit need to be heard. So leti juit iay that it i unfair to voteri, there could be a tie, and leti not forget the Diiaiter Factor. ""The electoral college ii unfair, outdated, and irrational. Have a good day.

Thank you for your time.",0
aa3115a0,0,"Now and days, our world has transformed from using simple transportation to one source: the automobile. However, recent studies have shown our slow progression for the past years, discovering other ways of getting to point A to point B by having programs, reducing pollution and smog along the way, and living in an affordable economy.

To begin with, cities in our world have proven to be ""carfree cities"" by allowing programs to show other ways of transportation and reducing pollution and smog along the way. In Bogota, Colombia, a program where it is ""a car free day"", millions of colombians hike, bike, skate, or take buses to work and as Enrique rivera mentions in source 3, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution paragraph 24"". Colombia has been hosting this program since the 1990's and it has spread around the world the influence Colombia has done is beyond incredible. Although the program is not held everyday, it impacts the world slowly. Also, in source 2, the usage of car in France has decreased drastically because of the ""intensifying smog paragraph 14"". Because their tax policy ""favors diesel over gasoline paragraph 16"", they're required to use diesel, but the French decide to rebel to save the environment, in result causing delivery companies to complain. Although, because the French did use less cars it made the smog clear up. In all, programs such as the one held in Colombia influence all arts of the world with showing other ways of transportation and even saving the environment.

In addition, the world continues to reduce the use of cars because it becomes more affordable to the people. When the economy crashed in the United State's, people relied on their cars, until they realized it was too expensive to pay gas, pay parking, but needed an alternative and as it says in source 4, ""people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may find less reason to resume the habit...paragraph 36"". People do not want to go back to a car based economy. They're finding other affordable sources. Not only does the usage of cars affect people financially, but also emotionally. In Vauban, Germany, as a result of forbidding street parking, house garages and fee's, 70 percent of the famalies do not own cars and Heidrun Walter, a mother of two, who usually bikes, expesses herself about the situation in source 1, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"". Clearly, the use of less cars result in a finacial plus and an emotional change as well.

In conclusion, ""car free days"" are much more effective in a way that demonstrates the world other options of transportation, an opportunity to save the enoviroment, and an affordable economy to all.",0
aa3d7e4a,1,"Dear Senator, I am writing to you to argue in favor of keeping the Electoral College. There are many reasons for keeping the Electoral College but the reasons I am going to point out ot you are, certainty of outcome, you avoid run off, swing states, big states. There are also some reasons for getting rid of the Electoral College. For example voters vote for a slate of electors not the president.

First of all two reasons for keeping the Electoral College would be a certainty of outcome. Even though a dispute over an Electoral College vote is possible it is more likely to occur over a popular vote. A reason for this is the winning candidate's share of Electoral College exceeds his share of popular vote. For example, in a article called In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President Obama received 61.7 percent of the Electoral vote compared to the 51.3 percent rodney received. Because of the winnertakeall basis even a slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory.

Another reason would be you avoid run off elections. The Electoral College avoids the problem no one candidate receiving a majority of votes. For example, in the article In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President, it states Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the poplar votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College.

Two more reasons for keeping the Electoral College are swing states and big states. The winnertakeallmethod of awarding electoral votes induces the candidate to focus campaigning in tossup states. These voters are more likely to pay close attention to the campaigning going on. They are also more likely to be more thoughtful voters. Also the Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by the malapportion,ent of the Senate decreed in the Constitution.

A reason for not keeping the electoral college is that voters vote for a slate of electors not the president. These electors can be anyone not holding public office. The problem with is that electors can vote for whom ever they want. Some go against the candidate they are supposed to vote for. So voters are chosing the president they want.

In conlcusion please take my reasons for keeping the Electoral College into consideration. Again those reasons are certainty of outcome, you avoid run off, swing states, big states. Also the reason not to keep the Electoral College is voters don't vote for a president, but a slate of electors who do.",0
aa458fc2,1,"There is a lot controversy regarding the Electoral College system of voting in the United States. Some voting members would argue that the system, although flawed, has yet to make a monumental mistake, and say that the minor issues were resolved or at the very least barely effective in the overall outcome of the campaign. However, with the flaws and holes in the system we have already experienced, there is bound to be many more mistakes, and it would be shocking to very few that some of those mistakes are catastrophic. We should remove the system of the Electoral College because it is questionable, problematic, and does not represent well our democracy.

The electoral College uses a group of people from each state, numbers varying from each, to represent voters in an election. The voters mark down a candidate on a ballot. However, they are actually voting for a group of strangers to represent them. Many voters do not even realize that this is the case. In politics, there are many powerful and influential people who will go to drastic measures to ensure that their ideas somehow make it to power. Bribes and incentives could easily be given to electors in attempts to sway their vote. Speaking of, these electors can be anyone who are not in a public office position, emphasis on the anyone. Voters can never really be sure that they can trust those strangers who they did not even get to select. Once the votes have been counted, voters cannot fully control who the electors actually vote for. There have been instances where electors have attempted to completely avert the votes cast and choose a different candidate that they want in office. It only seems logical that voters should have a direct say in the presidential election by participating in an election by popular vote. This way, there is less opportunity for scandal and confusion in the voting process.

In 1960, a group of segretationists in the Louisiana legislature almost succeeded in removing electors who supported John F. Kennedy with those who opposed him. If this had happened, all of the states electoral votes would have been cast by biased electors, rather than by the actual voters themselves. In the same year, Hawaii sent two state electors to congress instead of one. It is sad that we maintain a system in our government that continues to let issues like this arise. Along with issues with the electors, why is it that the size of a state automatically gives it a bigger advantage in elections? Texas and California are the most two saughtafter swing states in every election. Candidates will do everything they can to win over those electoral votes. But what about the little states? Many of the smaller states do not get visited by candidates. Some never even see campaign ads. This system we are using creates target areas in the United States that are more valuable in elections than others. This is in no way fair to the voters in smaller states, despite having the exact same rights as voters of bigger states. The Electoral College is proving to be less and less glamorous with every passing election. Slip ups like this can create a monumentally bad situation, and unfortunately, this system is only bound to create more.

Many people remember the problem of the 2000 presidential election. The Electoral College had very effectively exemplified its flaws and unefficient ways of opperating. Al Gore and George Bush were running apposed, and despite winning the overall popular vote in the country, Gore lost the election to Bush. Bush had received the most electoral votes, therefore winning him the presidency. Basically, despite the fact that more citizens chose Gore to be president, Bush won out. In our constitution it is written that citizens of the United States have an unwavering right to vote and select who gets put into office. In this case, it sounds more like the number of electoral votes has an unwavering right to select who gets put into office. This goes against a democratic republic way of opperating our country and, in many ways, makes it more difficult for cititzens to take advantage of their rights.

For as many frustratingly resolvable problems that are created by the Electoral College, there are certain things about the Electoral College that could possibly make it worth keeping. For instance, there technically is no region of the country that has enough electoral votes to vote a president into office, so no one area of the controls large numbers of votes. Along with this, the system helps avoid RunOff Elections which complicate the election process and provide a clear winner. However, having a straightforward election where the votes come straight from citizens is most constitutional and much less problematic. The process has been used for a long time in our country, but it is time to make a change.

The Electoral College has proven to be more trouble than it's worth. Our country needs to decide what is within best interest for representation of our citizens, the most efficient way to opperate one of our most sacred constitutional rights, and maintain our democracy as members of our wonderful country. Remove the Electoral College system.",0
ab659f57,1,"Dear Senator, The robust political system of the American government is greatly hindered by the Electoral College. The Electoral College isn't completely representative of what citizens really want. History will prove such logic with just a simple recollection of past events. ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new elector who would oppose John F. Kennedy. So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy. In the same vein, ""faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and case a deciding vote for whomever they please."" Paragraph 11 Americans are not getting the representation we deserve. In fact, in a democracy, we should be representing our own beliefs, ourselves. The Electoral College must be totally abolished and the popular vote should become the new standard for political voting.

Time and time again, we have been shown that the Electoral College is nothing but a gimmick and ""a compromise between election of President by a vote in congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" Paragraph 1 by the founding fathers. Maybe that had worked in the past, when the population was statistically low compared to today, and citizens were less informed because of the lack of media available, like the internet and television. But, it is not working today. The 2000 election serves as an example of a faulty system. ""According to a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" Paragraph 9 Therefore, this is an obvious majority of citizens who agree with me. The Electoral College is almost universally despised, and not considered the most effective way to elect a President.

""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the swing states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" Paragraph 13 This is ridiculous and not at all fair to voters. In this sense, it is absolutely true that every vote doesn't count. Unless you're in a swing state, your vote may mean very little in the grand scheme of things. Every legal American deserves the right to a balanced and fair election with a true, meaningful vote.

Claims by supporters of the Electoral College are not effective. In fact, one writer finds Swing States to be a good thing! Yes, ""Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaignto really listen to the competing candidatesknowing they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average...and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election."" Paragraph 20 Seriously, that is absurd. Every voter should have the right to know they are going to decide the election. This writer is implying that the small state votes are useless, and that the voters in them don't even pay attention to campaigns or research before they vote! As a former resident of a politically smallerimpact state, I know very well that citizens there research thoroughly before they do any voting. Putting thought into a vote isn't just a thing people do in large states.

Maybe it will be that way in the future, because due to the Electoral College, votes there don't even matter anymore. Citizens are losing faith in their expressions of freedom and ability to vote and uphold justice. The Electoral College needs to go, because it makes for an unfair political system that only benefits politicians running, not the average joe.""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality."" Paragraph 14 Regards, A concerned citizen.",0
ab70ea22,1,"Dear state senator, I as a citizen of florida, and of the United States of America, have the right to vote for the president of my country. I feel as though this right is taken away from me by the electoral college system. The electoral college is unfair and unjust to the people residing in the states. The electoral college may turn off potential voters because they may have the mind set that one vote does not matter because the president will be chosen by the electoral college anyways. The electoral college does not nessicarily speak for the people because the majority vote for a certain candidate will take all of the electoral college votes in one state. It is a possibility that the election is tied by electoral votes because the electoral college comes out to be an even number, therefor creating chaos in the political world.

When it comes to bigger states the majority completely overrules the minority even if the votes are 51% to 49%, so the majority candidate will take all of the electoral votes for that state. so this does not speak for all of the people, only the majority vote. Bigger states have more electoral college votes than smaller states, not giving the smaller states enough say in who becomes their next president. With popular vote, the size of the state you live in is not taken into account. All of the peoples votes are taken into account, not just the majority.

With the electoral college, you pretty much vote for the electors of your state, who then vote for the president. They pledge to a certain candidate according to their political party. How can you trust that they will always vote for who they say they are going to vote for? It is no gaurentee, they might just vote for whoever they please, even going against their own political party. In some rare cases the popular vote for one candidate has overruled the electoral vote for another, but the electoral winner has come out on top. Showing not what the people want, but what the electoral college has decided.",0
ab8408b2,0,"When one thinks of transportation, the first idea that springs into a persons mind would be a car. A car is used almost daily for many people. It helps us get to point A to point B rain or shine. However, complications arise from the use or overuse of cars. The advantages of limiting car usage includes reduction in pollution, promote public transport, and cut off traffic.

Pollution has become a growing problem as the world continues to industrialized. The greenhouse gases emitted by machines, such as cars, have been proven detrimental to the environment. In cardense cities, smog, a mixture of smoke and fog, has become a nuisance as it covers cities. In extreme cases,it makes the air citizens breathe toxic! According to Source 1, "" Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emission in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."". To establish limits to car usage would then, therefore, reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and clear up conditions not only for the world, but make the overall city more enjoyable to live in. In order to reduce pollution and clear the air, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the international city. Source 2 states that "" The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescing the ban..."" proving that limiting car usage benefitted the city and the environment as well.

Reduction of car usage would lead to the promotion of public transportation. Public transport was free of charge during the ban in Paris which stated was a success in reducing pollution. Limiting car usage would then correlate in the promotion of public transport which, according to Source 4, ""...public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions of greenhouse gases and improve safety"" This not only benefits one's safety and environment but allows timeefficient traveling as buses and other public transport run along a contiuous schedule. Public transport also produces carpooling, which allows the reduction of cars on the road. This also eliminates a distributor in the production of greenhouse gases within the atmosphere which benefits the world.

Limiting car usage will take one annoying factor from our daily lives traffic. As a suburban citizen living in Florida, traffic has become a daily nuisance of mine, one that not only is frusterating but stressful. It wastes time that I need to invest in being somewhere of importance. Residents in Vauban, Germany have given up their cars in their experimental new district near the French and Swiss borders. 70 percent of Vauban's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move there. Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two says "" When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" In Paris, ""congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" during their ban in response to reduce pollution. This would make the lives of many citizens much more happier and time efficient as there are no worries about arrving late to an area of importance!

Limiting car usage in many large cities accross the globe is not impossible, it has been done successfully in globally impactful cities such as Paris. This reduction of cars will not only benefit a community or a city, but the whole world! It will reduce pollution, promote the usage of public transport and carpooling and cut down on the rushhour traffic leaving condtions in cities much more enjoyable to live in.",0
abaf4275,1,"For centuries, we have followed a certain system established by our founding fathers. This system is called the electoral college. This system is based off voting for the president through electoral votes rather than based off more popular. The state has an overall say through its electors. I believe that this system is unfair and should be abolished.

The electoral college should be abolished because you are not voting directly for the president. You are voting for an elector who would in turn elect the president. While you may end up pleased, others may feel the complete opposite. I believe that it is unfair to not directly vote for the president bacause it should be completly up to this nation to elect a president. The system they have set up right now is injustice.

The second reason the electoral college should be taken away is that the system has much room for failure. Electors could easily betray the will of the people. They have much more power than the standard voter. The electors would completly oppose the most ""popular"" vote and put in their vote for whoever they feel deserves it. This is wrong and totally goes against the idea of giving the people power. This would qualify as just giving a few people power. There could also be room for a tie. This could result in the election ending in the hands of the House of Representatives where the state delegates could chose the president. Not only is this destroying the power of the general public but this could also result in people not getting what they wanted. The delegates cuold go completly against what the people say because they technically have the right to since they have the power of the situation.

The final reason the electoral college system should be left behind is the fact that not every state gets to see the candidates. Some of the smaller states that don't count for much of the vote or tend to lean towards a different party don't even get a visit from the candidates. Not only is that unfair but it's also completly demaning towards the state. It makes the citizens of the state feel unworthy or not important enough for not even making an effort for their vote. This is also a stupid move on the candidates part because they might have been able to persuade the state's vote.

In conclusion, the electoral college is not a functional system for its characteristic of being completly indirect, for taking away the power of the people, and for its room for error. Although it may seem like a trustworthy system at first, don't be fooled.",0
abc50402,0,"The use of cars has always affected society greatly. There are plans constantly being added to better the environment without the use of cars. Vauban, mentioned in Source 1, can be the start of the carless world we want to live in. As this experiment becomes noticed by the world, communities will realize how beneficial this experiment could be. Think about a world with no cars. There would be less pollution and less gasses being emitted into the air. For example, Pairs has just banned driving due to heavy smog. After about five days, car traffic was down 60 percent. Limiting car usage should be implemented heavily because of the greenhouse gas emissions and the happiness of the citizens of Vauban.

To begin with, cars cause many problems and the most important being the emissions of greenhouse gasses. As seen in Source 1, some of the car fillled cities of the United States suffer from up to 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Wellpopulated cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago could be in great danger. A highly populated city in Colombia, has a ""CarFree"" day. The goal of this is to allow people to open their eyes and realized how many alternative ways there are to go to work. The implemented a fee of 25 dollars to anyone who violated. I think that by adding a fee, the outcome would be greater and more people would participate. This is a great idea that would open people up to other options. For example, on the third year of the car free day, two other cities joined Bogota. Sometimes we have to open up the eyes of others to really see the change. Also, parks and recreational areas have opened up, uneven sidewalks have been refurbished, and most importantly the city has less traffic.

Continuing with pollution, Paris had a nearrecord of pollution, seen in Source 2. This led to the ban of driving. The ban of driving could be refered to as the limiting of driving. They set up a plan in which cars with evennumbered license plates couldn't drive on Mondays. The same occurred for the oddnumbered license plates on Tuesday. They heavily enforced this by implementing a fine of 22 euros if they used their cars. This idea could work here in America. It would open up carpooling and lessen the amount of cars on the road.

People such as David Goldberg, mentioned in Source 1, are pushing for cities to be less dependent on cars. Mr. Goldberg mentions the hybrid car. Even though buying a hybrid does not reduce the amount of cars, it does reduce the amount of green house gas emissions.

Seeing the happiness and comfort that the people of Vauban allows us to see what our society could look like. We could live in a society just like theirs, filled with nature. In the United States, the number of licenses has been going down each year. Now, this does not automatically mean that American citizens want to ""be green"". It could be simply because of the fact that cars are expensive, and because we are living in a rough situation. In conclusion, I believe that we should limit car usage for the advantages of less pollution and less greenhouse gasses.",0
ac0036c3,0,"Imagine constantly coughing. Would you like that? Car ownership is decreasing because: of pollution, people use other people who can drive, and the dangers. It is just not needed anymore.

Pollution is everywhere you go. THIS. It goes from China, to Europe, and to America. But what causes it? In Paris they banned driving after having nearrecord breaking pollution. France blamed it on their people wanting to use diesel fuel instead of gasoline. Cars that run on diesel takes up 67% of France. Paris has the most ""smog"" compared to the other parts of Europe. IS. After many days without driving any cars, car companies lost revenue, but the ""smog"" cleared up. A. By limiting the car usage pollution has goen down, making Paris a less of a polluted city. WASTE. Source 2: Paris bans driving due to smog. by Robert Duffer Before you go somewhere do you tend to call a friend to see if you can carpool? Now in America car pooling has been becoming quite popular. OF. With social media it is easier to contact your friends to see who is going where and when. Driving two separate cars is a waste of gas, time, and money. TIME. So carpooling is the most efficient. Many Americans have a love with cars from Mercedes, to bow's Americans are big fans. But are they dying out? statistics say that the percentage of people getting their license is 16 to 39 years old. With the entertainment at home what is the need to transport anywhere. Source 4: The end of car culture. By: Elisabeth Rosenthal. The need for cars is dying out.

overtime you get into a car there are dangers. Car accidents happen every single day, and most of them happen where you least expect it... One mile in diameter from your house. Source: Google There are also dangers of spending too much money on your car. Many Americans purchase die for cars Source 4: The End of Car Culture. By: Elisabeth Rosenthal, but can most of them afford it. Lets thing. A mcdonald's worker who makes 7.50 an hour, purchases a 100,000 Ranger Rover plus the insurance they have to pay every single month. Even though on your way to work people will see that you have a nice car and adore you, but a few months later the outcome will not be pretty. That person will eventually become bankrupt, have to sell their house, and their car, and live in a box for their entire life.Yahoo news And no one wants to live in a box. So limiting car use will help. If that mcdonald's worker never bought a car, and instead purchased a bike heshe would have money to buy food, and keep a roof over their head. Even though people now are fat and lazy it would also decrease the number of obese people in America.

To wrap things up, we should limit the use of cars. From Paris limiting it they decreased pollution, from carpooling you save money, and from not purchasing a car you will decrease your chances of dying. But the main question is..",0
ac0526d7,1,"Dear, State Senator I have recently read articles about the electoral vote system currently in place in the united states.

The electoral vote system elects other people, called electors, to vote for the people. They basically vote for president, if you and many others vote for himher. I believe the electoral vote system is glitchy, outdated, and confusing to some.

The electoral vote system can be manipulated and unfair. The electors can be choosen by state conventions, state central committees, and the candidates running for president. If the president can choose his electors, could'nt he replace the original electors for new ones that will guarantee a vote for him. The peoples vote would'nt matter. This situation happened in the twothousand election when George W. Bush won the election with more individual votes than electoral votes. This violates our constitution which states, the government is controlled by the people and allows for change if enough people in the US want it. If you've ever noticed that during the presidential election, candidates don't come to certain states. In the electoral system, each state has a winnertakeall system. When the state goes over their electoral votes, the winner with the most electoral votes takes all of them, while the electoral votes of the opponent gets no votes toward him. This can cause mayhem, the noncounted votes can make a big difference in the election. In nineteenseventy six their would have been a tie if 9,246 voters in Hawaii and Ohio voted the opposing side. The elections come close and without the popular vote which accounts for millions of people in America, we may have had better elections with less debates. The electoral college contains 538 electors, out of those 538 their only 270 are mandatory to vote. Each elector equals each member in your states House Of representatives and add two for the senate. California has a population of 35 million and wyoming has a population of 500,000. Wyoming having 5 electors and california having 55. This doese'nt make sense because if a state may have a higher population than wyoming but yet still have less electors. The system is very confusing in these ways causing some to vote for the wrong candidate and others thinking they are voting for the right candidate they believe is true.

The electoral votes are'nt the worst because we are still showing our democracy, showing off Americas greatnest in its government. The electoral vote crisis in twothousand rarely happens. This situation has'nt happened since eighteeneighty eight, its a rare occurance. Electoral votes also make the playing field even. If we had popular votes in place, then wouldnt the presidents have a landslide if they went to all the biggest populated states. The electoral votes can allow ties and close elections to happen instead of land slides in many elections.

The electoral votes should be replaced. Even so they even out the playing field and the occurrence of rigged electoral votes happen, it still doese'nt make up for the both elections lost in eighteeneighty eight and two thousand. If we dont change the electoral votes soon, the occurance of electoral vote sabotage will occur more often causing an unfair government to be in place.",0
ac0cd708,1,"Dear Florida Senator, I feel as if we, as Florida citizens should be able to change election by popular votes rather than Electoral College. I understand that The Electoral College is a process that consists of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President and so forth but you don't understand how it is affecting the citizens. We are the people that vote! I am against the Electoral College process because it overrides popular vote, voters aren't really voting for president, and the process is unfair to voters.

To begin, I am against the Electoral College process because it overrides popular vote. For example, in 2000 when Al Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, he lost the presidency. The popular votes is what really counts because its the actual citizens voting not the electors. In contrast, The Electoral College is a nondemocratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner. The Electoral College process is forgetting that the popular votes is what really matters.

furthermore, I am against the Electoral College because voters aren't really voting for the president. For instance, if you lived in Texas and wanted to vote for John Kerry you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. The process isn't even trustworthy because the presidential candidates can elect themselves. Under the electoral college process voters aren't voting for president but for the slate for electors.

Finally, I am against the Electoral College because its unfair to voters. For example, during the 2000 campaign, 17 states didn't see the candidates at all. candidates don't spend time in states they know they know the have no chance of winning. This is unfair because voters should know who they are voting for. Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election.

In conclusion, The Electoral College should not be used because it overrides popular votes and voters aren't really voting for the president. Also because Electoral College is unfair to voters.",0
ac1cafcd,0,"A life filled to the brim of better days is what we all want, and limiting car usage has some of these advantages. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter. The sound of children outside of the pollution free community is much more satisfying then getting somewhere with dangers involved. A life without cars is less stressful and more free to explore in safety. Driving tends to make drivers uneasy for fear or crash or being late to work from traffic.

""Mr. Sivak's son lives in San Francisco and has a car but takes Bay Area Rapid Transit, when he can, even though that often takes longer than driving."" Clearly being late to work and stressed is not something people favor epically when getting to work for free is possible. ""Public transit was free of charge from Friday to Monday, according to the BBC."" Instead of spending thousands of dollars expecting an easier lifestyle your neck rests on the chopping block with the blade ever silently above until it completes is mission. Having this ability feels like freedom but it's actually just a fear inducing, death causing machine. A simple healthier life on a bike seems more enjoyable, and even more so when it promotes good health and your life.

""In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway."" Not one person can really enjoy a twenty or forty minute drive to a mall or anywhere for that matter. It's a waste of time, money, and life. Taking a 5 minute walk to a mall is much more beneficial to your body and health than adding gas to your lungs, and it's quicker too. ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" Children playing outside instead of inside on their new tablet could be our future again. Parents don't have enough time to spend thirty minutes driving to a park when their child seems content on their fancy iPhone 6. Shopping is also a favorite anywhere, but it seems to be drifting online. Taking five minutes to walk to the mall and save money on not buying a car or spending money on shipping will give more money to buy stuff! A bonus is no more wrong clothing sizes or ordering a lotion that smells like toilet water. Ease of lifestyle is a desire that can be fulfilled when waving goodbye to miles of road and hello to a new jeans that fit for once.

Pollution is a horrible topic that everyone wants to stop, however everyone is ignoring one of its sources. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" It sounds like Earth is becoming like the movie WallE, and next stop is a ship in space leaving this trashed planet behind. Paris is setting a great example at trying to remove pollution for healthier living and a better environment. The United States has clearly been challanged and in its effort to be the best it followed suit, ""...It will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the evironment."" It is hard to imagine a healthy ecosystem with flourishing plant and animal life in our current situation. With Paris and the United States assisting in the idea of other transpot methods not only will animals have a better chance at not becoming extinct but so will the human race. Dying of pollution will no longer be a concern and money spent on poison can go to lifes other pleasures.

Happiness, fast travel, no pollution, and more new stuff sounds like owning a car right? Carlos Arturo has a taste of the sweet life, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Sadly this is not what a car provides because in fact it only reverses these good things. Despair sets in with forty minutes waiting in traffic while clouds of gray swirl into the sky returning a shirt that didn't fit. Reconsidering the advantages of having a car and considering the advantages of limiting car usage is the right way to live a perfect life.",0
ac4e7c45,1,"The Electoral College is a process put into place by the founding fathers for the purpose of electing a president. However, this process was enacted at the very beginning of the United States and the question must be asked, Is it still necessary? Or even fair? With advancing technology and better processes, the old ways of doing things must be questioned.

Almost all states have a winnertakeall system in place, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska. This system has many faults and in some cases can produce false results. A presidential candidate that wins by a large majority in a state will win the electoral votes of that state, however, if another candidate wins a very close election, heshe will also win a state. For example, in the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and President Bush, Al Gore won the popular vote of the people but lost the election for president because of the electoral college, the very fact that we know what the popular vote was is proof of neccesity of change. Not only this, but sixty percent of voters want to vote directly. This makes it possible for a candidate to have more individual votes but less electoral votes, making the system somewhat corrupt.

Not only is the process of the Electoral College unfair, it is simply not necessary, with most voters using digital machines to enter their vote for candidate, votes can be counted digitally and accurately. The electoral college was a great idea before computers were invented and all votes had to be counted by hand. When the process of the Electoral College was put into place, it would have been impossible to count he votes of the entire country with any degree of accuracy, and even if it was possible, the validity of votes would be constantly be questioned. But in this day and age technology makes the very idea of the electoral college obsolete. I understand the desire for preserving traditional methods but not when it sacrifices a fast, fair, easy system.

Not only should we use a system using computers to count votes, but we already do, news broadcasters show which presidential candidate is winning in real time using modern technology. This allows us to know which candidate has won the election on voting day. Keep in mind that when the electoral college was made, many citizens had no idea who had won often until the next year. The fact that we know immediately is proof that the meeting of the Electoral college in December is completely unnessessary. And what if there is a tie in the electoral vote, although we know what the popular vote is, we would still have to send the vote to congress.

Times have changed. Technology has improved. With this the very building blocks of our government must be improved and updated.",0
ac83dc0a,1,"The Electoral College gives certain states, based on their popularity, a number of how many of what I guess can be called ""points"" that will go to to the candidate that gets the most votes for themself out of that state. Now whether that is a good idea or not is completely based on your own opion which you can decide. But I disagree with the Electoral College, even though it did take me a while of thinking I came to the conclusion that an all out popular vote is more efficient when it comes to voting for a president than the electoral college, and there is three main reasons that swung me to side with popular vote, First of all, when you get right down to it the Electoral College just doesnt give perfect accuracy on who does actually get the exact most votes. Some people cant completely grasp this fact but imagine that there is Florida, Alaska, and Montana. The first candidate, which we shall call John and the second, Bill, are going for these three states. John beats Bill on Florida 5,000 to 4,999 and John gets all 29 electoral votes because of that, tough luck for Bill. Luckily for Bill he sweeps over John in Alaska 100 to 0 and montana 100 0 and gets 3 points from each state which gives him 6 points total. So now by popular vote Bill would win with 5,199 votes against John's 5,000. But since Bill only has 6 Electoral points because he still lost Florida, which was the state John won and got a whopping 29 points from, Bill will lose his campaign to John 296 because thats what the amazing ""wonders"" of the Electoral College are. Which basically sums up how in 2000 Al Gore lost to Bill Gates even that Al Gore had more overall votes.

The Electoral College also makes candidates have to strategically plan out their campaign so they can focus on big states and swing states only. If a candidate knows he will not win a certain state he wont even focus on it because it would be pointless, even if he changes maybe a couple thousand voters' minds, it wont get him a single point if he loses that state 5000 15000 whereas with popular vote changing the mind of people so that you get yourself from having 10% of California's overall votes for you to 30% means more votes than literally all of alaskans eligible voting population. So that drives candidates away from states they wont win and they go to states known as ""swing states"" that dont have a specific party that they vote for every election, and they will attempt to win these states votes the most because those points will make the biggest difference.

The final thing I'd like to touch on is that the Electoral College system takes so many peoples idea and erases it. We want our vote to mean something throughout the whole campaign, but it doesnt matter if you are one the few democrat supporters in an overall republican dominated state because when your state loses 5000 to 150, poof! There goes your vote floating off into oblivion because it doesnt matter now, your one vote doesnt stand a chance against 50 going against it according to the Electoral College. We want our vote to count for the candidate himself not be part of some majorly flawed point system that someone thought would help somehow when picking the right candidate to become the head honcho sitting in charge of The White House, Our Country, and be the overall leader of our military forces too. So we need our vote to be heard and for it to actually count, even if 5000 more people disagree with 2500 in the same state, those 2500 votes should actually count towards something instead of being overrun and erased by the 5000 which will earn some candidate a couple of points for their campaign.

Now after all this not only has my own opinion strongly changed in favor of popular vote but I hope yours has too. Electoral College just doesnt provide that actual perfect accuracy of who wins that popular does, it forces presidents to only visit and campaign in certain states that they have a chance of winning, and it takes citizens votes and throws them down the drain if more people in the same state vote differently. It just makes you sit and wonder whos idea it was to accept this system.",0
ac8817fe,0,"Using a motor vehicle as a source of transportation is part of everyday life and is not rare to the stereotypical American. But cities such as Paris, Bogota, and Vauban are all striving towards reducing the rate of motor vehicle usage in their areas. Advantages of limiting car usage are lower greenhouse gas rates, suburbs can become more compact and more accessible to public transportation, and people are able to live less stressful lives.

Transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions and is responsible for fifty percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States but is slowly making a change towards helping the environment and being beneficial towards carbon emissions. In 2005, the number of miles driven in the United States was at it's highest rate. As time went by, the numbers started dropping and getting lower. Many sociologits believe that if the numbers get even lower and stay at that rate, the benefits will come for the environment but unfortunately not for car companys. Paris typically has more smog than any other European capital and is working towards a way to fix that. Paris banned driving due to the intensity and abundance of the smog in their city and had people use public transportation free of charge for about a week. Not using motor vehicles for those days really did help the situation of Paris and gave people an insight as to how life would be without cars.

Vauban, an upscale community in Germany, is home to suburban pioneers who have given up their cars. Seventy percent of vaughn's family do not own cars and fiftyseven percent sold a car to move there. ""Smart planning"" is a component of the movement to separate suburban life from auto use to create a denser and more compact environment and let people be more accesssible to public transportation. This means less space for parking, and more stores compactly placed and at short distances. In Bogota, ""Carfree day"" is part of an improvement campaign which helps residents of the city to see how life is life without the use of cars for a day. People use public transportation and walk to their destinations with no problem. More parks and sport centers have also been added to the area as a result of less car usage, so more space for other important things.

Dropping off your kid at daycare, then driving to work, then having to drive your child to soccer practice can be a constant and stressful cycle for most parents. Residents of suburbs that have low car usage rates claim that they are less stressful. In a suburban community with little to no motor vehicle usage, the suburb will be more compact, having more stores and buildings closer to eachother at very short distances. This makes it easier for residents to get from point A to point B quicker and more efficiently. This also allows for more walking areas with less traffic and dangerous cars to worry about.

Cars can be useful in many ways but for the better of the enviorment, peoples cities, and sanity, little to no car use is the way to go.",0
acc29d2d,1,"State Senator, The Electoral College is not a fair way to vote. Instead of voting for who you would like to win, you are voting for an electors who says they will vote for the candidate you want to win. Voting for who we want is a part of our rights! The Electoral College system is not only out dated, but there has also been a few fiasco.

This style of voting has been going on since the beginning, there are many flaws that need to be worked on. A major problem would be the electorss they are not reliable. ""Can voters control whom their electorss vote for? Not always."" This right here proves that the electorss don't always tell the truth. Who picks the electorss anyways? ""Sometimes state conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates themselves."" We don't even get to select our electorss, how are we supposed to rely on strangers to vote for who we would like? Would you trust a random stranger to take care of your child? It is the same as putting the fate of our country in the hands of someone some people have never even seen! ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all,"" This information should prove to you that the Electoral College is unfair.

The disaster factor should have been the end to the Electoral College. ""Segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electorss with new electorss who would oppose John F. Kennedy."" Is there anything left to say? These people tried to sabotage the election. What is stopping more poeple from this? Some electorss refused to vote for who they said they would. ""faithless electorss have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please."" In 1960 Hawaii sent two slates of electorss to Congress! Thanks goodness for Vice President Nixon who ""validated only his opponent's electorss, but made sure to do so without establishing a precedent.'"" Also, many people stated that they prefer the direct election, ""Over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" With giving you this information, you should be able to infer that the Electoral College should be changed.

In conclusion, more people are against the Electoral College than with it. We should be able to vote for which one we prefer. Less people would have a problem with the election process and it would go a lot smoother.",0
acd6b682,0,"""You can live in your car, but you can't drive your house."" This is a quote my teacher used to tell me as advise for the future. This was a way of saving money if you had to choose between paying rent or paying your car bills if you were in this situation. However, what he did not realize is its more useful to use less of your car.

Using less of your car improves the environment. Using less will reduce the pollution in the air that we breathe in. When we reduce our car use we reduce the amount of resources like fossil fuels and nonreuseable resources. When we use cars and create pollution we also create a smog, but when we stop using cars we can clear the smog. In paris, they banned car use for a certain amount of time and it reduced the amount of smog. In fact, in the article Paris Bans Driving Due to Smog , it says ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" Another thing that reduces is your payments for your car. How can you pay for a car if you don't have one? The answer is you don't. Without a car you don't have to pay car payments or repair payments. You also don't have to worry about getting fines or looking for parking spaces. In the article In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars , it reads ""Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park large garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home."" If you are not already worried with you car payments, you would be worried about your children's safety. Accidents happen all the time from cars. And if you're not in an accident you could be the one with a car breakdown on your way to work. Now you may say, I need a car because I have to drive to work or drop my kids at school. Than here is a solution, in the article The End of Car Culture it says, ""Likewise the rise in cellphones and carpooling apps has facilitated more flexible commuting arrangements, including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work."" My teacher's quote about paying for cars is more useful than paying rent is incorrect. Using less of your car is an advantage to improving the environment, spending less money, and increasing safety in the world.",0
ad11c165,0,"Limiting car usage is a very good idea. It can save a lot of money, keep pollution from happening,and keep people safe. If more people tend to save money because of cars, then they can buy more stuff. If more people save the environment people can have fresh air to breath in. Multiple resources have been found to support the idea that limiting car use can save a lot of money and make the environment safer.

For example, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, it states that ""As a result of buying a parking space for 40,000, 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter."" This quote explains the troubles and tension that one has to deal with when having a car. ""In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport."" When Vauban, Germany had cars, their bill went up higher for highways instead of other transports. People should start to use other means of transport instead of cars.

In ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, Robert helps explain the reason why driving should be banned. ""Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" Paris is very smart to do that, because cars create pollution. The way that they partially banned driving is that ""Motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day."" Atleast paris partially protected the environment instead of the whole environment having to be in pollution.

In ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, the author supports the idea of limiting car usage for the concern of safety. Safety is a really important thing in life. Cars can limit the danger of getting in a car accident. ""He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which pedistrians, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions, and improve safety."" If people did not have cars, then nobody would have to worry about accidents and their safety.

In conclusion, limiting driving and the usage of cars can improve the world. It can make it a safer environment, safe money, and stop pollution. These evidences from the excerpts can prove that limiting car usage is a really good idea.",0
ad19eca7,0,"Not everyone has the luxury of owning a car. But cars are not the only means that can get us from point A to point B. In fact, having limited usage of cars is an advantage to society, our own good, and also the environment. In the twentyfirst century, it may seem that possessing a car is a vital aspect of living, however, that is not always the case.

To began with, having a limited amount of cars on the roads means a less amount of car emission that stays in the air. Carbon emissions from cars are responsible from around 50% of the greenhouse gases in the United States alone Source 1. If we were to limit our car usage, it is very likely for that percentage to go down. Taking the account that cars are the second most item that pollutes the air, it would be a dramatic change for the environment to be a cleaner and heathier place to live Source 4.

Additionally, if we were to use our cars less and relied on public transportation, we would be able to help the economy. Using individual cars does not help anyone economically. In the other had, riding subways, buses, taxis, and other public transportation will allow the public economy to rise, which in turn allows the government to receive extra money that could benefit the local city. Taking the decision to not use cars promotes alternative ways to get to the final destination in mind Source 3. It also lets parks to be used more often than before and sidewalks become wider and safer. Moreover, the less cars that are on the street, the less traffic jams, car crashes, and time that is wasted sitting in a car wishing to be somewhere else Source 3.

furthermore, if more people were to walk or bike on the side walks, they would be able to enjoy the natural nature that they cannot fully appreciate when they are zooming pass it in their cars at fifty miles per hour. Also, getting the chance to actaully look at what the local city has to offer helps little businesses to become successful. Not using cars can also be included in our daily excersise that we are all supposed to be doing. Instead of being lazy and using cars to take us to places, we can all use that extra mile or so to help improve our health. Getting out in the open and getting some fresh air will also be beneficial to one's health by alleviating them from bad thoughts and ""it is a good opportunity to take away stress"" Source 3. Getting away from the busy life that includes cars is extremely advantageous to humans' health and the city they live in.

Much has changed throughout history. Nothing ever stays the same, so maybe it's the time to change the amount of car usage. This era is a time period where there are many technological inovations that allow humans from all across the world to stay in touch without leaving their couch. There has been a noticeable decrease in the amount of miles that have been driven since 2005 Source 4. This is a positive step foward to a better future for the generations to come for less cars on the road means there wil be less pollutions entering the atomsphere, more opportunities for businesses, and incouraging individuals to make healthier choices.",0
ad1dac3c,0,"Almost every American has a car. Just go outside and look at your neighborhood.. I'm almost positive if you were to look everyone would have a car except for maybe 1 or 2.. The car is in our everyday use basically.. It helps us get to work, run aarons, take kids to school, etc. Now you may seem like theres only 1 risk of being in a car, but believe it or not.. When your car is on and running you're hurting the air.. Now I know the air doesn't have feelings! But logically you're hurting the air and yourself. America should limit car usage for simple reasons like air pollution, car accidents, and laziness. These are the things we should focus on when we're in our cars or when we talk about safety because all those reasons fall into that category. Small changes would be nice and helpful here. It reduce lot of problems we have, and stress.

To kick this off, limiting the usage of cars would reduce the amount of air pollution that we are surrounded in now. Think about it millions of cars on and running everyday, sometimes if you look closely thers black gas coming out of the exhaust pipe.. And you're breating that? Out of millions of cars where do you think all those fumes go? they don't just dissapear! We're breating it! sure you might say ""So if im breathing it doesn't that mean i should be dead?!"" no.. that's not the case.. Yes it's bad for you but it hurts the earth mostly the gases break apart the atmosphere we have around to block other fumes from other places out. Think of the earth as a hamster in a ball.. The hamster is the earth and the ball is out atmosphere. The holes in the ball are the holes made from the gases that are released from our cars. This could let any type if gas in. In places like China there's a huge problem caused by all the cars.. it's called smog. Think of fog all over the place but its black and smells really bad. Not only that but it's really bad for you. You may think why don't we have that here? Well China is the most populated country in the world and almost everyone has a car. China is a pretty busy place you'd imagine because of all the people. Well you're right.. All the fumes coming out of those cars cause all that smog to contaminate everything there. Like water, animals, food, and even you! It's very bad. China needs to limit the usage of their cars in order to stop problems like that because it can effect everything around them. We should start worrying about the smog aswell because America is a pretty big place and all the busy cars can cause something similar to a smog, it may not be as big bu it will still cause damage. With all this said hopefully you understand what air pollution does and how we can reduce it.

Moving along, Car accidents is a very big thing everywhere it causes thousands of deaths and injuries. We can stop all of it if we can limit the car usuage. you may say ""We can also just stop teens from driving.."" well yeah you can do that but how will they learn for themselves? Small rules metioned in the article are very interesting like cars with even licence plates were allowed to drive on mondays for example, and cars who drove with odd licence plates were fined for not obeying the law. On Tuesdays it would be the same but for odd licence plates. I think if this rules was implemented atleast 2 times a week it would help reduce the amount of accidents. There wouldn't be asmuch cars and it will be lot safer for people to drive. Sadly in lot of accidents they are fatal in highways, just imagine hundrends of thousands of cars driving in 34 lanes, you hit a car and it will obivously start a big problem from there. Think of it like dominos stacked in a line you knock one down and it just starts all tumbling in order. Yeah some cars avoid it but not always. The less the cars the less the accidents. Altough this is off topic but limiting the amount of cars on a freeway or highway per hour will limit the amount of accidents aswell. Back to the point, America needs to do something about the cars or it will just keep happening the more the drivers the more the danger out in the roads and highways. Hopefully this helped you understand more about the limiting of car use a little more.

We're almost there, how ever we should stop revolving our selves around our car. If you live 10 minutes away from a supermarket or small convienience store just walk there.. You're just wasting money and polluting the air driving there.. A bike is a great way to get there you go decently fast, you don't get tired as much and it's a good exercise. We should stop getting to lazy because it is affecting both us and the earth very negatively. I would understand if you're in a hurry but seriously.. If you're 1020 minutes walking distance why not just walk there.. You don't only exercise in the gym, get some fresh air outside.. well partially fresh air.. Yeah you get the point.. We need to get our butts up and walk places because our car isn't our only source of transportation! It's not just hurting you! Don't forget your purse or wallet! Because it has a big impact on that to with the gas prices going all over the place right now. Something people don't see when they're driving there car is what there doing to the enviornment, yeah i've mentioned it many times but it something we really need to look at because it effects your health tremendously. If you actually take the time to walk or bike to where ever you want it feels nice to actually walk and stretch your muscles out. We need more car reduced communities so that we don't just use our cars all day to get to places not to far away.

To conclude, we need to start limiting the usage of cars in order to reduce lot of problems in our enviornment. Most of our enviornmental problems revolve around something we use everyday which is the car. Problems such as air pollution, car accidents, and laziness. These things just don't effect you, if effects everyone including the envornment. This is something we should look out for ecause it is a very negative thing we have. Mainly air pollution because that affects everything.. And i mean everthing... Food, water, animals, plants, and even you.. So we all should look out for this and be a bt more responsible. We need more laws to help reduce the amount of smog and greenhouse gases that we have here today in our world. Hopefully you read this and learned lot about the importance of limiting the usage of cars and how it can effect everything.",0
ad607532,0,"The idea of reducing car usage is a good idea, because the environment would be a better place. Limiting cars will not only benefit us with the idea of air pollution but with obesity, and obesity is a big thing in the United States. Its amazing how may people care about there environment. In source 3, Bogota, Colombia millions of columbians hike, bike, skate, or took buses to work during a day they call carfree day because they want to reduce air pollution.

In the United States one out of every 4 person is obese, and the reduction of car usage will help limit the obesity rate. Walking or even biking from one place to another is a work out and that is a common way to lose weight. We try so hard to reduce obesity and one of the many ways to gain weight is to eat junk food and not jog, run, or walk it off. So reducing the limit of cars is a good idea to reduce the obesity rate in the United States.

The reduction of cars will help the air polluting situation in the U.S. The pollution in the air will later in the future bit us right on the rear end. Many people may believe its happening now. The main cause of air pollution is the fuel we have running on our cars that are on the road 247. If we limit the usage of cars now we will start to see the difference in our world today.

Many people dont really use cars in the United States in source 4 it states that study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between the years of 2001 and 2009. It also stated that in 2005 the number of miles driven dropped steadily. Each year in America people are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by a recent studies found. So believe or not not many people don't need a car to get to point A to point B.

As of today we should make a effort to stop using our cars and maybe walk to work and get your exercise for the day while doing it. Let make a change together and stop the mass of air pollution we have going on and and reduce the rate of obesity. Lets make our country a better place to be.",0
ad916303,1,"The Electoral College is a process made by the founding fathers for the election of presidents by the congress vote. The Electoral College is a process, but it is an unfair process. Americans are supposed to vote for who they desire to be president, not a group of electors in Congress. There is no possible way for Americans to choose their president if at the end of it all, a group of electors make the final choice. According to the Office of the Federal Register, Americans choose the state electors when voting for President because when voting for president, Americans are actually voting for the candidate's electors. It makes no sense then to vote for a president, let's just make it to where we vote for electors because we obviously aren't voting for who we want as president.

The main purpose of voting is to help the candidate American voters want as president to win the election. If popular vote was the way to determine who would be elected as President, everybody would be happy. There are times in an election when everybody is sure that the candidate they voted for is going to win. Americans watch as they see the votes go up by popular vote, but then later, the candidate they thought would win has lost because of the Electoral College. If popular vote was the way Presidents were elected, everything would be made easier without controversy. However, since the Electoral College does play a big role in the election of presidents, popular vote is never going to be a working system. Americans just need to figure out that their vote is never going to really count, but the Electoral College's vote surely will.

In an article by Bradford Plumer, the fact that over sixty percent of voters would prefer a direct election than how we vote now is stated. The Electoral College System is based on Americans voting for the electors that are the candidate's party. When Americans go to vote, they vote for electors who support the President and then the electors choose the president. When Americans go to vote, the banners should just say Vote For Electors. When Americans vote, it is made to seem as they are voting directly for the President they want to be elected. Instead, Americans are actually voting for electors. Multiple times you'll hear the saying, ""Every vote counts."" but really, every vote does not count. No matter how many times Americans vote for their President, the Electoral College has the final say no matter what American's votes are.

The major problem that worries many, is the problem of a tie in the electoral vote. During an election when a tie occurs, the state delegations vote for who will be president. According to the article The Indefensible Electoral College by Bradford Plumer, each state is able to cast one vote and the one single state representative makes the decision for the state. If the point of an election is for the people to vote and choose, there shouldn't even be a option for the one representative to choose. All the votes that were just cast by Americans all go down the drain now. In the case of a tie, all the power and weight goes to the one state representative to choose who becomes the president. The represtative does not care about what the people want, that representative will choose what they want to do with this election. According to Bradford Plummer, during the 2000 campaign, Rhode Island, South Carolina and fifteen other states did not even get to view media markets or campaigns and did not even get to see the candidates. Those states howeve still voted, not knowing anything about these candidates because overall the Electoral College makes the last call.

The Electoral College is an unfair process that also plays a big role in elections. No matter how Americans vote, the Electoral College is going to be the people who elect the president. Americans vote for who they want as their president but the Electoral College simply makes that decision for you. Americans shouldn't even vote, the Electoral College can make that decision. Many people in America simply want the popular vote than to have the process of Electoral College in place. We should all take a vote to abolish the Electoral College. But wait, the Electoral College might say no since they always make the overall decision.",0
adc67150,0,"Living in a community without the use of cars can be extremely beneficial. It might seem odd to say such an idea because we have lived in towns with lot of car usage all of our lives. Heidrun Walter said, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Not having a car can be very stresses. This is because you do not have to worry about wrecking your car, keeping up with the insurance payments, talking care of it such as oil changes and eventually, having to buy a new one which can be very expensive.

Another reason why not having a car is beneficial is that it can help the environment. Right now, passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of Greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. This number keeps on climbing because more and more people are buying cars which just puts more gas into the environment.

An even greater benefit of living in a community without cars is that you can get more exercise. Sitting in the car everyday going to and from work for 2 hours is not being productive. However, in the existing carfree communities, all the necessary store are in walking or biking distance from the majority of the population. So, the commute to work for most people can be just like getting a daily exercise and staying in shape.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that living in a community without cars would be a change for the better. It would help with everyones financial situations and everyone would have better health because you would have to bike and walk everywhere. As of lately, it has seemed like less and less people have started to use cars. The number of miles drivn peaked in 2005 and has been dropping since. In April, 2013 the average number of miles driven was 9 percent below the peak in 2005.",0
add2a7df,1,"Every vote makes a difference. Every single vote plays a role in electing a president, whether it be directly, or indirectly. The Electoral College has caused a lot of controversy with that thought. ""The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational."" Plumer 14 Where are the facts behind the argument against it? We all hear people complaining and saying these things, but they have no facts as to why abolishing the Electoral College would be beneficial. The Electoral College is working in the peoples favor and i believe we should keep it.

There are so many uneducated voters. People that vote for the presidential candidate at the top of the list because they have no clue who any of the people are anyway. If the president was selected by just popular votes who knows what the nation would be like. Every vote counts. Yes, this is true even with Electoral College it just a process to make sure that the votes being sent in are educated and well thought out not chosen out of laziness. Do we want the people who vote just to say they voted to have a huge say in who runs our country? I sure don't. I'd rather have a trusted group of people who are very well educated take our votes into huge consideration and seal the deal. ""But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed..."" Posner 16. Richard A. Posner goes on to tell us how many times the trust has been betrayed... the most recent being in the election year 2000 and then the only other time the electoral vote did not reflect the popular vote was 1888. There's no reason to change a system that isn't broken.

Obviously the system has its flaws, but nothing is perfect. Sure the Electoral College messed up twice, but that isn't some mass amount that was detrimental to our nation. ""The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" Office of the Federal Register 1 It's a compromise that has worked for so long there's not enough valid reasons to change it.

The Electoral College gives the right amount of representation to different sized states. ""The Popular vote was very close in Florida nevertheless Obama, who won that vote, got 29 electoral votes."" Posner 21 The majority of the state was in favor of Obams's ideas so 29 Electoral votes would work in their states favor, instead of having an almost tie vote which would make a smaller difference in the outcome. The Electoral College votes are like each states individual votes for the candidate that would make the majority of that one state happy, or that would benefit that one state. So yes, the popular vote may not always win, but the outcome of the presidential election is based on which person was the favorite of the majority of each individual state.

All in all, the Electoral College works for this nation. It worked for our founding fathers and it's still working for us, no matter what people want to argue. If ""60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" Plumer 9 then the majority of our country should be able to come up with a valid argument against it.",0
ae0dcc3b,1,"The electoral college is unfair to voters. Electing the president should not be on how many electors vote for the candidate, it should be about how many people in each state vote for this representative. The electoral college is only 538 electors that vote for president which is not everyone that goes to the election booth and votes for president. In the electoral college, voters do not vote for the president but for a slate of electors who in turn elect the president. Over 60 percent of the voters prefer direct election instead of the electoral college.

Voting for president should be about the number of people who vote for a candidate. Voting should not be about the number of electors each candidate has. Direct voting is what should be taking place, not an electoral college. Direct voting is when a voter goes to an election booth and votes for who they think should be president. Their vote does not get sent to an electoral college where electors vote for the candidate. Every voter goes to an election booth to vote the candidate they think should be president, they dont vote for the electors.

""The electoral college is unfair,outdated and irrational."" This is true because with the electoral college, voters vote not for a slate of the president but for a slate of electors who in turn elect the president. The electoral college's only purpose is so the candidate can have group of electors just in case the number of votes is low for the candidate. The electors votes are the only votes that really matter which is not fair to the voters. Out of everyone that votes for president and having only 538 votes count does not seem fair to the voters at all.

Over 60 percent of voters prefer direct election. 60 percent is the majority of voters the rather have direct election instead of the electoral college. Since most of the time it is majority rules then why not cut the electoral college from the voting process? I'll tell you why, because ever since the disaster hat occurred in 2000, the candidates still need a chance at winning the election even if they do not get to visit every state during the campaign.

Yes, the electoral college is unfair and irrational but it has also created a new system known as the winnertakesall system. This system allows the candidates to focus on the states that they do have a chance winning over instead of focusing on the states that they know for a fact have no chance of winning over. Over all, the electoral college has no point in being apart of the voting process. The only voting process this country should yse is direct voting because it is fair to everyone. The election process should be a fair process, it should not have everyone voting and only having 538 vote count. Even when over 60 percent of the voters choose direct voting, the country still agrees to use the electoral college. All in all I have to agree with Bob Dole, Mr.",0
ae289cee,1,"Every four years america as a whole chooses on who should be the president of the united states. The process of election is straight forward and always follows the same process every election. The american citizens vote on one of the two candidates, then those votes are counted and giving to the electors, then the electors of each state representing the population of said state including the District of Columbia votes one of the candidates, after all votes are tallied the winning candidate is elected president. Overall this system seems rather complicated and can be seen as an unfair process at which only to vote on who takes charge of america. The electoral college should be replaced by who receives the most popular votes from all american citizens and not the state electoral.

Electoral college is a process created during the founding of the united states as sort of a ""middleground"" or compromise on how the people of the country should elect the president . In order for a president to be elected out of the 538 electors that make up the electoral college he or she must at least receive 270 votes . Each president has a group of electors that process your votes in order to choose who the state votes for making it in a ways unfair. This system can come with its own set of problems that include replacement of electors, electors voting to who they feel, and at times one candidate gaining the most popular vote but losing the chance of presidency because of the lack of electoral votes form the state . An example of the unbalanced power is the near success of the louisiana legislature replacing the democratic electors in the 1960, segregation with new ones that would oppose against John F. Kennedy making him lose the popular vote.

The best replacement for the electoral college is to allow the citizens of america to vote upon who should be the president of the U.S without the need for electors. The candidate that receives the most votes is the one who becomes the president of the united states. In order to process all possible millions of votes into a rational percentage and the candidate with the higher percentage would in turn become president. With this in mind the candidates would need to visit all or largely selected states in order to deliver campaign speeches to persuade the population to vote for them, because with the electoral college system candidates would focus mainly on tight races in the ""swing states"" practically ignoring other like in the 2000 campaign seventeen states didnt see their candidate . The electoral college only focuses on the large numbers and not on the smaller population that can still make a difference making the system unfair. Making them only focus on the big states because how many electoral votes it could bring compared to a smaller state which could possibly only supply three.

On the other side electoral college does have a good standing as a method of vote. Electoral college has five good reasons on why it shouldn't be replaced and they are certainty of outcom, everyone's president, swing states, Big states, and avoid runoff elections . Each campaign party chooses their electors which rarely end in betrayel making it possible to win the election with low popularity votes. The electoral system also gives the candidate a chance to win in a ""landslide"" because of the winnertakeall basis at which it follows . No region has enough votes to elect a president also the electoral college needs to have transregional appeal. And the main goal of the electoral college is to obviously elect a new president but as well avoid runoff elections.

The electoral college is an unfair system of voting because of how it all depends on a small group of selected representatives and not all of the american population as a whole. Even though it can be regarded as a fair middle ground it still has its flaws and doesnt reach out to society as a whole only focusing on the states that can lead to victory, casting out those who's electoral votes will not make much of a difference. In the end the voting system should mainly focus on popularity of a candidate than what the ""state"" feels they should vote for because of how many votes they actually received for a given candidate due to the fact that it may end up voting on which who they feel and refuse to vote for their partys candidate. The electoral system should be replaced.",0
ae411914,1,"Deaor Mor. Senatoor, What is the Electooral College? Can voteors contorol whom theior electoors vote foor? Not always. The Electooral College is an unfaior, outdated, and iororational porocess. Although many believe it is a necessity foor choosing a poresident, it is not. I believe the porocess of choosing a poresident should be changed to the election by populaor vote in the United States.

Fiorst, what is the Electooral College? In the passage ""What Is the Electooral College"" it says, ""It is a porocess by which the founding fatheors established in the Constitution as a comporomise between election of the Poresident by a vote in Congoress and election of the Poresident by a populaor vote of qualified citizens. The poresidential election is held eveory fouor yeaors on the Tuesday afteor the fiorst Monday in Novembeor. You help choose youor state's electoors when you vote foor youor Poresident because when you vote foor youor candidate you aore actually voting foor youor candidates electoors."" But, little did the fouding fatheors know it is not oreally a comporomise. The Electooral College is composed of 538 electoors.Some of them unfaior ones too. A majoority of 270 electooral votes is orequiored to elect the Poresident. In souorce 2 it says, ""The poresidential election is held eveory fouor yeaors on the Tuesday afteor the fiorst Monday in Novembeor. You help choose youor state's electoors when you vote foor youor Poresident because when you vote foor you or candidate you aore actually voting foor youor candidates electoors."" Second, the Electooral College is not a place, it is a porocess, an unfaior, outdated, and iororational porocess. Accoording to the passage ""The Indefensible Electooral College"" it states how, ""Undeor the Electooral College system, voteors vote not foor the poresident, but foor a slate of electoors who in tuorn elect the poresident."" Do you think that is faior? This porocess is confusing and it should be abolished. Due to the Electooral College many people get confused and sometimes vote foor the worong candidate. In the souorce ""The Indefensible Electooral College"" it says, "" faithless electoors have occasionally orefused to vote foor theior paorty's candidate and cast a deciding vote foor whomeveor they please."" That is unfaior, and iororational. People should be able to have a choice, although they let you feel like you'ore doing something by voting, you actually aore not doing much. The Electooral College gets the last woord.

Thiord, some aorgue that the Electooral College has good intentions, they suppoort theior claims with ideas stated in the passage ""In Defense of the Electooral College"" some such as ""The Electooral College orestoores some of the weight in the political balance to laorge states, the Electooral College orequiores a poresidential candidate to have toransoregional appeal, oor the Electooral College avoids the poroblem of elections in which no candidate orecieves a majoority of the votes cast."" Although these oreasons may be valid, they'ore not enough to puorsuade thousands of U.S citizens that the Electooral College should not be abolished.

Cat got youor tongue? In conclusion, as you can see the Electooral College is not always the best way to choose a poresident, it is unfaior, it is outdated since the founding fatheors had set it up, and it is iororational. the Electooral College should be oreplaced with the porocess of populaor vote.",0
ae953e74,1,"Dear Senator, Electoral college may be a despised method to some people but it has been the system established by our founding fathers and remains until this day. It may not be perfect but every method has its flaws, including popular vote, respectively. The popular voting system is not the best method since it can end up not defining certainty of the outcome. Electoral college has prevailed until this day and it should remain this way for the United States of America.

Although electoral college may be called outdated, irrational and unfair Brandon Plumer 14. This isnt true because if it were so outdated and unfair it would have been substituted or changed by another system but it has remained because of its efficiency. This system is certainly not unfair because as stated in a article by Richard A. Posner,he explains ""each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed."" As for the irrational portion of the opposing view, as stated in "" in defense of the electoral college..."" article has multiple reasons but one of them is ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal."" No region South,Northeast,etc. has enough electoral votes to elect a president."" The single best argument against Electoral College may be called ""the disaster factor"" as claimed by Brandom Plumer in his article opposing the Electoral College. Certainty of Outcome is a strong point for Richard a. Posner in his article defending the electoral college and carefully states ""A dispute over the outcome of the Electoral College vote is possibleit happened in 2000but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote."" He Richard Posner also reminds the reader that the Electoral College avoids issues in elections in which no candidate receives majority of the votes cast and there is no pressure for a ""runoff election"" when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast.

Another factor brought to our attention by ""the indefensible electoral college..."" article is that since the Electoral College uses the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates dont lose time in states they are most likely to not win in and they focus mostly on ""swing"" states. Although the ""swing"" states system is used, it is simply utilized becauseit induces the candidates as seen in 2012's election. But the voters in tossup states are most likely to pay more attention to the campaign, and it is decreed that the most thoughtful voters should be the chosen ones to decide the election.

Ultimately with all the information cited it is quite obvious which option is best for the U.S. Electoral College may have it's cons but the pros outweigh it. This is not a new method. It was defined by the Founding Fathers that wrote our constitution that has held our country in unisom until this day. Now in 2015 it is still the leading force in the government and should be kept that way. the Electoral college is the best suited for America and should'nt be altered.",0
aed17226,0,"""The day that mankind realizes that their creations destroy the true beauty of mother nature it will be too late."" This quote by one of our nations greatest political and environmental activists, Irvin Green, directly applies to the topic of reducing pollution. One simple, yet extremely effective way to reduce pollution is limiting the transportation methods we travel by. Limiting car and vehicle usage can reduce pollution, nearly eliminate accidents, and makes the road a safer place.

In many places such as Germany, Paris, and Columbia, many ambitious ideas are being put into play to help battle pollution. In the article, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", it is stated that in Vauban Germany, 70 percent of families do not own vehicles. The other 30% that do, do not have a place to park them, making them basically useless. Residents in Vauban have stopped their need for transportation, making malls and stores a walk away. In this new approach, pollution has drastically reduced in numbers and has made it a much safer and cleaner place to live.

The usage of vehicles are a doubleedged sword. They may get us to where we need to go with plenty of time to spare, but what are we really losing because of it? What we are losing is the environment and also our health. In Paris, the pollution rate almost reached a new record high, thus forcing the partial driving pan to clear the air of the global city. In the article, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", its evident that cars hurt us in more ways then we realize. businesses are suffering due to the lack of transportation available to delivery their services as seen in source number two, ""Delivery companies complained of lost revenue"". ""Congestion was down 60% in the capital of france after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" The smog was so dense that Paris officials created a law making evennumbered license plates to leave there cars at home to reduce pollution. With half of the normal amount of cars driving, it almost elimated the total accident rate, making the road a safer place to be.

Despite the benefits that come along with transportation, there are more disadvanges then advantages. Pollution is the second largest source of America's emissions just behind power plants. Many sociologist have seen these statistics and have also noticed that American transportation usuage has slowly been declining since its peak in 2005. People are slowly but surely helping the cause in their own ways, whether its by delaying getting there license, limit there driving, or even carpooling with friends. Limiting car and vehicle usage can reduce pollution, nearly eliminate accidents, and makes the road a safer place to be.",0
aee5bc2a,0,"Having a car can be very stressful and cost a lot of money. Not only does having a car hurt our earth but it hurts your wallet or you can hurt other people. Also you can get so much more exercise from just walking to where you need to go than taking your car. It seems difficulty to live without your car but they show that some people can do it , so can you.

You just moved into your new home in Vauban , Germany. You have to pay money just to park your car. In the article ""In german suburb, life goes on without cars."" According to Elisabeth Rosenthal , it states in paragraph 2 that ""Car ownership is allowed , but there ar only two places to park large garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home."" So if you want to park your car , you have to pay just to keep it there and always pay for your house.

Think of all the people that have cars , take buses , basically anything with an engine is polluting our earth. In the article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" according the writer , Robert Duffer it states in paragraph 10 that ""After days of nearrecord pollution , Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" They almost broke a record of so much pollution and the main reason of that is because of cars. So if you have less people driving them , the less polluted our world with be.

Instead of driving just everywhere , you can get exricse and move your body to the place you need to go. Not only is it healthy for your body and life , its healthy for our world. In the article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota."" The author Andrew Selsky stated in paragraph 20 that ""In a program thats set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" They got where the needed to go , without their car. So just on that one day , they helped out our world and themselves.

In conclusion , having no car is just better for everyone. You get to save so much money on gas or not having to pay for a parking spot. Our world is not as polluted with all thr smoke and gas that cars cause. You get to get exercise for the day and feel better. If you can go a day with no car , you can live your life with no car. So help save the world and your wallet by not using a car.",0
aefc92f2,0,"Transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions Rosenthal 34. Global warming is becoming more of an issue as time goes on, part of this problem is vehicles and their pollution they let off. People are getting more and more worried about this as temperatures continue to rise on Earth. They are trying to do something about it. One of the more popular suggestions to help solve the issue is to limit car usage. I know, it seems pretty bizarre due to the fact that some towns, such as my own, do not have everything citizens need within a walking distance. genetically, ""stores are being placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway.Rosenthal 6"". It is thought that it will ""drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe...Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some areas of the United States Rosenthal 5"". People also are not putting forth an effort to help decrease the pollution by buying hybrids, instead they buy Diesels. Diesel gas has more pollutants then regular gasoline.

Safety is another reason to reduce car usage. Think about it, if pedestrians reduced their car usage by 50 percent the percentage of car accidents would also decrease. This could save many people's lives animals as well. Rosenthal said, ""Cities could become denser, and better for walking"", which also makes it safer. To go along with saving lives lets mention health. Americans are getting more and more unhealthy and overweight. It is a rising problem in our country. Many people die from it everyday obesity can be stopped. One way to lose weight and get in shape is exercise. Imagine how much better shape Americans would be in if we actually had to walk to the grocery store or McDonald's. It would make us think ""do we really need that?"". Those extra burned calories count, sitting in a car does not burn many calories.

Traffic jams are aggravating to most people, with the decreasing number of car owners time is being saved. There is less traffic. Andrew Selsky studied carfree day in Bogota, and he stated ""rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic28"", this means time is being saved and people are getting to their destinations faster. Another idea was said by Carlos Arturo Plaza ""it's a good opportunity to take away stress...Selsky 24"". Congestion stresses everyone out, whether running on time, running late or just taking a leisurely drive. It makes everyone stress. Congestion actually decreased 60 percent in Paris Duffer 14. Heidrun Walter also said ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Limiting car usage helps a number of problems throughout the globe, such as to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions, improve safety, and even improve your health Rosenthal 43. You may wonder what other ways are there for you transport to the places you need to go. You could walk, jog, hike, bike, skate, or take public transportation. There are so many options and you have the opportunity to meet new people and exercise if you're having a busy day. America should try it out just for a day and see what it leads to.",0
af02afd3,1,"Politics is everywhere and it rules our everyday lives. Each United States citizen has a role in choosing how our politics can operate. It might not be a huge role but it definitely is an important small role. The presidential election happens every four years on the first tuesday of November. There is an electoral college which is the compromise between election of president by vote in congress and by popular vote of citizens. As state senator, I think you should keep the electoral college running because it is a safer option than just doing election by popular vote.

The electoral college consists of professionals in congress that are more specialized in politics then an average citizen is. The electoral college should be handed the trust to control our politics. There must be a majority of 270 electoral votes to elect that President. Each candidate running for president must have his or her own electoral group. The electors are chosen by the candidates political party, which means the person running for President if in good hands with his electoral college.

Al Gore lost the presidency, but he won the popular vote. Maybe the professionals in the electoral college saw a flaw in him that the average citizen would not see. 60% of people prefer doing the direct election popular vote. The direct election would only satisfy themselves temporarily, but what if this president that got elected put the whole country in a downfall. Then people would realize how important the electoral college is.

There are some cases where the election process ends up being a disaster. What if citizens weren't able to chose the electors and the state legislatures were fully in charge of choosing those electors. Well, the electors can still chose to go by what the people want. In 1960, the segregationist almost replaced Democratic electors with the new electors that opposed John F. Kennedy. Some electors have even went against their political party's candidate and only choose who they wanted to chose. The segregationist that were in power at that time only wanted what they thought was best for them and not what was best for the people. Situations like this must require the votes and thoughts of the average citizens combined with the electoral college.

The electoral college has voters voting for electors only and not the president. The electoral college should stick around forever. Popular votes might not always be the best option. The citizens still have a say in which electors shall be chosen and that plays a part in electing the president. Even though voters are not always able to control who the electors vote for, they still have a part in chosing who will be president.",0
af202eef,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, I have decided to express my opinion to you about the Electoral College process for electing the President of the United States. This process should be abolished as soon as possible for it is corrosive to the American peoples opinion. We should instead switch to a popular vote by eligible American citizens to decide presidency.

Now some fellows might argue that the Electoral College is favored by the people. When in fact, as Bradford Plumer points out in paragraph 9, ""60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now"". Some people may also say that the Electoral college encourages the president to visit all states, when in fact smaller states still are not treated the same as states with more electoral votes. A president would rather spend their time investing and giving information to a state such as california who have 55 electoral votes, who feel more inclined to think about their decision due to their involvement, rather than a state with 3 electoral votes who dont invest as much thought into their votes.

In grade school we are taught that popular votes most accurately represent what a specific population wants, why dont we use it in the real world? If your principle wanted to figure out what color the students wanted their yearbooks, she would not elect people to decide for each class! In the Bush and Gore election, Bush received less votes by the American people but won presidency because he acquired more Electoral votes than Gore. That means that more American people wanted Gore, but the fate was chosen by 271 people, who selected Bush as the winner!

The Electoral College also increases the risk of a tie and if one occurred, the election would be disrupted by the unorderly process of which we would have to take to decide the president. In 1968, a change of votes from just 41,971 people would have tied the electoral votes due to the even number of 538 Electors.

The overall idea im trying to express is that the Electoral College is a poor way to show peoples opinion, and much rather focuses on that of 270 individuals who in the end, decide the President of the United States. I hope you can see my points and I long for the day when the president is decided by the people.",0
af37ecf5,1,"The electoral college is a symbol of mockery and deprivation of our rights. Voting using this system to elect our leaders is proven null and serves to be removed. Implementing the popular vote in society will not only modernize it but give america its full name for democracy. For many years presidency has debated its ability to be renounced from Electoral college votes or the popular vote. The electoral college is a symbol of our rights as a US citizen being swept under our feet. More formally, this needs to be changed so the people of the U.S can have a greater say in our government, and those who run the country. Granting this power, we will not only modernize but become more democraticPlumerParagraph9.

According to the article "" The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best laid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer, Not only do citizens agree with changing our system our own appointees do to. Major figures in politics like Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole and the U.S Chambe or commerce all agree to the abolishment of electoral college voting privileges. A poll of over 610 voters agree that a direct election should be implemented by the people. This topic can be controversial though. The best argument that reinstates its purpose says "" Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president"". So whats the controversy about we elect them so they elect what we want. The best argument against this is the disaster factor. In the 1960's, segregationists in Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing democratic electors by electing electors who oppose John F. KennedyPlumerParagraph1011 There are numerous factors that contribute towards the banishment of the Electoral College. Ranged from the favoritism of big states with big populations hence the higher amount of electoral votes, to the possibility of a tie in electoral votes. The system is unfair and a symbol of non modern democracy. Direct voting offers a chance to citizens of the US the ability to exercise voting and become part of the government in which we follow. If we always lived in this system, improvements must go on as time progresses so we as a nation can improve to become better. Changing our government is just another major step in our progress to becoming the most sucessful nation.

Changing our system so the voters of the US governize america by direct election is a essential change. According to the article ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president"" numerous stories have been told that the Electoral college is an act of anachronismPosnerParagraph15. If the people of the US work hard to remove this we can modernize society forever and make US a better democracy. If we fail to do so, we risk taking a major step backwards in time causing another seggregation act. We have been deprived of many of our rights for too long throughout history and now we have the ability to change. The electoral college has been a shaded act of seggregation and need to dperived of its rights and shut down at a notice.",0
af473dfd,0,"There are many advantages to limiting car usage. Limiting car usage helps to cleanse the environment, saves citizens money, and can help with improving citizens health.

One advantage to limiting car usage is that it will cleanse the environment. Cars give off a number of gallons of gas each time they're used. These toxic chemicals found in gases pollute the air. Imagine breathing in all of that waste! Studies have actually found evidence that the toxins from car fuel are very harmful to the health of animals, plants, and humans. It can cause breathing difficulties associated with problems in the lungs when inhaled too heavily as well as it dirties plants and makes it more difficult for them to grow healthy, like they should, and it can even poison and kill the animals. Who wants to take a risk so deadly?

Another advantage to limiting car usage is that it will save citizens money. Cars aren't cheap. Depending on the make and model of the car, they can cost anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000. Insurance and keeping up with the maintenance of a car also costs a lot. Car owners should be expecting to pay 100500 a month for car maintence, and if insurance is required, depending on the state that the car owner lives in, than another additional 100. Finally, is the price for gas. The price for gas in this day in age economy ranges from 3.006.00 per gallon! If a car owner has a long way to drive, but doesn't have a lot of money, heshe may want to consider taking a bus or carpooling with someone to help them out.

A rather more humorous advantage to limiting car usage, is that it could help give citizens a work out. Instead of driving where they need to go, people could walk to their desired destination and burn a ton of calories while doing it! Or in contrast to waiting for a friend to pick them up outside their houses, they could walk to a bus stop and wait for the bus to take them wherever they need to go. This also relates to saving money and helping cleanse the environment. Citizens' will pay less for a gym membership now that they're getting a work out. They'll also be helping the environment by not burning all of those fuel wastes just to get to where they need to go. It's a winwin for everyone!

Of course, there are many advantages to limiting car usage for our citizens, their wallets, and the environment. These three are just a few of the plentiful, conservative ways out there however, they're all extroardinarily efficient.",0
afe7cdd4,1,"Dear State Senator, I do not like the Electoral College. The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational. It's basically a winnertakeall system in each state. Especially with California it represents 35 million voters and if they are really close and have a tight margin the winning side of the votes takes it all, which means all the 55 representative votes go for that one side. getting rid of it would be fantastic because we could have other options on having a better vote system that is more accurate and fair to the the peoplevoters.

First of all, an example of this could be Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and rodney. Like almost all cases award electoral votes on a winnertakeall, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state. the popular vote was very close in Florida nevertheless Obama, who won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the winner only 3 electoral votes.

Secondly, this is not the greatest way to vote because first the voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, which in turn elect the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for Kerry, you'd vote for the slate of 34 Democratic electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry would get 34 electoral votes. Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president which wouldn't be what the voters want in some cases.

Third, according to the Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral college won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of the voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. Next election the voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner couldagain lose the presidency. And yet, the electoral college still has its defenders. The Electoral college is not the best way to choose, it has minimum chances of succeeding in the future. I think a direct vote would work the best for the voters but yet the the electoral college has its cons.

Conclusively, the Electoral College is not the best way to vote. By a bare minimum margin of votes, it could cost the election for the other candidate. The bigger state could be a catastrophy and it would be unfair. Last, the Electoral College is irrational, outdated, and unfair for the most part with its winnertakesall.",0
b0022775,1,"United States of America, the land of the people right? When people think of America they think of freedom, so isn't it our job to keep it that way? With our electoral college, the people of America aren't truly given the right to where their vote matters. The electoral college has so many flaws such as the disaster factor, risk of a tie, and even how unfair it is to our countries voters.

The disaster factor is the risk that the electors could always defy the will of the people. The electors are picked by state legislatures, so it could easily happen where electors disobey the right citizens have and do what they choose, or the legislatures replace electors with maleficent unpatriotic electors that will try to cheat the vote. How is that fair to us? Knowing that thousands and thousands of voters dedicate their time to focusing on which candidate is truly the most deserving, proactive, and thoughtfull. ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. In the same vein, ""faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please..."" The Office of the Federal Register. Here was a time where had already been done, and it is sure to happen again.

Overall the electoral college is completely unfair with so many different problems that over rule the right of other people. For example, ""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning..."" The Office of the Federal Register , this shows how it is not really fair to all the states as even if the popular vote comes close, the winning candidate takes all the electoral votes.

It is possible as well for the electoral votes to tie for both candidates, in which case if this were to happen it would be a catastrophe, as the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. ""...the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from california, who represent 35 million voters"" The Office of the Federal Register. The population difference between the two is beyond comparable with California exceeding Wyoming with over 30 million voters. And to know that the two states would each get one vote? How is that, in any way possible, fair to American voters.

With so many problems with the electoral college and it being unimaginably unjust, the common thought would be how could this possibly still be the final word of our presidential election. If the Disaster factor, risk of a tie, and undoubting unfairness still haven't woken up our government, then how far and much destruction of our country's freedom will it take for the United States of America to truly be, the land of the people.",0
b0063d4f,1,"For the past few years, people have come to theories that the Electoral College is flawed. Citizens have come to this conclusion due to the fact that Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and AFLCIO, all agreed to abolish the electoral college. Also, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind the U.S. is using now. Finally, under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who then, in turn, elect the president. The election system should be changed to popular vote for the President of the United States because the system is more reliable, and the president is chosen by the people.

Due to past problems in the Electoral College, people can come to a conclusion and say that the popular vote system is more reliable. As mentioned in Source 2, Bradford Plumer says that, ""The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse."" The Electoral College was to be blamed when in 2000, the electors defied the will of the people. On the contrary, as stated in Source 1, ""The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" Even the Founding Fathers believed in the vote from the people to elect their leader, but it has shifted away from it.

It was always believed that the people elected the president, but it has been proved that it isnt that way. As mentioned in Source 3, ""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide and election."" Due to the Electoral College, voters, knowing their vote will have no effect, will have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were chosen by popular vote. This shows that if citizens knew that their votes were for voting for someone to elect their president, they would lose interest and stop voting.

Overall, the popular vote system is more reliable because of the vote of the citizens, rather from a slate of electors. Also, it was believed that people elected the president, but in reality, people voted for electors to vote for their president. Next, the Electoral College has many flaws, one of them being that the electors defy the will of the people. And also, that electors may be replaced on purpose to go against a candidate. Finally, the Electoral College should be abolished because it is unfair, outdated, and irrational.",0
b01755f7,1,"The system by which America elects its president is neither democratic nor fair. It favors small states, could possibly elect the loser of the popular vote, and discourages minority voters.

In many states, the electors who vote for president are not required to vote for who won in the state they represent, says Plumer. An elector could decide, ""I dont like who won, so I'll vote for this other candidate"". One could say, since a party will choose its electors, that it will hardly ever happen, says Posner. It's true, but it shouldn't ever be able to happen, and it has happened. Plumer points out, that several times in America's past, electors have defied the will of the people. It is impossible to be completely sure of someone's loyalty.

Another problem is that it is possible to win enough electoral votes to become president, but not enough of the actual population's vote to have won the popular vote, argues Plumer. Because senatorial seats count towards a state's electoral votes, and the fact that each state gets 2 Senators, no matter their population, more populated states' votes are technically stolen by less populated ones through the Senate. The Electoral College essentially has a skewed view of population distribution. Winning a majority of the popular vote in smaller states will give you slightly more electoral votes for population than larger ones. In most cases though, a candidate will win both the electoral and popular vote, says Posner. While that is the case msot of the time, people would not accept the possibility that in, say, a sports game, the loser might randomly win because of the system used to determine it. It is arguably more important that a country is run by the correct person.

Posner claims that the Electoral College prevents a third party jumping in and grabbing enough votes prevent either ""big party"" candidate from winning. While in a truly direct vote, this could happen, the Electoral College allows for the same exact problem. If a third party candidate manages to win the election in just a few states, he could steal enough electoral votes that no candidate manages to get the 270 votes needed for a victory. Plumer warns that ""most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote"". A tie, with both candidates getting 269 votes, would be solved in the same way as a third party getting enough votes that no one manages to get over 269. The House of Representatives would vote on the president. Here, the bigger states are again cheated of their power, as the delegates for as states, and not individuals. Wyoming's sole representative has as much sway as the 55 from California. On top of this unfairness, the delegates do not have to vote as the states have. If a majority Republican state were to have a majority Democratic representation, the state could very possibly end up voting in the candidate of the opposite party. As the Electoral College was created at the creation of the nation itself, and the president and vicepresident didn't campaign together, the Senate chooses the vicepresident, independently. If the Senate and House are are opposite parties, the president and vicepresident could end up being from opposite parties. Plumer gives the examples of 1968 and 1976, where ""a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election,"" and ""a tie would have occured if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way,"" respectively.

Posner addresses the argument that the Electoral College discourages voters of the opposite party of a state dominated by the other party from voting. He says ""no voter's vote swings a national election... Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a politcal preference, rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election."" That view is what causes people to not vote. Even 1% of America's population would be three million people, and among those three million, there are without a doubt, people who believed that lie that their vote doesn't matter. Plumer's examples of the elections of 1968 and 1976, referenced earlier, are prime examples of times where just about 1% of that 1% of the population's votes were needed to change the possible outcome of the election.

The Electoral College is an outdated and unfair system. The fact that it even has the possibility to essentially make the loser win should be enough of a reason to abolish it in favor of something like a true majority wins election. On top of possible ""failure"", the Electoral College pretends that more people live where they dont, and less people live where they do, and discourages minority voters from even voting, especially if they're in a larger state, an extreme minority, or a combination of the two.",0
b075087f,1,"The Electoral College is outdated, unfair, and irrational and should be modified and updated so it is more fair to voters and the rest of the citizens.

The Founding Fathers created it during the Constitution as a compromise. This meaning it was made and designed for when it was needed. It did help the way presidents were voted for then,but its not suited for the population and other ways it has changed and is different in this time period. Over 60% of voters would prefer a new and direct election rather than the system that we have now.

Under the Electoral College we the people vote for electors, anyone not holding public office, who are chosen depending of the state by either state conventions, state party's central committee, or presidential candidates themselves. While voters are supposed to control who the electer votes for, sometimes they can make a mistake and vote for the wrong candidate. Its not very often that mistakes like these happen, but they do occur. If a mistake like this was to happen the wrong candidate would be voted for that the people didn't choose, resulting in the possibility that a candidate we didnt vote for could and has the possibility if winning.

Something similar to this that happened back in 1960 was the biggest election crisis of the century. Segregationists, who favored separation based on race, in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors who opposed John F. Kennedy so the popular vote would not have been given to Kennedy and he would noyhave won.

In defense of the Electoral College it was very helpful when it was needed at first, but now it's in the wrong time period. It exceeded Obama's share of the popular vote when he received a 61.7% of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney in 2012.

In conclusion the Electoral College should beb changed so we have a new and improved way for the people to vote fairly for who they want.",0
b07f65ef,0,"Limiting car usage could come off as absurd to some people. They ask ""Why would I reduce my use of something that gets me to my desired destination the fastest?"" Despite the fact that cars appear to be more convenient, the harm they do to the Earth far outweighs the benefits. Cars have become more and more prevalent in the entire world since World War II, as society has been built around the car and its ease of use. This unremitting usage of the car has resulted in a shocking amount of pollution to the Earth. The reduction of car usage is advantageous to the environment. Cars produce so much pollution, have a gradual decuction in use would have positive effects on the environment.

The greatest advantage of limiting car usage is the positive effects it would have on the environment. It is common knowledge that the Earth is in a state of selfdestruction, with humans pouring in incredible amounts of greenhouse gases into it. A high percentage of these harmful emissions come from cars and other gaspowered vehicles. If car usage was limited, a much healthier Earth would result. According to the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" passenger cars were responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and nearly 50 percent in highly congested cities across the United States. With this in mind, cutting these numbers down, even if only in half, would bring about such prosperity to the environment that benefits would soon be noticed. These figures show that the reduction of car usage is pivotal in the fight to protect the environment. Also in the article ""Paris Bans Driving Due to Smog"" it is said that car usage became so heavy in Paris that it developed insane amounts of smog, rivaling that of Beijing, which is one of the most polluted cities in the world. Clearly the root of the problem for Paris was the abundance of car usage, which once limited, reduced the smog greatly. This proves that cars can be a huge problem for the environment, but limiting the usage will have near immediate benefits. Again the environmental benefit of limiting car use is seen in the article ""The End of Car Culture."" The article states that a limit to car usage would ""have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's eissions."" This article does not only say that cars are large part of pollution, but it also directly claims that less usage would be good for the environment. Limiting car usage is very important to maintaining the Earth as it is now. It is gradually becoming more and more polluted, and the limiting of vehicle use can stop that.

Despite the convenience of the car, it is such a harm to the enironment that its limiting of usage is absolutely neccesary. Several exmaples point out that cars are one of the biggest means of pollution, as it seems everyone is always drving them. Limiting car usage is one of the best things that can be done to save the environement. It is obvious that the preservation of our planet is far more important than the convenience of turning a five minute walk into a short one minute trip. With the ecological benefits of the limit of car usage, this limit of usage is defnitly advantageous.",0
b08b6efc,0,"Thinking of the past century ideas of driving cars and SUV's around is considered fairly overrated now a day's. operating moto vehicle in city scapes and rural areas can get so overwhelming the constant worry of oncoming traffic and pedestrians steering into your direction, dangerous pollution threatening to destroy the ecosystems & surrounding landscapes, not to mention expenses that are strung along with the cost driving a car. By eliminating or limiting the use of cars, these unnecessary issues would just simply....float away.

As we all know as a result of past generations: Global Warming is on the rise. This statement is especially true in the city of Paris, France...named to be the most polluted city in the world amoung tourist destinations in Europe. In a act to reduce these smog issues, ""On Monday motorist with evennumbred licence plates were ordred to leave their cars at home or suffera 22euro fine"" says Robert Duffer who wrote from the article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" in the Chicago Tribune.

Ever since Paris officials had made this change in leglisation, pollution has gone down considerabley. Imagine driving through your city for example I live in Jacksonville Beach, and there is no more smog, traffic is reduced, and the air you breathe is actually cleaner than before. From putting certain restraints like the city of Paris did on commuting, you too could experience all the wonders of ""cutback driving"".

Moving onto another terrific viewpoint of limited car usage is a cut down on cost. Now how great does that sound, and in this expanding economy I'll be happy if gasoline prices drop below 2 dollars! On a serious note, the price tags of a car are extremely heavy now as they were say two decades ago. There are matanince issues, speeding tickets, parking meter tickets, if you have a flat tire then you call a tow truck which....

COST MONEY!

""New York's new bikesharing program and it's skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect those new priorities, as do proliferation of carsharing programs across the nation"" says Elisabeth Rosenthal from ""The End of Car Culture"". Now in modern cities like New York, Miami, or even Jacksonville, many city officials have made this ninche of transportation much easier on civilians. Providing local trollys & public busses to help cut the cost of transportation for their residences. As exemplary from Rosenthal, its makes you happy not to drive a car as often... and makes you wallet happy too!

Although many critics are skeptical to obtain and enforce this idea, in actuallity this would be a tremendous favor to all if they participated. Sure if you don't have a car to use for example on a Saturday, then it may seem like a bummer but in perspective it's actually not! Getting around your local area and exploring all it has to offeroutside the four doors of you ""gashogger"" is a beautiful way to go through your day! Just think of all the chaching you'll be saving with every footstep you take.

WEEEWOOWEEHWOO !!! This is the sound of a ambulance driving in your lane to get to a car crash that hapened because of wreckless driving. ""It's the inevidable that the 1% of the 99% of all drivers are going to be in some form of a auto vehicle accident by the time their 50"" says Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News. Can you imagine that happening to you, or has it already? Heidrun Walter a media trainer and mother of two says ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" since making the change of onfoot commute and biking to distant locations. I live in a beautiful beach side town where almost everything is acessable by walking, biking, city bus, Beaches Trolly, or a surfboard! I myself have tried this and rode my bike up to Trader Joe's to get some ice cream. I can say I felt very stressfree by the whole experience. From simply switching to a nonautomatic or mechanical form of transportation I not only relived my tension of road rage. I also had gained great deal of happiness from being outdoors.

In my last few final statements about the pros from limiting the usage of a vehicle, is it's just better. I dont know what other methods are so EASY to follow to get the results you want to the problems and issues people struggle with. Worry about the enviorment? Try limiting you car driving to every other day. Want more money in your pockets insted of in your car? Take the transportation thats provided in your local area to get around you city in. Want to ease the stress that major highways and opperating a motor vehicle bring on? Get out and about by walking or biking to get from place to place.",0
b0a2f554,1,"The Electoral Collage has been around for a long time. Every few years, voters go to vote on election day and their vote can either mean everything or nothing. There are many flaws with the Electoral Collage: it serves an outdated purpose, popular vote does not matter, and there is the possibility of the disaster factor. Using the Electoral Collage could lead to undesired consequences.

Back in the times in which the Electoral Collage was founded, commutation between the colonies was not quick. News could take months to arrive, and with the Electoral Collage, if news about a presidential candidate came out that made him a threat, for example if he was a murderer, the electors would know that and, despite what the voters thought, not to vote for him. In the current times, as soon as something had happened that would make a candidate look bad, it would not be very long before such news would be on T.V., social media Facebook, Twitter, etc.,and on the radio. So unless someone wasn't paying much attention, every vote should be valid.

With the Electoral Collage system, the vote of an individual does not matter. Whether three people in a state vote or threemillion vote, as long as a majority only 51% of the votes vote for the candidate, that candidate gets all the electoral votes for that state. If only 51% of people vote for a candidate he wins that state, that leaves 49% of people in that state whose votes are now discredited. Eventually, like in some cases such as the election in 2000, it can add up that a candidate wins the popular vote, the actual majority, but not the election. So despite the wishes of the majority, the other candidate in this situation would win.

When a candidate wins all the electoral votes for a state, those votes are sent to electors so that they can vote on behalf of the people, or not. ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. So that a popular vote for Kennedy.""""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong,"" Bradford Plumer Not only an incident such as this could occur, but electors of two slates could be sent to congress and chose not to vote as asked. With all these flaws, why are we still using the Electoral Collage?

The Electoral Collage no longer serves the purpose it once did, and it is now doing more harm than good. Back when it was established, it did what was needed for the time. This is a new era, it's time for a new system.",0
b0ad7b7c,0,"In today's society, most people believe that having a car is essential to everyday tasks. In their definition, everyday task can range from going food shopping to going to work in the morning. Some, on the other hand, consider everyday tasks to be checking in on friends just to showcase their new car. Although that may or may not be the mindset of many, people fail to realize there are other ways of reaching from point A to point B, without harming the environment and it's people. Limiting car usage not only benefits the person who is using the car, but their community and environment.

The use of a car isn't, at all, important in everyday use. Instead of using a car, which helps build up the problem of air pollution, one can simply walk, take a bike or even use public transportation. Just like Bogota, several countries should participate in a ""Carfree day"". Spreading awareness, that a car isn't always needed to move around an area, can help to benefit the people and the environment. As said in source 3, ""The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog"", bringing awareness of more easy and effective public transportation,which can help to rid that particular country of the usage of cars. Once participants of this carfree day understand the effects they are having upon the air pollution, they would be much more willing to help with this process just like businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza, ""Its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"". Overall the usage of cars doesn't benefit the environment. Sooner, rather than later, it is important that we realize this problem and fix it before it's too late for our community.

Not only is the usage of a car terrible for our environment, it is also not needed as how it was. ""The number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005"", during this time, many vehicles were purchased with a high demand and were considered to be popular, although that isn't the case anymore. As years went past, the number of miles began to drop steadily. ""Part of the explanation certainly lies in the recession, because cashstrapped Americans could not afford new cars"", that may be the case for some, but for others they didnt feel it was necessary to own one. In German Suburbs, ""stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway"", providing this area with no need for a car. Since everything was so near, a car was a waste of thought. If they did own cars, they would have to pay for both the car and a means of where to park the car. Those expensies were usually ""40,000, along with a home"", much more money than a free walk to any of your local stores. With the hopes of limiting the usage of cars, comes the need for expanding Vaubanlike suburbs. With that being said, according to the article, these suburbs need to be expanded ""not only in developed countries but also in the developing world, where emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle class are chocking cities"".

To sum it up, the limiting of cars is becoming important in the development of the new world and the fixation of the old. As of now, cars consist of having no benefit for the environment and of certain communities. As days go on and more people become aware of the means of public transportation, hopefully there won't need to be any cars. To take action in this plan, more Vaubanlike suburbs need to be put in place to give off the same react. Although some people understand the full effect of a car on the environment, it is critial that nearly every person understands. Cars, as of today's age, aren't benefiting the public as how they used to.",0
b0aeae9f,0,"Cars have been around for awhile and they have had a major impact on society. Many people believe that there is no problem with the frequency of cars being driven. But, there are many advantages to less car use such as improving our cities and suburbs, improving safety, and decreasing pollution.

Many have tried to make cities a little more dense and better for walking but nothing has seemed to work therefore, they have moved on to suburbs. Now, people are trying to make suburbs better for getting around while walking instead of driving. By doing so, places such as shops will be made closer and more convenient which allows people to be able to consider walking as a better option. By having these suburbs, and soon hopefully cities, reduce the amount of cars used, the people living in these areas will be able to accomplish more in a healthier and safer way.

Safety has been an issue in almost all areas due to a variety of reasons one being cars. People pass by ""Drive Safely"" signs or memorials on the side of the road too often. Many accidents occur because of all the cars and traffic and careless driving. By reducing the amount of cars being driven, the moment of deaths in car accidents can be reduced as well. In ""The End of Car Culture"", author Elisabeth Rosenthal states, ""Mine 19 and 21 have not bothered to get a driver's license, even though they both live in places where one could come in handy. They are interested, but it's not a priority. They organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends."" Recently, teenagers who are able to get their license haven't really made it a priority. This could be caused by factors such as fear of driving or just because they've figured out a way around driving. Not everyone needs a car to get around there are plenty of other ways to safely get from point A to point B.

Another large issue cars contribute to is pollution. Pollution is in every city, every state, every country, every continent. Cars are ""a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe..."" Rosenthal, Elisabeth, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"". Cars don't help with environmental issues whatsoever. They add to the smog issues and they increase the about of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In the capital of France, for example, congestion was down sixty percent due to smog causing delivery companies to lose money since they couldn't delieve what was needed. Cars are extremely harmful to the environment and they make the issues we already have even larger. By limiting car usage, people could hopefully work on repairing the damage we have already done to the environment instead of worsening it.

Cars have impacted society ever since they were made. By reducing the amount of cars driven, cities and suburbs can be improved, better safety can be implimented, and pollution will reduce. Until then, the issues cars create will continue to get worse and by the time people see it, the problems will be too late to fix.",0
b0b00a3a,0,"Can you tell the air feels different? Over the past years some countries have put restrictions on car usage. Although this may sound extremely crazy to some, most individuals accept the new law's for car's. Motorized vehicles have put a toll on our environment, our well being, and our wallets. By certain countries banning the use of motorized vehicles it has allowed individuals stress level to decrease, lowered air pollution, and increase money that citizens have. Gas cars that create pollution are a thing of the past, we are moving to electric cars, bicycles, and more the future is changing and its for our own benefits.

Cars are one of the main sources for people's stress, whether it be because of car failures, others who annoy you while you drive, or the fact you can never find a parking spot. Heidrun Walter claims "" When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way In German suburb, Life goes on without Cars 3."" One main reason people are less tense and stress is because people do not have to constantly worry about if another car is about to hit them, if traffic is going to be to slow to get to work, or if your car is going to breakdown on you. Car's create unwanted stress that can be easily avoided. Indeed life would be very different without cars people in Bogota, Paris, and Germany have all been able to function properly without motorized vehicles. In fact ""70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold cars to move her In German Suburbs, Life goes on without Cars 3."" These individuals have proven that it is okay to make a switch. In order for you to reduce stress in your life, you have to take away the source of stress, and that is what citizens have done, and without cars majority of people are happier and healthier.

Due to citizen's of Bogota, Paris, and Germany not using cars and having to switch to bikes, walking, and electric bikes has greatly reduced toxic gases in the environment. Due to individuals in Paris not excessively using cars the amount of smog has reduced. According to Robert Duffer "" after days of nearrecord pollution, paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city Paris bans driving due to smog 10."" Paris has enforced strict rules that rejects people from driving, also a switch to diesel fuels. In return these ideas have lowered the level of smog in Paris creating a cleaner environment for the citizen. Not only has Paris help reduce toxic gases from entering our environment, but so has Bogota. In the article Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota, Andrew Selsky stated that this has been Bogota's ""thrid year straight that cars have been banned for one day"" and the only motorized vehicles they have used are ""buses"". This switched has dramatically cut traffic, rush hour, and the amount of smog left in the air. Although there is still traces of pollution after this day it has lowered. The reasons are simple, using less cars makes less gases, also those who go the day without using cars may like the change better and permantely switch to a lifestyle without cars.

Another thing that has been changed due to the limitation of car usages is that with individuals not having to buy a car, pay for insurance, and pay for gas, it has increased the amount of money citizens have in their wallets. Citizens of the United States of America have not exactly chosen to not use cars, but some have, the main reason Citizen of America have limited themself is due to a lack of money. During our ""recession"" Americans were ""unemployed"" and ""unable to pay The end of car culture 32."" Because citizens were not able to pay for cars, they did not use them, thus as you get adapted to a new situation you tend to stay with it. After the switch citizens who chose to continue a life without a car, were able to have more money because they didnt have to pay for the cost that come with a car. Now some citizens have made the switch to not using motorized vehicles, which has helped increase the amount of money citizens have, which is always an advantage because you are able to pay for other things that are neccasary to your life.

Although cars seem like a material object that is so precious to life, it's not. In all reality people can live a life without cars, citizens in Bogota, Paris, and Germany have, and they enjoy it. Its time to make a switch and make a helpful change in your lifestyle. A life without cars is very benefitial, it is less stressful, lowers pollution, and has an increases of money. Although not using cars is a bit extreme, you can always make a better switch to using electric products, which can also help lower the amount of toxic gases in the air. Gas car's that produce extreme levels of gases are a thing of the past, I believe its time to move to the future.",0
b0bffeb4,1,"Do you think that the Electoral College prosses is practical? Do you think that it is okay for someone else to vote for us? Well, I dont think that it is right, and there are some reasons I am about to tell you that may change your mind about the whole process of voting and electing a president. Here are a few points I am going to cover in this essay about Electoral Colleges: over sixty percent of people do not agree with the electoral process, it it outdated and not accurate, also the electors have proven to be untrustworthy in the past.

Most people dont really understand what the Electoral College is, or what it is about, so let me just inform you about it a little. The Electoral College is a process that was established in the constitution and it is a strategy that we use to elect out presidents. The citizens vote for the president, but so the the electors in the Electoral College. There are over five hundred members of the Electoral College, and if a candidate wants to win presidency, heshe has to gain 270 of the Electoral College's votes. Each person running has a set of their own electors. Many people believe that this should not be used as a way to elect a president because in the past, the Electoral Collage made Gore loose the presidential election because although he had more popular votes than Goerge Bush, he has less electoral votes. Some people argue that the Electoral College is trustworthy, but how are my fellow Americans expected to trust a group of people who have betrayed us before?

Another reason why I dont think that we should keep the Electoral College is because so many people disagree with it. Everyone has their own reason for not liking it, but sixty percent of American voters agree that we should not have it and we need to find a new system for electing presidents. Most people lost repect for the Electoral College after what happened with Bush and Gore, but many people think that it is old and outdated, and that it doesn't really make any sense to use it and that it is irrational. I'm not saying that just because a lot of people don't like something, that we should change it, I'm just explaining that if only fourty percent of the nation agrees with something, then maybe the majority should win! Some people might say that the Electoral College was put in the consitution and that we should keep using the process because we've had it for so long, but with time, things change, and just because we've used something for a long time, doesn't mean we shouldn't upgrade.

Don't you think that it is great to live in a free county where the citizens make the rules, and what is in the best interest of the people is what is taken into consideration more than what the government wants? Well, the Electoral College isn't what ""we the people"" want. We want to be able to choose who we elect, not another group of people. Some may argue that the electoral congress is good because if two candidates get the same amount of popular votes, the Electoral Congress acts as a tie breaker, but I'm sure that we can find a better way to break the tie than having untrustworthy people decide the fate of our homeland.

This is why I think that we should get rid of the Electoral Congress, too many people disagree with it, there are many flaws in the system and it is old and outdated. I hope that I have swayed your opinion and that you are part of the sixty percent of Americans who are hungry for change.",0
b0e2843d,0,"After World War II cars began to become more and more popular, and ever since then they cars have done more harm than good, air pollution, traffic and just harming health are a few things cars have harmed citizens with. Many cities are doing things to help cut down the ""smog"" in their area by creating driving bans for a day or even a week Paris bans driving due to smog 10 PBDS. It starts with one and grows into something much larger, and hopefully that shows in this situation. This essay is going to go into detail on why it is needed to cut back on car usage and maybe one day cars will not be needed.

People began pointing the finger at diesels for the air pollution in France after it was made obvious that they make up 67% of the vehicles in this area, compared to around 50% in the other parts of Western Europe PBDS 16. Greenhouse gasses are harming our atmosphere by trapping the warm air in. If the habits of this generation continue than Earth will not be here much longer. A very popular vehicle, passenger cars, make up to 50% of the greenhouse gasses in some of the busy areas in the US. People are all about convenience, and cars do much of that instead of riding a bike for 30 minutes we can drive there in five without breaking a sweat. But it is time to break those running shoes out because our planet is dying. If everyone realized the reality behind greenhouse gassesand the pollution we are putting into the air, we would not be in this situation.

In Paris they needed to cut back on the pollution, so they took action by having a day where motorists with even numbered license plates could drive and the next day, oddnumbers. After almost a week the smog had cleared and everyone was back on the road again. But during this time period it was recorded that the congestion was down 60% in the capital of France alone PBDS 14. If everyday was like this, traveling to and from places would be easier and less time consuming. Although it was not much it starts with a little and grows to a lot. New York has a new bike program which adds up to much less if you count in the amount of tolls and gas they motorists do from day to day The End of Car Culture 37 ECC. People are begginning to notice the benefits of riding your bike to work rather than driving, you are saving money and the Earth.

Health is important to us and the future. This Earth is running out of clean air between pollution and deforistation when will it stop. The chairman for Ford Motor Company is creating a plan in which ""pedestirans, bicycles, private cars, commercialand public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety"" ECC 43. If all car producers were as aware as Bill Ford they could join together to make this world healthier and cleanier. But will it be enough, but by limiting cars usage all together our atmosphere could grow back to the potential it should be at, not trapping the warm air in.

After Bogota had their car free day, sidewalks were replaced and parks were packed. Almost everyone participated with either hiking, biking, skating or taking the bus. The goal, which they succeeded with was to reduce their smog Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota 28. What if all the countries did as so, it could start as a day, and grow into a week, a month, maybe forever. It would help us, our health and the future that has yet to come. After reading this essay it is obvious to why limiting car usage is essential to life. It has grown into something no one could have imagined and now that it is here, when will it be enough.",0
b13c2e75,0,"Driving a car around can be very a affective aspect in people's lives it can also be a very stressful and dangerous liferisking task to do each and every day. All across America, citizens are constantly driving their cars. A car can be used to go to work, to the grocery store, or to drop a loved one off to school and even other places. It is to the point were a simple car has become an important necessity to manage everyday life. It is also to a point at which every year cars are responsible for thousands of deaths and accidents. If people around the world limited their car usage everyday it could significantly better our lives.

Clear the air. Pollution from cars has severely polluted the air we breathe and our environment. Beijing, China is know as one of the most polluted cities in the world and has been effected my the smog. Many places around the world are trying to make a difference in their environment by trying to get citizens in that area to limit their driving. According to an excerpt from ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, Paris has enforced a parital driving ban to help clean the air of the global city. As stated in the excerpt, ""On Monday motorist with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day."" Just because of that one action congestion in the capital of France was down 60 percent and as time goes by the air will start to clear up faster.

If one had the opportunity to take away stress while lower the air pollution, would the do it? In Bogota, Colombia once a year millions of Columbians take part in a day without cars know as carfree day. As stated the the article, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota,"" by Andrew Selsky the goal of the carfree day is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Many citizens of Colombia take advantage of the day by hiking, biking, skating or taking buses to work, which benefits one's health and is a great source of excessive. Because of this day many parks and sports centers have opened, sidewalks have been replaced, and rushhour restrictions have created a better flow in traffic.

Putting away something you constantly use everyday can be a difficult thing to do but it is worth it in the end. Minimizing the use of cars can greatly reduce the amount of polluion of the air. If we all comply with is task year by year our air will get cleaner and the environment will be better.",0
b17d7372,0,"Do you own a car? Have you ever driven one? Many people would answer yes to these questions, and would agree that cars , in fact, are very useful. But have you ever thought of the advantages that would occur if we limited car usage? While cars are very useful, they also have lots of negative side affects that come along with it. Cars accumulate lots of pollution in the environment and stress to humans. Also less cars, results in less traffic, which means you will be wasting less of you're life waiting to get somewhere and actually being there in the moment. Whether you realize it or not Americans are already starting to cut down on car usage. In the article ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, it even states ""recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" The world has been struggling with pollution for quite some time now and has been trying to come up with ways to cut it down. So why not start with where it derives from the most? Cars. Pollution by cars got so bad in Paris that they had to use license plate numbers to decide what cars could drive on certain days! But what did happen was ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog."" Duffer. That is amazing! Just five days of less car usage and the smog went down 60 percent. Pollution would drop in great percentages if we just cut down car usage a bit. Pollution will always be harmful to the world, but steps should be taken to harm the world as little as possible.

Stress is something everyone experiences, but it is safe to say that everyone could do with less of it. Cars cause lots of stress to humans. A city in Germany does not allow cars and a women from the city says ""When I had a car I was always tense."" Rosenthal. She is much more relaxed now and does not need to worry about all the stress that comes along with owning a car. Another person from Bogota, Columbia, where they have a carfree day, says ""Its a good opportunity to take away stress..."" Selsky. People all around the world are reporting that their lives are a lot less stress free when they do not own cars. Stress is something that can be very damaging to a human when in large amounts and just cutting down on driving takes away lots of that stress.

Everyone has been stuck in traffic from time to time, and for some people in small cities, five minutes could be a long time to be stuck in traffic. But for some people in big cities like New York City and Los Angelos, people waste hours stuck in traffic! When you accumulate all those hours stuck in traffic, that is a lot of your time wasted in just waiting to get from desitination A, to destination B. Those hours could be spent on actually being there in the moment at the destination you want to be at. ""A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009....."" Rosenthal, many people nowadays just want to get to the place that they are going to, as fast as possible whether that be by carpooling, taking the bus, or biking. Car usage is already decreasing, but that advantage should be taken that people want to live in the moment more and car usage should be even more cut down.

Car usage may never be completely taken away, but it defintley can be lowered. The advantages and benefits of just less car usage is astonishing. Less pollution to help the world, less stress to help the people, and letting people live life in the moment more are all advantages the derive from cutting down on the usage of cars. It may be diffcult to let go of something many people hold on to so dearest, but it is a change the will benefit us. While cars may have its pros, its cons outweigh it in the end.",0
b19967ba,0,"Transportation has been a part of society for as long as the worlds been turning. It all depends what mode of transport you are willing to take on a daily basis. Cars are becoming fewer and fewer in some places of the past few years. People are less dependant on personal transportation which in turn creates a safer, healthier environment for ourselves and the others around us.

By limiting car usage the main reaction would be less pollution and less smog in larger cities. Places like New York, Paris, Berlin, London, or Beijing could look so much better. Everywhere you look you see and hear about pollution and Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming. All this is caused mainly by humans hand and the cars we drive spitting out toxic Carbon Dioxide wastes. In Paris they had a one day ban of half the cars in the city and the smog went away in that amount fo time.Source 2 If we limited cars we could unlimit our world to a new, longer lifespan, because cars are truly ripping our planet to pieces.

The chance of finding public transportation in America is very slim. Most places you go don't have subways or things like ""der UBahn"" in Deutschland. Our country is made for cars and we throw money at them every year which will eventually come to bite America in the butt. 80 percent of appropriations have gone to highways and the rest goes to other types of transport in America.Source 1 By creating more viable public transportation methods we could cut the spending on highways and put the money back into public transportation. By doing so we could limit accidents at the wheel and reduce pollution which I mentioned earlier. We already know that this system works in Vauban, Deutschland where residents rarely own cars and they live happier, quainter lives. Source 1 The time to by a car is not now. Recent studies show that car purchases, licenses, and driving has become fewer as each year goes on.Source 4 Either from high vehicle and gas prices or an actual social spectical, driving is slowly decreasing all over the world. Hopefully within the next 25 years, public transportation will be a MUST in cities all over the globe, and I'm not just talking about buses. People are more reliant on planes and trains in Europe than any other continent. And we could benefit highly from what we learn elsewhere.

If we just join together and stop driving altogether for just one day, the results would be both extraordianry and frightening. We have neglected to see that by not limiting our car usage we have limited our time on this planet. Hopefully our generation will correct the wronging of past generations and improve transportation so it isn't such a loud and obnoxtious hinderence.",0
b1c850fc,1,"Dear Senator PROPER_NAME, As you are well aware, elections in the United States are of extreme importance. Therefore, it is vital to have the best system possible when electing officials. Maintaining the current system of Electoral College would be a fatal mistake to our country. We must elect candidates by popular vote alone.

The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Pulumer, ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. because of the winnertake all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states."" Americans who are voting the the next president should have the right to hear what candidates have to say. They may be the only one in their state who is not a democrat, but shouln't their vote still be heard.

The article also states that, ""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the house of Representatives, where sate delegations vote on the president."" Shouldn't the American people get to decide who their president is?! We fought a war so that we would be able to govern ourselves. If the House of Representatives are allowed to choose our president, then why did why fight the war againg Great Britain? It isn't right.

In Defense of the Electoral college: Five Reasons to keep our despised methods of choosing the President states that ""it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not be the winner of the popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely."" The opposition even admits that the President may not be who the nation wants as their leader. That should never happen.

As you see Senator, Electoral College must be abolished by any means necessary. To keep such an unjust system goes against the very principle the America was founded on. ""We the people..."" It was not ""We the government..."" or ""We the rulers..."". How can we claim to be a nation of liberty when the citizend are unable to determine who their president should be.",0
b1cb903e,1,"Dear Rick Scott, Every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November, the Electoral College casts their votes to elect the new President of the United States of America. These voters are chosen by the citizens of their state Florida, Texas, etc. to vote in their favor of their preferred party. For example, a Democratic voter in California will vote for Democratic Electoral College candidates to vote for their preferred President. Though many people are opposed to this method of voting, calling it an anachronism & taking away the vote from the citizens of the United States, American citizen's votes still count, the Electoral College can avoid problems popular voting could result in, and the Electoral College listens to those with the initiative and right to make a smart vote. For these reasons I would like to keep the Electoral College.

The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote of Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens, meaning one vote almost relies on the other. A common misconception made by citizens is that when they vote they vote for a President, when in fact they are voting for people to vote in their favor for the President. So the more Republican Electoral College voters your state has, most likely the end vote will be the electoral votes go to the Republican candidate. Many people say that the electoral college ""takes away the votes of the citizens, and that their vote doesn't matter"" when in reality, they matter in every way possible. If the citizens do not vote, who will vote for the electoral college members? And without the citizens to decide who the members of the Electoral College will be, who will be in the Electoral College all together?

Not only do the Citizen's votes count, but the Electoral College can help solve the problems that a popular voting system could have. The Electoral College votes with the majority of the state, meaning that the party with the highest request for its Presidency, the Electoral College will cast its votes towards. Meaning a highly Democratic state can count on their state's vote to most likely be for the Democratic candidate. The Electoral College also avoids runoff elections. This means that the election will always show a clear winner for the state's vote. There is a lot of potential pressure for a runoff election when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cats that pressure could greatly affect the Presidential election process, which the Electoral College reduces, ultimately showing a clear winner.

And finally, the Electoral College listens to smart and eligible voters. Very rarely does a State's Electoral College vote against the wishes of their citizens. In fact that would be the exact opposite of their job. It's also an inetible fact that not every voter is an ideal voter. Many citizens do not keep themselves up to date on the issues candidates plan to solve, occupation backgrounds, or even their personality. Many voters in fact vote on astetics, which is ultimately the most dangerous voter there is an uner educated one.

So Mr. Scott, I hope you take into account that an in terms of an electoral college, an American citizen's vote does count, they avoid the problems popular votes could create, and they do listen to their state's smart, eligable voters. If the Founding Fathers created this tool for the balance in our voting system, then balance there shall be.",0
b1d6c993,1,"Ah, the electoral college. Don't you just how irrelevant, unfair, and confusing it is? In fact, it is so without flaw, that in 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote, but he lost the presidency Source 2. Some people say that the electoral college is an anachronism, but some people disagree. Those people are wrong. The electoral college was irritating in the 1960's, and it's irritating now. You should side with Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and the Chamber of Commerce Source 2, and abolish the electoral college.

First, and most importantly, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Most states in the electoral college is based on a ""winner take all"" system if the candidate gets the majority of votes in that state, that candidate gets the electors Source 1. This means most candidates focus in on the states they know that they have a chance of winning, and focus on going after ""swing states"" Source 2. If a candidate was to get the majority in Texas, Florida, and California, the three biggest swing states, the candidate would have 122 electoral votes, almost half of the 270 votes necessary to win Sources 1 and 3. Voters for the electoral college say that people in the swing states are going to pay closer attention to the campaign and become more thoughtful voters Source 3, but should 10% of the nation decide who runs your country?!

The second virus causing the electoral college to convulse and bite its tongue in half is what happens in the event of a tie. If this is to occur, then state delegates in the House of representatives decide the President Source 2. Each state only casts one vote, so the representative from Rhode Island would have just as much to say as the 55 representatives from the state of California Source 1 and 2. Not only that, but a majority of people vote one party for president and another for Congress Source 3. There are 538 possible votes in the electoral college Source 1, so it isn't impossible for a tie to happen. In 1976, if 5,559 voters from Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had switched candidates, there would have been a tie Source 2.

And finally, the last thing that makes the electoral college as relevant as a new wheel for your horse and buggy is that, it's mindboggling confusing. The electoral college is run by humans, so we must account for human error. The electors are just people chosen by the candidate who don't hold a seat in government Sources 1 and 2. In 1960, a group of racists in Louisiana almost replaced Democratic electors with ones who would oppose John F. Kennedy, and he would have lost the election Source 2. In Hawaii, also in 1960, two slates of electors were sent Source 3. Faithless electors have refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for anyone else Source 2.

In conclusion, the electoral college is literally pointless. It's unfair and confusing. If America had decided on a majority rules electoral system, and not this pile of trash, we would still have all the same presidents we did before. Well, except Al Gore.",0
b1fdbd7d,1,"Dear State Senate, I feel that the way we, the people, vote today is very unfair. We should change the voting to popular vote for the president of the United States. The majority of people don't care about voting for the next United States president because they don't get to chose who will win. The people that get to vote for one's state might not think about what what the remaining others would want.

In source one, this section tells the reader what an electoral college is and how it works. Paragraph two sums up what this system is, ""The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for president and vice president, and the counting if the electoral votes by Congress."" Basically what this paragraph was saying is that the people dont get to directly say who they want as president. The people of a state get to vote for who they want, but it is ultimately up to the state electors on who will get the vote from that particular state. There could be a ton of people voting for one president, and then there might be less votes for a president who may be even better. Ultimately what this system comes down to is the people don't vote for their next president. They are selecting a name that might not do anything to their country.

Source two talks about the electoral college and how the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong. In paragraph nine, the text says, ""... according to a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore thanks to the quirks of the electoral college won the popular vote but lost presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" The electoral college is responsible for picking electors, who can go behind the peoples back and chose the president nobody wanted. This system or process is a total disaster. Paragraph thirteen states, ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the 'swing' states.

paragraph twentythree, ""It can be argued that the electoral college method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state democrats in Texas, for example, or Republicans in California."" If these people were to vote by the system we have now, their vote would have no effect. This leads to the people living in these states to not vote. They don't even pay attention to the campaign anymore. They know that they won't do anything to the votes or who will become president. They couldn't care less.

We should get rid of the electoral college all together. This system is not working for a lot of people and this is why many people dont care enough to vote anymore. There are people that vote for our state. Why should the people care? If we switched to popular vote, our country might participate in picking who the next president of the United States will be. When people have a voice, they will use it as much as they possibly can.",0
b221129e,0,"Men are like ants. We are always in a rush and always desperate to arrive on time. The easiest way to arrive on time in any place, is by car. Cars, however, tend to do a lot more bad then they do good. Cars release large amounts of pollution and can raise smog and noise levels in areas where there is a lot of driving. Smog and pollution isn't very good for anybody, so some areas have taken preventative steps to keep Earth healthy and to keep people healthy as well. The shocking part is, the cars get cut out.

In some areas, like the experimental Vauban in Germany, cars are not allowed at all. No honking is heard when the sun rises, and streets are oddly empty. Shops are lined up within walking distance, and few buses run to allow for people to travel a little bit quicker. In fact, 70% of vaughn's population do not own cars, and many sold their cars for a chance to live in Vauban. The streets are safer, and people seem to be a lot less tense about things, when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun, an occupant of Vauban. Vauban has proved that removing the car entirely can help to calm people, and even redesign the way cities and homes work to provide safer, cleaner areas for man to live in.

Cars can need to be removed for more negative reason as well. Paris, France, had sever issues with the amount of smog in the city. Smog can be incredibly dangerous, making large chances of acid rain and possible issues with breathing. France has had one of the largest amounts of smog when compared to many other cities, usually only beat by Beijing, which in one of the most polluted areas. France knew, however, that the city could not possibly handle having every car taken away in a night, so they attempted to cut a half off for each day. For a week, fines were placed on cars with license plates that ended in either an even or odd number, the taxes applied more specifically to which license plates would be tagged, odd on one day, even the next. The large fines did not persuade everyone, however, and 4,000 driviers were still fined. The week of cutting down cars, however, proved to work very well and cut down on the amount of smog quickly and carefully so that everyone would have a safer and cleaner Paris.

In Bogota, Columbia, the removal of cars is celebrated as if it were a holiday. Each year on one day everyone will refrain from driving to skateboard, bike, walk, hike, or any number of modes of transportation to prevent the usage of cars. The city does this not only as a fun way to promote an ecofriendly Bogota, but to cut down on it's own smog issues. Like any capital of any country, there's a lot of movement, and with movement comes cars, and with cars: smog. Their event has even inpired many other cities and countries to do the same thing, continuously aiding in the fight against global warning.

Even America, the gasguzzling, NASCAR approving, roadrage warriors of the world, try to cut down on car usage. The issue has even reached the President. America has found that slowly but surely that men and women are slowly moving away from the car as a mode of transportation. Since 2005, car usage has dropped tremoendously in favour of public transportation like trams and buses.",0
b25c98bc,0,"In our society today, limiting car usage would be the best way to go. There are plenty of advantages to limiting car usage, with a decrease in pollution just to name one of them. If we can capitalize on the downward shift of automobile users in the United States and around the world, then it would benefit all of us in more ways then one.

Having a car can be handy to get from point A to point B, but what if you just do not need to use that car at all? What if you are just to lazy to walk or bike to your destination? I am not saying you should walk 80 miles to your aunt's house, but what if it was just to the store that was a half of a mile away. Not to mention that you would be saving good on gas money. There is a mostly car free suburb, for example, in Germany that focuses on a majority of the population of the neighborhood to not use cars. This town is named Vauban, and 70 percent of families do not own a car here. It may sound bad to those who live and die by their car, but with everything in walking distance it makes it easy and accessible to walk from point A to point B most of the time. The residents of this suburb are positive about this change, and they should be, because it is a positive change.

One very large problem with the excessive use of cars in one area is air pollution. Lots of cars in the same area commuting can create a thick layer of smoke in the air called smog, and it is not pleasant to experience on the road. That being said, Paris had recently gotten so much smog in the air that it had to put down a partial ban, license plates with even numbers could not drive on Monday, while odd numbered plates could not drive on Tuesday. It sounds crazy, how could such a busy city like Paris realistically put down a travel ban on half of the commuters? Whether you thought it would or not, it worked. Sure there were a couple of motorists who could not take no for an answer and still commuted when they were not suppose to, but a large majority followed the rules of this ban. Apparently the French government underestimated the factor these cars had on the environment, as the ban was recinded early on Tuesday for the pollution almost completely cleared away.

In support of those two points, the amount of drivers every year has been going down since its peak point in 2005. The gap is nearly nine percent, almost a tenth of the United States has stopped driving in the last 10 years. With this pattern taking place, scientists believe that it will only have postive benefits for the environment and the communities in the forseeable future. The United States is one of the most polluted countries in the world, which in large part is because of our advanced and highly populated culture. That doesnt mean we cant make a difference and help our community grow into a better place environmentally. One good example of that happening is the car free day in Bogota. In this city millions of people got around without using cars and have been since 1995 in this program. It has led to the blooming of brand new parks and repaved, smoother sidewalks. If millions of Colombians can make their community a better place in a heavily populated area, so should we.

To summarize, plenty of places around the world are making good efforts to tone down on car usage. This helps bring down levels of air pollution, enhance the community that those people live in and help their financial situations by saving money on buying a car. If we in America can make these kind of efforts to decrease car usage, our whole country would be better for it in more ways than one.",0
b27a7e15,1,"The time of the founding fathers is long gone. Times have changed which means we have to change our way of thinking. Our way of voting. The Electoral college needs to be replaced by popular vote elections because the Electoral College discourages people from voting for their preferred president, influences future presidents to ignore some states, and does not clearly reflect the views of the American people.

Initially, by keeping the Electoral College individuals are less incentivized to vote if they know there is little chance it will do anything. ""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election"" Source 3, 23. However, by implementing popular vote, many more people will want to vote knowing that even if their side does not get the majority vote in the state, it still counts for something. Also, from that same source it says ""The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense."" Source 2, 15. So one would have to ask if the source is even reliable if it contradicts itself. In addition, even if they usually vote ""candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the swing states."" source 2, 13. This shows that states with more electoral votes will have more power over the people. Clearly, the Electoral College is a problem and popular vote is a much better way to vote.

Furthermore, because some states old more power than others wen it comes to elections, presidents often ignore the ""smaller"" states looking only for votes. For example, ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" Source 2, 13. Candidates are not interested in the states, in the people, who do not give them enough votes. This is why the Electoral needs to be abolished and replaced with popular vote elections.

Moreover, just because a president wins the campaign, does not mean that the candidate won the people's votes, it only means that he won the Electoral College's votes. For example, in the 2000 election and the 1888 election, one party won even though majority of the votes went to the other. In the 2000 election, even though Gore had more popular votes than Bush, he still lost because he had fewer electoral votes. This shows that there is something broken in the system. Something that can't be changed and needs to be replaced. As you can see, popular votes are the way to go in such an important election like the presidential one with so much on the line.

In conclusion, the Electoral college needs to be replaced by popular vote elections because the Electoral College discourages people from voting for their preferred president, influences future presidents to ignore some states, and does not clearly reflect the views of the American people. The Electoral College might have been good in the past however, now it just complicated the process and is unfair.",0
b298e3d9,1,"State Senator, The Electoral College is outdated, and is commonly viewed as anachronism. In this system voters, instead of voting for a president, vote for a slate of electors. The slate of electors if chosen for the statewide election, would go to Congress. At Congress, they would then vote for the President. For many people, it seems understandably unfair.

First off, voters cannot control who their electors vote for. At this point in time, voters have no more of a say in which President is elected they can only hope that the elected candidate shares the same views they do. Most of the times, this is the wrong case.

Second off, many times voters will get confused in who they're voting for. They'll pick out a candidate without knowing much information about them, or what their views are. A random candidate will be chosen for their vote, and most times this tends to come to an unhappy ending. Many times, voters will be disappointed and frustrated with how the election turns out.

People claim this tends to be due to the Electoral College.

It would, in terms, be much simpler to change the election to go by popular vote. This would have many benefits on the difficulty of the systems selecting a President, to how people react. By choosing a popular vote, time of the election would be cut slimmer. People wouldn't have to focus on choosing an elector, or their worries that their state electors didn't share their views. It would give our people the chance to vote for the President they want.

In the end, the Electoral College should be abolished and thrown out. It doesn't make sense to keep continuing on this way, when the votes should be up to the people not random electors.",0
b3029b5b,0,"When cars were first introduced into society it was the most awestruck phenomenon to occur. There was nothing better than the sight of a person's first car and the feeling of independence that came with it. But now that technology has shorten distances between countries and has made telecommunication so much more accessible. People should engage in limiting their car usage because it betters personal health, improves the environment, and leads to economic prosperity while still gaining all the benefits that come from using a car.

When the usage of cars is limited it often leads to better health benefits. This is true because when people are restricted on their driving it forces them to resort to healthier, more proactive alternatives. For example, instead of driving somewhere people are now having to get out and walk or ride a bike. This leads to regular exercise without having to think about it and decreases overall stress levels. In the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"" Heidrum Walter, a media trainer and mother of two explained, ""When I had a car I was always tense, I'm much happier this way"". Heidrum, a citizen of the Vauban community in which everyone has given up their cars, describes how the nonusage of cars has bettered her life and in turn has actually made her a happier person. In addition, when a high usage of cars is present it creates brutal smog that can perpetuate health issues. In the article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" Robert Duffer states how congestion lead to smog in Beijing in which he states ""Beijing, China is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world"". The impact of this is that when people are more active and choose not to exasterbate their driving usage, it will lead to global decreases in smog and in fat related illnesses such as obesity, high blood plessure, diabetes, and other various things that have plagued the nation and taken the lives of so many people.

Limiting Motor Vehicles usage reduces the amount of carbon emissions and pollution in the air. Cars exert so much greenhouse gas emissions that degrades the air in the environment.In the article ""In German Suburb, Life goes on Without Cars"" Elisabeth Rosenthal gives the analogy that, ""...an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middles class are choking cities"". Elisabeth Rosenthal further quantifies the extent to which cars have increasing become the culprit of pollution, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"". The impact of this is that when cars are used less often it betters the environment which is what mankind relies on for survival.

An increase in a healthy workforce and better environmental communities leads to greater economic prosperity. When people choose to drive less it often creates a riple effect. This is true because a healthier workforce is present it leads to more productivity. In addition, a more prosperous environment and less pollution exerted decreases operational costs. As a result Andrew Selsky in his article ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" explains the various economic effects that less car usage has made, ""Parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city.....and new restaurants and upscale shopping distrcits have cropped up"". The impact of this is that with more economic leverage communities are more equipped to invest and strengthen other areas such as education and job creation.

In conclusion, people should limit their driving andor car usage because it provides three benefits. First, when people have to resort to proactive alternatives it improves their person health and decreases stress levels. Second, not using cars eliminates all the environmental harms that come from a car such as greenhouse gas emissions. And lastly, when people are more active and the environment is no longer depleted, communities experience greater economic longevity.",0
b3532869,0,"Limiting car usage will give us many benefits. A projects such as Vauban and BOGOTA were completed to show us the multitude of advantages received from it.

Reducing car usage would be excellent for our environment. Research shows us that ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States""Rosenthal. Our world is very materialistic and sometimes we forget that to even have life, we must have the environment. ""Cars owned by the burgeoning middle class are choking cities""Rosenthal. Therefore, limiting the amount of cars would allow us to have more efficient green houses, and more land area for plants.

Money is also a huge factor here. The government spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in the transportation department. By lowering the number of cars on the road, the less wear and tear is done to them. This would be beneficial in many departments because then we would have more money for the things we need but cannot afford in our area and or country. Infact, ""80 percent of appropriations have by law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transportation""Rosenthal.

Driving also causes stress. Traffic jams, new or confusing road signs, attitudes of passengers, are all distribution of stress, especially when you get lost! If the amount of driving we did by ourselves was cut back, we could also cut back stress. BOGOTA helps to prove this, and even says that violaters of no car day were ""fined 25Selsky.

Lastly, if we do not put a stop to so much driving, our personal health may be in risk. According to souce 4, ""the car industry is the second largest in the world."" This means that the air is constantly being polluted with exhuast. Which also means that what's in your lungs at this very moment, could be a lot more than just oxygen. It's very scary to think that the same chemicals it takes to run your car, might just be what's floating around in your body. This could lead to multiple health problems and future diseases. Therefore, this issue needs to be taken control of immediately.

In conclusion, reducing car usage would be an amazing thing to do for oursleves and the people around us. We would save our air and bodies from being polluted, we would save money, and save time not stressing out. Who doesn't want these things? Limiting car usage would be a fantastic idea.",0
b3648fb0,1,"Dear Senator, There have been multiple arguments on wether or not the Electoral College should be used for electing the President. Electing a President by the Electoral College is a better idea than electing a president through popular vote. Representatives know what is right for their country while most of American citizens would not make the right decisions, and sometimes do not even make any decisions at all.

First off, citizens themselves elect their own state representatives for the House of Representatives. They vote for them for many reasons. The representatives are well educated. The people vote for the representatives, and in return, they expect and trust the representatives to make the right decisions for them.Electing a new president is a pretty big deal and should be taken care of in the hands of the trusted representatives. According to Richard A. poster's article Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the P resident, that trust is rarely betrayed.

As stated in reason 3 of this article, "" ...the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election.""The Representatives are the most thoughtful voters. This is what the representatives do. It is their job. They dedicate most of their life to representing the people who elected them and making decisions on their behalf. They should be the ones doing the decision making.

Now if this were not to be this case and popular vote was the priority source of votes in electing a President, then the voting results would be completely biased. There would be a chance that majority of the votes put into the ballot were decided without true thought. People could easily vote on something important just by randomly electing just like closing your eyes and choosing a marble out of a marble jar. They could also vote for the candidate who their best friend voted for and not even think about their own opinion or why they even decided to choose that person in the first place. Another thing that affects the voting charts is the lack of participation. 15% of Americans do not vote. Every American citizen has the right to vote. It is their civil duty to vote during an election, and yet, 15% of them still choose not to.

What is better: A country run by people making uneducated decisions on major things or having the thoughtful people be the ones who decide on the course of this country? Unless America increases the quality of education and spreads the word on the amount of importance that it is to vote, important tasks such as electing a President should be kept in the hands of the educated Representatives of the Electoral College. Thank you for your time.",0
b3853076,0,"Thier are a bunch of reasons for not using a car I can name you 10 off the top of my head. It limits pollution saves money great excerise their multiple reasons not to drive a car everyday.

For example if you limit your car use to 3 times a week you would save a ton of money. Also you would help get rid of pollution as it states in the article ""Pairs bans driving due to smog"" that congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of france after 5 day of intensifying smog. That happened after five days the smog cleared up enough and they let people start driving again. Also if you limit your car use you could start doing some excersie which is great because the rate of obesity may drop. Also if you limit your self from driving you are less likely to be in a car accident.

In the passage ""car free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" that they for one whole day dont use cars. They instead ride bikes every where because they want to reduce smog as Pairs wants to. In the passage it says that since its such a big hit that two more colombian cites, Cail and Valledupar joined the event. They have built over 118 miles of bike paths, the most of any latin American city, according to Mockus, the city's mayor. It also says that ""the rain hasn't stopped people from participating,"" said Bogota Mayor Antanas Mockus. Also that day lets people probaly enjoy life way more because all you can do is ride bike and walk so they probaly go on adventures.

The final reason why you limit car use is their would be less of a chance for you to get hurt or even worse. Thier are many accident evey year because of drunk and reckless drivers many have lost their lives to idiots on the road. Thier was a story on the news that three teenage kids died in a car accident because they where under the influnce of drugs. They could have hurt other people the reporter said they crashed into a store and the store owner almost got hurt. Those kids almost took someone else life which is scary but if you limit your car use their wont be that many accidents.

All in all if you just limit your use of the car you can be helping out a bunch. The pollution can be reduced not as many car accidents you can save your self some money. Also you can get more excersie in if you dont use your car that often.",0
b423a3d1,0,"The world is facing incredibly drastic climate change due to car emissions and power plants, both are burning fossil fuels. Things may look bad, almost irreversible but the sun has not yet set, there's hope and it comes in the shape of a shifting world wide attitude towards vehicles. Governments are focusing on making green zones designed to limit car use. There are a plethora of positive effects that this may have on society. Reducing the temperature of a rapidly heating planet will allow us to savour our oceans rather than running from them as they grow to envelop our costal cities. It will relieve stress from those who had been trapped in a car all day and last, but not least, it's not difficult and one wont be alone in their endeavors.

To begin, cars emit green house gasses which will accumulate in our atmosphere trapping heat underneath it as it tries to leave our planet. This leads to a cumulative effect that causes the earth's average temperature to rise. In Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars Elizabeth Rosenthal says ""Green house gas emitions from cars in America make up fifty percent of all greenhouse gas emitions in the country."" America barely has any regulations in relation to greenhouse gas emitions to start with but this is crazy. This problem could be easily solved with a few regulations and some smart city planning. The benefits of this includes but is not limited to, more temperate climate, less airborne carcinogens and of course no crazy drivers.

Another good reason to switch is riding a bike or travelling on a train or bus is much more relaxing than rapidly driving down the highway being cut off by rude drivers and endangering yourself simply by merging. instead you can leisurely wait to arrive at your destination. In German Suburb Elisabeth Rosenthal writes a quote from an interview which says ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm so much happier now."" This media trainer said this as she walked the streets of Verdant ""where the swish of bicycles and chatter of wandering children drowned out the occasional distant motor."" This is beautiful, borderline serene, only a crazy person would disagree with such an environment.

Now traveling all the way across the world, from Germany to Columbia. These countries are both spearheading the experiments with pollution reduction and in Bogata The capital of Columbia, they actually organize ""Car free days"" seven million people in Bogota alone participated in the event, violaters would even have to pay a 25 fine. According to Andrew Selsky, the author of Car Free Day Is Spinning Into A Big Hit In Bogoto, ""Even the rain hasn't stopped people from participating."" It seems that, rightfully, this event is treated as a celebration and it has great effects on the environment.

In conclusion these every one should follow suit with this beautiful and healthy way of tackling environmental issues. If people stay on track it will be easy, fun, relaxing and the Earth will be admired for many years to come.",0
b45bb9d6,1,"We should keep our method of chosing a president even though many dont agree because of a few reasons. One, big states. Two, avoid run off elections. Finnaly, to determine the certainty of outcome.

First, the issue of big states. States are put in two categories, big states and small states, according to population. Presidential candidates give more of their attention during the campaign to the larger states. As a result of electoral college the big states have more electors and thus more votes. For example, in Forida, the popular vote was extremely close in 2012, Obama who won, got 29 electoral votes. If obama had spent that time in Wyoming, he would have only had gotten 3 electoral votes.

Second, to avoid run off elections. Using the electoral college we avoid the problem of elections where no candidate receives a majority. the electoral college can produce a clear winner rather than pressure when no candidate wins majority and complications of the process. Two examples of this in 1968 and 1992 with president nixon and president Clinton. They both had 43 percent plurality of popular vote, while winning a majority of electoral college.

Finnally, to determine Certainty of outcome. Since, almost all states have electoral votes on a winner takes all basis, even the slightest plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state. Although, it is possible to have a dispute over the outcome of an electoral college, for instance in 20000, it is much less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. And even though a tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes is an even number of 538, it is extremely unlikely to happen.

You could argue that the method of selecting a president through Electoral college may turn off potential voters for a candidate that has no hope if carrying their state, knowing their vote will have no effect. Then they might have less incentive to pay attention to the campaigngn. But being realistic, no voters one vote swings a national election, and about one half of the eligible American population did vote in 2012's election.

In conclusion, the reasons we shoud kee our current method of chosng the countries president is becuause of big states, to avoid run off elections, and to determine he certainty of outcome. Even though some dont agree it has been working for us in the past an can contiue working for us to chose our president in the future.",0
b48ad4cc,0,"Recently, there have been and more people walking, riding bikei, and carpooling with friendi to get to the placei they need to be. Becauie of the fact that people are doing thii, the amout of imog in the air hai reduced, people are leii itreiied, and the environment will be a healthier place and create healthier livei. If thii continuei to happen and more people become involved, it will make live better for everyone and we will live on a much healthier planet. Plui, the price of gai will go down, and who doein't want that? Theie ideai that Parii, France and Bogota, Colombia created to have a carfree dayi are brilliant and extremely helpful to all.

In Parii, France, a ihort driving ban occurred due to maiiive air pollution. For two dayi, certain people were not allowed to drive on the roadi to help reduce the about of imog. On Monday, only driveri who owned a vehicle with an oddnumbered licenie plate were allowed on the roadi and on Tueiday, thoie rulei were iwitched. Anyone who did not obey thii rule wai fined 22 euroi 31. Thii wai a brilliant plan becauie the amountt of imog in Parii wai reduced by 60% after five coniecutive dayi of it being quite itrong. In France, dieiel fuel makei up about 67% of automobilei, io thii ii what wai blamed. The 67% ii a high percent compared to the reit of Weitern Europe which averagei at about 53.3%. Reuteri, which ii an international newi agency that hai iti main headquarteri in london, found that Parii hai an unuiually large amount of imog compared to the reit of the European capitali. While Bruiieli had 114 microgrami of particulate matter PM and london had 79.7, Parii had the abiurd number of 147. In Bogota, Columbia, their annual carfree day wai created to decreaie the imog and to promote other traniportation optioni. The violatori of thii day had to pay a 25 fine. A buiineiiman in Bogota reipondi with hii opinion on thii day with, ""It'i a good opportunity to take away itreii and lower air pollution."" About 57% of familiei who currently live in Vauban, Germany iold their car to move there. Currently about 70% of familiei there don't even own a car. According to Heidrum Walter who ii a mother of two children ai well ai a media trainer, ihe ii much happier without a car becauie when ihe had one, ihe alwayi uied to be io tenie. Being outdoori ii io refreihing, io why not do it more often? For the pait two decadei, there have been efforti to make citiei better for walking and other alternative traniportation ai oppoied to cari. Vauban ii known ai benig the ""moit advanced experiment in lowcar iuburban life""Eliiabeth Roienthal. There ii where the movement called ""imart planning"" wai created. About 5,500 people live within one rectangular iquare mile, and thii ii in attempt to make the iuburbi ""more compact"" and eaiier to uie public and alternative traniportation. Becauie of thii, there ii alio leii parking around the city and itorei are placed on a main itreet initead of iniide a mall that could be milei and milei away from reiidential areai. Alio, parki and iporti centeri are uied more frequently and thoie uneven iidewalki were replaced with imooth onei for walking, riding a bike, etc. Now there ii no more road rage and yelling at thoie driveri who can't hear you from two lanei away.

The amountt of people between the agei of 1639 have become leii intereited in getting their licenie, or it juit iin't a priority for them. The older generationi nowadayi have been know to kee their liceniei and continue heir driving. If the decreaie of driver'i liceniei continuei, there will be multiple benefiti for the environment and for carbon emiiiioni. Automobile traniportation ii the iecond greateit iource of America'i carbon emmiiioni. The only factor that ii ahead of thii ii power planti. Moit people who live in the iuburbi have a car, becuaie they believe that thii ii the only way to get around. There are, in fact, loti of other optioni, and thii ii only harming our environment becauie the cari that moit people own are held accountable for 12% of greenhouie gai emiiiioni in Europe. In the United Statei, however. it ii about four timei worie. In the areai of the United Statei where there are a high number of cari, they are reiponiible for 50% of greenhouie gai emiiiioni. If theie percentagei can be reduced by uiing other veriioni of traniprtation beiidei cari, our world will be a much healthier place and it will live to be a lot longer.

The United Statei ihould definetely itart having an annual carfree day not only to reduce pollution, but to promote exeriice and the outdoori. How fantaitic would it be to iee more and more people riding their bikei to a park or to a friend'i houie? If you need to get iomewhere, you might ai well enjoy your ride by getting iome freih air and iome exeriice. A reduced amountt of time would be ipend on the roadi becauie there ii leii traffic, and that cauiei leii accidenti and people will feel much iafer.",0
b4980580,1,"Dear senator, I strongly believe that we should demolish the electoral college system. It is highly unfair and can cause the wrong person to win. The system also has and will continue to cause controversy and rightfully so.

To begin with, the electoral college system is extremely unfair. With this system in play it is fairly easy for the wrong candidate to be elected it has happened before where the person with the most popular votes meaning they had the majority rule has lost because of the way the opposing system is run. This occasion may occur from time to time because when voting you are voting for the electors not the actual president that you want to win. The system is very faulty and there is no guarantee that the electors will vote for whom they are saying they will.

To continue, the system has caused and will continue to cause great amounts of controversy. Some people may refer to it as undemocratic, outdated or even irrational. Even though all people may not agree with it there are reasons it is still in action. It is highly unlikely for there to be a tie, the swing states play a huge role in being the deciding factor of who wins and it allows all states to be equal in the amount of electoral votes they put in in ratio to the population of the states. So there are some good things about the electoral college but some will surely argue that they are not enough to outway the bad. Maybe we should just get rid of the college and take the easy way out by using majority rule. It really does make the most sense.

Lastly, the system makes some people feel as if their votes are worthless. In states such as texas that is made up of mostly republicans the democrats do not feel it necessary to vote because of the system. If most of the people are republican then the democrats already know that the opposite side will get the most electoral votes therefore it is pointless for them to vote. Another state in which this occurs is california where the majority of people are democratic therefore the republicans dont feel the need to vote. In my opinion everyones vote matters so we should run the elections that way.

To conclude. the electoral college should be done away with. It makes people feel like their opinions on the matter of who runs this country dont actually matter. It is highly faulty meaning the candidate with the most votes does not always win and lastly the system causes loads of controversy and will continue to until the problem is solved.",0
b4ad8680,0,"Although a motorized vehicle provides the opportunity to transport citizens from place to place, limiting the usage of a car may be considered more beneficial. Car usage limitations allow the citizens to feel less stressed, show a decrease in air pollution and a promotion towards alternative transportation, and a decrease in habit.

The article, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"" Source One, suburban pioneers have decided to permanently give up cars. Although the usage of cars are generally forbidden in Vauban, its fellow citizens express that they were ""always tense... are much happier this way"" without the use of a car in their lives. When individuals are stressed, they're constantly worrying and not fully paying attention to surroundings therefore, stress is considered one of the causes of vehicle crashes. Also, the congestion of traffic if not awful enough already will become worse with the crash which causes more individuals to become stressed. Without the use of cars, citizens are less stressed and can go about their daily lives. Vauban is considered to be ""the most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life"" because of the attempt to make the city denser and a better place for walking has succeed.

""Paris bans driving due to smog"" Source Two, mainly focuses on the environmental issues that car usage has been causing throughout the city. After a nearrecord, pollution, Paris strictly enforced a driving ban to ""clear the air of the global city"". The smog from the motorized vehicles is hazardous to our environment which therefore can be damaging to us and our bodies if we only inhale smog. Therefore, health problems are presented among the population and causes an endless loop of health concerns to be dealt with. These can be considered ""solved"" if the environmental issues are presented and dealt with immediately and effectively. Luckily, with Paris going in the right direction with the ban, health concerns will decrease as well as the smog in the air. Because of the ban that Paris has plaaced, congestion was ""down 60 percent in the capital of France"". Presented later, the smog in the city has began to clear enough. Two beneficial causes have been brought forth all because of limitations on the usage of cars.

""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" Source Three, explains how Bogota has a dedication day to the use without cars. According to a business man, Carlos Arturo, he explains how the day of dedication relieves stress and lowers the pollution. In order to transport oneself from place to place, citizens can walk or ride bicycles. Because of the large impact that Bogota has made, ""municipal authorites from other countries came to Bogota to see the event and were enthusiastic"". In summary, this city has made quite an influencial mark on others. With prediction, this event could end up carrying throughout the world because of the incredible benefit that it has on our planet: the decrease of air pollution. It not only helps us, but it provides help to the world. Another article, ""The End of Car Culture"" Source 4, explains that a study has been made on the American drivers: ""... are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by"". If this pattern continues, it'll provide implications for carbon emissions and the environment, seeing as ""transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants"". If we could reduce this, our lives and breathing conditions can be improved dramatically. The quote, ""people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may find less reason to resume the habit"", means that if we can break the habit of buying cars, there will be no more habit to continue with.

In conclusion, the reduction and limitations of car usage will not only be beneficial to us, but it'll become greatly beneficial to our environment which becomes an endless loop of helping one another out.",0
b51f84de,0,"Most people have been riding in cars there whole life and never once rode a bus. Knowing that it is bad of our planet Earth and yet we still do. But there are places and people who gave up their cars, whether it was for ever or just for one day. Many of us know that cars are partly responsible for Global warming and pollution, they are responsible for 12 percent because of gas emissions. The most polluted city in the world is Beijing, China. To avoid having that title of cities decided to take action.

Cities like Mexico City, Paris, and bogotaColombia, have certain days a week when certain cars can not be driven due to pollution that it may cause. To enforce this rule citizens will be fined if driving a vehicle that is not corresponding that day. However, citizens do have many other forms of transportation that are economical, buses and taxis are still in service every single day. bogota has a population of 7 million, and they have a day called Day Without Cars that happens only once a year where absolutely no one is allowed to drive there own car with the exception of taxi and bus drivers. If you are found driving you will fined as well. Carlos Arturo Plaza claims that it is a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution as he rode a twoseated bicycle with his wife paragraph 24, CarFree Day Is Spinning Into A Big Hit In Bogota by Andrew Selsky. Recently two other Colombian Cities gave joined this Earth friendly event.

Vauban, Germany is a small town that is slowly growing because unlike most towns this one has no cars. There may be a few familys that own one car but they never use its only there for emergencys. In fact street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district paragraph 2, In German Sburd, Life Goes On Without Cars by Elisabeth Rosenthal. 70% of the familys do not own a car, and 57% sold a car to move there. The citizens claim that when they did have a car they are always tense but with this new life style they are much happier and stressfree.

We are witnessing a longterm cultural shift. Every year few and fewer citizens are geting their licenses and few cars are being bought paragraph 29, The End Of Car Culture by Elisabeth Rosenthal. It is now more common that many cannot afford a car because the prices are going up and you have to invest in it, plus carpool is very popular. This cultural shift will be good for everyone and good for our planet. We need to take a much care and give so much to it because this planet that we call Earth is the reason that we are here.",0
b58188af,0,"limiting car usage is an advantage for many reasons, for example, the pollution will become less of a problem, people will be less tense, and we will be devoid of traffic jams, which means less car accidents. To me cars are just something to get you to point A to B, but now that I have read these articles I realize that cars are alot worse for the environment then i thought, and that i should try using of ways of transportation.

In the passage it states ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" The pollution was out of control and for the most part it was because of the huge amount of car usage. The effect of banning car usage was resulting in an amazing outcome, less pollution, which is healthier for the community. The advantage of limiting car usage can effect a whole community and one way is less pollution. Bogota, Colombia had the same idea but they were not banning the car usage they have one day called the carfree day to show that its an advantage not to use cars all the time.

Limiting car usage can even make you less tense, as said in the article,"" ""When I had a car I was always tense. Im much happier this way,""said Heidrum Walter, a media trainerand mother of two, as she walker verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."" Everything is better when car usage is limited it, makes you less tense and less pollution."" "" Its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife."" When there is less cars on the road there is less possiblity of car accidents or traffic jams.""... leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" During the one day of no car usage, the streets were left of no traffic jams or accidents. The world is a better place with limited car usage. "" Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" To conclude, the limited car usage is a great way to reduce the amount of pollution, become less tense , and creat less possibility to have car accidents or road jams. After reading these article I have realized that taking othe transportations like bicycle or on foot could have huge impacts on the environment and my own well being.",0
b58e41eb,0,"Limiting car usage is the last thing people would see as an advantage to society. This dramatic change has been a eye opener to many communities in different countries all over the world. It has really helped with the environment and brought a positive impact on communities in various ways.

To begin, the limiting of car usage has brought out a positive result in the environment. According to the excerpt from ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. Due to the partial driving ban, the smog was able to be cleared sooner than later. Some may claim an argument of cars being very useful and it helps get from destination to destination in a reasonable amount of time. Although that may be reasonable, a testimony from a businessman in Bogota explains that it's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution.

To continue on, the limiting of car usage has also brought a positive impact many communities in different countries. This new adjustment has created a domino effect as many countries take on the challenge. In the excerpt from ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", author Andrew Selsky explains that parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks. Not only is it catching the eye of the people of the community, but also by other countries. According to the excerpt, Enrique rivera, the mayor of Asuncion, Paraguay said, ""These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders"". This advantage could be the change of a lifetime for many communities. And it might be just the thing they need.

In conclusion, limiting car usage has brought many advantages in society. It has had a positive impact on the environment and communities. Dont just dwell one little con that can be outweighted by all the pros this new advantage may bring.",0
b59299af,1,"Dear Florida Senator, Our country, the United States of America, elects our presidents by something that is called the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a selection of 538 electors who vote to elect the president. The popular Presidential vote ties into the Electoral College by when a person votes for a presidential candidate, that person also votes for their chosen panel of electors from that state. Many citizens of the United States believe that this electing process is unfair and takes away the freedom to elect our President, but the Electoral College is fitting for our country because the candidates can campaign in all regions and that there will not be as big as a dispute in the Electoral College election than a popular election.

To begin with, the United States should keep the Electoral College for the presidential election because the candidates campaign in all the regions. ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have a transregional appeal."" Source 3, stanza 19. If the United States only had a popular vote election, the candidates would only campaign to the big stateshigher population, and not the the smaller stateslower population. Then the smaller states and regions we feel like they are not involved or matter in the election. ""The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchisedto feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn't their president."" Source 3, stanza 19. Also, a presidential candidate does not want to stay in a region where he will know he will win. The presidential candidate wants to be desired and win the elections in as much regions as possible, so more of his campaign electors go to the Electoral College. ""This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."" Source 3, stanza 19.

Secondly, the United States should keep the Electoral College for the presidential election because there will not be as big as a dispute in an Electoral College election than in a popular election. ""A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possibleit happened in 2000 but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote."" Source 3, stanza 18. And most of the time in an Electoral College vote, the popular vote candidate wins! ""...it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely."" Source 3, stanza 16. Also, in a popular election, anyone can vote. That means citizens who don't know many things about the candidates or the politics can choose the future president for the United States. In the Electoral College vote, popular voters vote for a candidate's electors, who are knowledgeable about their candidates and politics, and who are carefully selected by the candidate's party. ""Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party"" Source 1, stanza 5.

In conclusion, the United States should definitely keep the Electoral College for electing the president because it is fair to all the regions and there will not be as big as a dispute in the Electoral College vote than the popular vote. In the popular vote, if a person's desired candidate did not win, they could lash out, maybe violently, at other people in their community who voted for an opposing candidate. Also, the Electoral College vote is fair for the smaller states, for in the Electoral College, they get a number of electors based on their state's population. This is better than in a popular vote, where the whole state of California could vote for one candidate and the state of Rhode Island could vote for an opposing candidate. The California candidate would have more votes than the Rhode Island candidate, for Rhode Island is considerably smaller than California. Over all, the Electoral College election is the best way for the United States to elect their president. It's the way it always has been, therefore it should stay that way.",0
b5adff36,1,"Sometimes things need to change but not in this case. Im in favor of keeping the Electoral College, normally in situations like this you have to choose one way or the other. Not with this, the electoral college is a compromise between election of the president by vote in congress and election of the president by a popular vote as stated in Source one. I know that wasnt enough to convince you so let me explain my reasons why i think we should keep the electoral college. My reasons are certainty of outcome and it can avoid runoff elections.

To begin I think that we should keep the Electoral College because it gives us certainty of an outcome. One of the reasons why this is possible is because there is a total of five hundred and thirty eight votes and thats an even number so it can happen. Many people might say what are the chances of that happening. Well it actually happens a few years ago back in twothousand. One of the reasons for this as stated in Source three paragraph eighteen is ""that the winning candidates share of Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote."" As an example from the article Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and rodney, because almost all states award electoral votes on a winner takes all basis. I hope that this information has been able to push you to my side a little more but were still not done. This is one of my reasons why I think that we should keep the Electoral Vote.

Finally I think that we should keep the Electoral College because it can avoid any run off elections. This is good because it solves the problem of elections in which no canadite receives a majority of the votes cast. Some people might try to convince you and ask you what are the chances of this happening and has it ever occurred before? Well I can answer both yes it can happen and it has twice, ounce in nineteen sixty eight with Nixon and a second time in nineteen ninty two with Clinton. Both had a forty three percent pluarity of the popular votes, while winning a majority of the Electoral College. Also some people might argue that the Electoral college might turn down potential voters. But knowing the vote isnt going to effect anything, such as Republicans in Texas or Democrats in California they have less incentive to pay attention to a campaign then to care if there president were to be picked. As stated in Source three paragraph twenty three ""this is why voters in Presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote can decide an election. Hopefully this has convinced you to keep the Electoral College. This is my final reason why I think that we should keep the Electoral College.

I think that we should keep the Electoral College because it gives us a certainty of an outcome and also it avoids run off elections. I know there are alot of decisions to be made and many things to consider but without this Electoral College we are in big trouble and more problems than you can fathom are going to happen. But in the end this is your decison hopefully you make the right one.",0
b695cfaa,0,"For many years, the automobile has become and remained a staple in the world as humanity's most popular choice of transportation. The number of cars manufactured by car companies has reached the hundreds of millions. Cars have been a trademark of American ingenuity and the evolution of technology. However, as we go into the great beyond that is the future, we must take into consideration the pains and risks of these vehicles, and if they are worth driving as the world population exceeds seven billion.

Few people can recall a time where global warming wasn't the main conflict of scientists today. The Earth gets warmer as pollution levels rise as smog around cities like Paris and Mexico City reaches an all time high. The polar caps are melting at a rapid rate as hurricanes ravage the mainland harder and harder each year. What caused this stuff to happen? Why, look no further than our friends, the factories and automobiles! These two have been quoted time and time again as the catalyst of the global warming crisis. With such an adverse effect on the ozone layer, governments around the world have to do something to stop it from rising any further, with nothing short of success. Places like France have realized the extreme rise in smog levels in the city of Paris, that they had to do something. So, they made a ban on driving for people with even numbered license plates with only a few exceptions, and banned odd numbered licensed cars the next to try to curtail this occurrence. After a few days, it worked. The smog cleared just enough for the French government to rescind its ban on license plates for the city. Such a huge difference in smog in only two days means that making a ban similar to this could be nothing short of beneficial for communities around the globe. So why don't more communities take up the hard task of making this ban a regular happening? It's a slow process, but it is happening, in unlikely places. Including over in our Western European ally Germany.

Vauban, Germany is a small community town located near the border of France and Switzerland. This town is best known for it's extremely unorthodox method of removing greenhouse gases from the ozone layer. People have decided to give up their cars, just relying on other transportation like walking and taking a local tram. Street parking, driveways and home garages are just not allowed in the district, and this has caused a huge difference between noncar owners and car owners alike. Seventy percent of the population in Vauban does not own a motor vehicle, a large portion of them sold their cars to move out to this small, cozy little town. Busy sidewalks and the chatter of civilians outshines the faint murmurs of the few odd automobiles in the city. What started out as an odd social experiment has turned into a great community full of happy people. Although this type of community is generally unpopular, other countries around the world have come to like the idea Vauban came up with. The capital city of Colobia, Bogota, has a neat program they like to call the Day Without Cars. The title speaks for itself. Civilians would take one day out of the year to generally not use cars, to promote the likening of taking other modes of transportation to wherever you need to go. Countries in South America have noticed this day, and are looking to replicate it themselves, which ultimately signifies the success of the Day Without Cars.

Countries around the world have all tried to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, whether by making a community built around the nonuse of cars, making a day celebrating the use of other modes of transportation, or just banning the driving of automobiles outright. As just of a cause it may be, Americans are still hesitant to enact such henious laws. However, if more communities are built around this clean idea, more and more people will flock to it. It just takes preserverence, a strong plan, and a whole lot of sidewalks.",0
b698e899,1,"Dear, state Senator Electoral College should be abolished because the electors may help ruin the president election and large states are not visited or spoken to from the president other than small states. Sources from source 2: The Indefensible Electoral college: why even the best laid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumet. Reason 1 explains that many electors could ruin the president campaign and Reason 2 states many elector go for big states to cast in more votes other than small states.

Many may not realize but when they vote they're not voting for the president, they're voting for state electors, for example ""each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee"" although each party chooses a trusted elector many can betray the party and select the other party. Also the betray can cost the presdient election dearly for instance Bradford stated "" back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. kennedy.So that a popular vote for kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy"". In other words the electors can ruin the president campaign and may cost most of the states problems.

The electors want to cast in more votes from big states other than small states. Source 2 quoted "" Because of the take all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. Even though you would like to vote for your campaign the electors may not even visit other sates because they may think the other campaign has a better shot at getting more votes, but they do not know that maybe spoken words for the president may get more votes. also many may not even see any ad for the campaign, for example "" During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" The author explains that many electors don't even see most staes because they are small states and they may not get as much votes compared to larger states.

Electoral College should be abolished because the electors may help ruin the president election and large states are not visited or spoken to from the president other than small states. Electoral college may seem an unfair disadvantage for most voters many of their campaign that they want to win can be rather at a disadvantage or advantage depending on their electors, many electors may betray their campaign because they're not pubilicly held in office. Lastly the disadvantage is that many voters want to see what and how they are going to change or improve their well being, but most electors and campaigns do not visit the states that want view and know the candidates better. The electoral College should be abolished for the matter of the voter and the United States of America. In my opinion we should be allowed to vote on our own, for example instead of voting for an elector we should just vote on the type of campagin whose better and meet our daily bases needs.",0
b6aa5fd9,1,"The Electoral College is a process that has been used in the United States Government for many years. It is the process that selects a candidate for Presidency based on electoral votes rather than the popular vote of the people. Many believe that the Electoral College should be abolished, but if we were to take it out of our governmental system, it would take away most of the effectiveness of our elections. The United States election process has worked very efficiently for many years with this process of election, it is very effective for choosing a candidate, and when it comes down to it, the last process of the Electoral College House of Representatives stepping in when there is a tie is very unbiased and is also effective in choosing a candidate. If we were to abolish the Electoral College, the United States government would basically be starting over with their election process, which isn't necessarily a good idea once you are nearly 300 years into being an official country.

The United states election process has worked very effectively with the Electoral College for a large amount of years. There is no reason why it should be abolished from the country. Throughout all of these elections, the best candidate was chosen for each presidency in the end because of this great process of election. Rather than choosing the majority of the people, which could have a biased opinion, it is left up to both the citizens and a vote in Congress. This forms a balance between the two opinions. It is a very evenly based system, as said in Source 3 ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our deprived methods of choosing the President"", the article states that ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal."" This means that just by having one region of the United States really respect you and vote for you, this does not mean you are going to win the election. No region can get you the win. There simply are not enough electoral votes. Therefore, you must cover the most ground possible in the United States, because the more states you win over, the better your chances of becoming president are.

The Electoral College is a very efficient process of election. Instead of only the people voting and the decision of who becomes president left to the popular vote, the power of selection for presidency is evenly spread between Congress and the people. Some say that the electoral college is unfair, and that it is irrational. This is stated in the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" written by Bradford Plumer. He states ""The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality."" This means Plumer believes that those who argue in favor of the electoral collegee do not take a look at the reality of things when talking about this subject. The electoral collegee is very fair when it comes to the election of a president, because we all want to choose the best candidate for the job, and the only way to do that is to have an effective system for choosing a candidate without having a biased opinion tossed into the mix to mess up the process. It's sort of like a job interview. You show what you have to offer to the boss in this case it is the whole country, and if you are chosen for the job that means you were the most qualified and that you are the best choice for the job. Whichever candidate gets chosen for the job was obviously the best candidate at the time, and there is nothing that anyone can do to change that.

The one situation that most people worry about within the electoral collegee is when there is a tie in the electoral vote. In this situation, the decision of the election would be placed into the hands of the House of Representatives and the Senate chooses the VicePresidential candidate best suited for the job. It does not matter how many representatives there are for any one state, as stated in the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer. He states that ""Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, representing 35 million voters."" This means that no state has more power than another in this process, and every representative has the same amount of power when it comes down to chooosing a candidate best suited for being president. Additionally, it creates a sense of balance between all of the states and nobody has an unfair advantage when electing the next president.

As you can see, the electoral collegee is a very effective process used in the United States to choose a presidential candidate that should not be abolished from the country. With this system, the country has functioned very effectively for a very long time, the system is very effective for choosing a candidate best suited for the presidential position, and it is very unbiased and fair when it comes down to the decision of the House of Representatives for the election. Abolishing this efficient process would just do a disservice to the country's election process, and I highly doubt that any wholehearted citizen of the United States of America would want to do that to his or her own home country.",0
b6ec786f,0,"All around the world different countries have been noticing some things in life that are just better without cars or atleast less cars. With less cars things are more calming its also better for everyone, including the environment.

To begin with, things can be way more calm in a life without cars. Many people happen to believe that cars can change how you feel for example ""When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way""3. Heidrun Walter always felt tense with a car now she feels calm and relaxed. Life with less cars can be so much more relaxing without all the loud annoying noises cars make. In Vauban they are making some changes to how the people live so they can live more easy and calm. ""Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in a lowcar suburban life.""6. The way this civilization is all the people live close by and everything is close by so you dont really need a car. If everything is close by everything can be more fluent and calm.

In addition, it may be more calm without cars but it is also better for you and the environment. ""passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emission in europe... and up to 50% in some carintensive areas in the United States.""5. Wherever you are in the world greenhouse gasses will most likley affect your environment in some unnatrual way and that is not the best thing for you, the people you know, or all the plants and animals. Without cars polluting earth we would be way more healthy and many animals may not be endangered or extinct like they are today.""how much you drive is as important as whether you have a hybrid.""7. If you drive less its not just better for the environment and your health it can also be better for your wallet. If you drive less you save money on gas that you can use for many other things. Overall driving less turns out to be better for everyone.

In conclusion, people driving less can make life easier and calmer, it is also better for people, plants, animals, and don't forget your wallet.",0
b6f52b09,1,"FREEDOM!

We are all americans here so we should have the freedom we were ment to have. I understand that we do in fact have a lot more freedom than other countries but I am talking more on voting freedom. The electoral collegee is, in my opinion and many others, a bad way to decide the president of the United States of America. I believe that for americans we should have a better say in things and agree that we rather have popular voting than what we have now. Others believe the electoral collegee helps with Big States issues. But in the end popular vote is a good way to help people who deserver presidency to get it.

The article The Indefensible Electoral College, many have agreed on abolishing the electoral college. The article The Indefensible Electoral College... states ""...according to a gallop poll in 2000... over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to what we are doing now."" If we the people do not get final say into things than we are'nt really as free as we are told we are. If the people want a different voting system it should be granted to us. A good example to people who had been effected by this was Al Gore. The article states. ""Al Gore who had won by popular vote but still lost the presidency to the electoral collegee."" This goes to show that he was someone that many wanted as a president but where cheated out by the electoral collegee.

Others may believe that the electoral collegee helps not let bigger and more populated states get more attention than a smaller state would. But even by popular vote this would be the same. If a populated state votes then they will get basically the same say as they would with the electoral collegee but it would give them more say. Whilst other low population states get less votes and attention just like with the electoral collegee. So even though it would make a great change with other things, this matter is no problem.

Few have lost presidency due to the quirks in the electoral collegee. A good example is Al Gore who I talked about earlier. But still in the future changing to popular vote will help people who earned presidency actually get it. Instead of being scammed out of their votes by the electoral collegee. If someone has earned the presidencty then they should have the right to it, but with the electoral collegee in the way some are unable to actually do this. If we the people want someone to be the president than we want them! Al Gore won popular vote but since we do not get the only say he had lost presidency. If popular demand was the only voting system than we would probably be in a better place right now.

In conclusion, we the people of the united states deserve to actually have our own and only say in to who is going to lead us. If we say we want them, we want them... I understand that we our the ones that get the say, but we are being evened out by state percentage, so basically popular voting is ruled out. Popular voting is a better way to vote mainly because it is straight forward and to the point. If someone receives more individual votes than they should be the president... It is a easy straight forward process...",0
b76bf3cf,1,"Many people are not in favor of keeping the Electoral College. Many prefer changing the election by popular vote for the president of the United States since the Electoral College is unfair. It is. The electoral college is unfair in many ways and we should change it to election by popular vote for the president of the United States.

One reason why the United States should change the election to popular vote instead of the Electoral College is because the states aren't all equal and electoral college isn't fair. In the Electoral College, California has more of a say than Georgia. California has 55 electoral college, while Georgia has 16. How is that fair? ""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning"" Plumer 13. This line tells us that candidates stay out of states that they know they won't win. Say there was a candidate campaigning, they will most likely focus on the states that have the most electoral college, like California or Texas. They won't go to states that only have three votes. That's not fair to the states that have a small population. ""It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes"" Posner 6. If electoral votes wasn't a thing, Gore would be president. He's the candidate that won most popular votes, meaning that he got the most votes in the nation. ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always"" Plumer 10. Not always? What's the point of voting if the vote won't even count?

Another reason why the United States should change the election to popular vote is because the popular vote will be more precise and it's much easier. There could be less ties, and the candidate that everyone really wants as president will become the president. ""Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes"" Posner 16. Gore was the candidate that everyone wanted as president. It just doesn't seem fair that the candidate that won popular vote, isn't or wasn't the president.

Overall, the people should change the election to popular vote for the president of the United States instead of using a system that is unfair to the states and the people.",0
b76c7cde,0,"In today's society, when people are asked if they would give up their cars, they would be shocked. No would be the most common answer. However, the advantages of limiting car usage are great. General stress decreases, and pollution to the environment also decreases. People are not only helping themselves, but also helping the ecosystem.

Stress. Everyone has it but what if it could be decreased just by using personal transportation less? In Germany, there are certain communities that ban car usage. No cars are allowed inside the city. Street parking, driveways, and home garages have become obsolete. One citizen of one of the towns said, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" . The anxiety one gets when driving a car is almost unreal. Most kids 16 and up now just do not get their licenses just because the thought of driving scares them. Citizens of cities that have just one day where cares are prohibited, such as Bogota, Colombia, love that singular day out of the year. Most say its a good opportunity to increase mental health Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota . Stress not only is awful for mental health, but also physical. 75% of those who have high levels of anxiety, or are exposed to it, are tired all the time, often feel weak, or sometimes may even cause heart issues. The number one reason people have stress is by driving. So using cars less is the best way to decrease stress, and promote good mental health.

Most people that read or watch the news know that the environment is hurt, and that the human population is at fault. How? Excess usage of motor vehicles. As stated in In German suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars , passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up to 50% in some carintensive areas in the United States. These statistics are horrible. Paris, France enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city after days of nearrecord pollution rates Not only was nature being hurt, but the population of France. Breathing in smog is unnatural. theman body can not take that many pollutants, and so it tries to fix itself. In doing this, lung cancer rates rise, pneumonia rates rise, diseases in general become more abundant. Paris took action. When enforcing the driving ban, congestion was down 60% in just five days. The only partial solution to this rising amount of smog is to decrease driving rates, and to use deisel gas less. I hate this test so much why am I even writing this I feel like a robot just going through the motions and its your fault. I blame you.

Rome was not built in a day, so getting state legislatiors or even government officials to agree on a partial driving rule may take a while. However, citizens can spread the word of the evils of driving. You, dear reader, can fix this problem. Try carpooling to work, riding your bike to places near you instead of driving. Do what you can to reduce pollution and stress. Influence your friends and family to do the same. Together, we can rase awareness of the evils of driving. Together, we can rule the world.",0
b79e92c1,1,"Dear Senator, I think you should get rid of the Electoral College and use popular vote instead. I think this because the Electoral College acts as one. The Electoral College also does not give every state a chance to see who they are voting for. And last, but not least its just confusing.

I think you should use popular vote instead of the Electoral College because the Electoral College votes as a whole. There is not just one person in a state, there are thousands, sometimes millions. Not every single person cast the same vote, not every single person has the same views. If the Electoral College was used than it votes as a unanimous vote, while there are different political parties within that state.

Another reason the Electoral College should not be used because it does not give evey state a fair chance. The Electoral College does not give every state a fair chance because the presidential candidates only visit the states with the larger amounts of electoral votes or the swing states. If a state doesn't have a large number of votes or isn't a swing state the candidates don't visit as said in source two. The smaller states don't see the candidates as much as the larger states because the electoral College makes it seem as though they can only have little if any impact on the outcome of the presidential race.

The final reason reason why the Electoral College should not be use dis because its just so confusing. The popular vote is a lot easier to understand than the Electoral College. Many people get confused during the election days because they do not understand the Electoral College. When they are voting they think they are voting for the President. The Electoral College doesn't mean that you are voting for the President you want, it just means that you're voting for the people who also want to vote for the same President as you.

In conclusion, Senator, these are the reasons why I think that we should use the popular vote instead of the Electoral College. First, the Electoral College votes as a whole instead of showing the a state's differences. Secondly, Presidentail candidates don't visit the states with a smaller amount of electoral votes. And lastly, the Electoral College is just confusing.",0
b7a92ebc,0,"Global warming is one of the main reason, maybe the only reason the is destroying the atmosphere. Humans today are trying to prevent global warming because if we continue to pollute the atmosphere it can very well kill most of the living things, maybe all of the living thing on this planet, including humans ourself. I think reducing the usage of cars today is a great way to stop global warming.

One of the countries that are taking action in doing this is the countries is France. Paris has decided to partially ban driving to clear the air of the global city. In the text it states that, ""on Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their car at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31."" This show that paris is trying to get rid of the smog in the air, and now they are asking their citizens to stop driving their cars, bike etc. Also if you don't participate in you will have to pay a fine of 22euro. In addition one of the main substances to motor pollution is diesel fuel. the passage says that, ""diesel was the blame, since the France has...a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline."" Since France favors the usage of diesel, this one of the main reason why they have forbidden the use of motor in paris. Moreover it states that""diesel make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of the Western Europe."" This again also proves that diesel plays a major role in the pollution of France. As you can see France is making changings to there country due to the global warming.

France is not the only one that has taken action by reducing the car usage. The city BOGOTA, Colombia has also changed their ways in cutting down on car usage.""Millions of colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams,"" the text states. What this is trying to explain is that Columbia has a program that prevents the citizens from using vehicles, so the whole day they usa bikes, skates, and take the bus, even some of them go hiking to wherever they go. Consequently there are some benefits to having a car, such as basic transportation needs. In the text it states that,""but America's love affair with is vehicles seems to be cooling. When adjusted for population growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily.""Although driving is something essential to human needs these days, it is also very killing. As you can see other countries have taken part in this struggle to prevent global warming to get any worst.

In conclusion the reduction of using vehicle today can be one big step in slowing down the rate of global warming, although taking away cars me be a major problem to in basic transportation needs, it is better than killing everything on the planet.",0
b7f715b9,0,"imagine a world where global warming could actually be depicted as a myth, a world where you could walk out side a breath cleaner and more safer air. Limiting car usages will indeed help the environment in a major way over a estimated period of time. elisabeth Rosenthal, author of In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars, Robert Duffer, author of Paris bans driving due to smog, Andrew Selsky, author of Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota and elisabethh Rosenthal, author of The End of Car Culture all have valid points when it come to explaining the great advantages of limiting car usages. Without the use of car america would indeed be a safer and move gren place to live.

To begain, cars is one major sorce of stress and pollution and without them he earth would be alittle more peaceful. The turnout was large, dispite gra clouds that dumped occasional rain showers on Bogota Selsky. The source above is just one example of how the lack out cars brought together a whole city. Walking around in the rain, something most people wouldnt do often was brought together when a city banned cars for a day to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Unless you are driving a electric car, cars are not good for the environment in an way. Passenger cars ae responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe Rosenthal. May not seem like a big number but that 12 percent will effect the environment, causing things like global warming. Cars are needed in daily life but limiting their uses from now and then would help improve the life expectancy of our Earth.

Furthermore lowering the uses of car can also can help save the Earth we are talking about a long term outcome. Paris typicaly has more smog than other European capitals....last week Paris had 17 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter Duffer. France has high levels of smog due to their use of diesel more then gasoline. These high levels would be lowered once the use of cars are limited. The use of driving can be limited in multiple was, such as the use of internet or cell phones. Whie these devices can only give you the feeling of talking to one another, it is a very great way to reduce emmision levels. The internet makes telelcommuting possible and allows people to feel moe connected withou driving to meet friends Rosenthal.

In conclusion, a safer and more greener earth are just two advantages of limiting car usages. The Eath will also be around for your daughter and her kids to come. Their are mulitple ways andvantages of limiting car usages.",0
b8124f89,1,"Dear State Senator, Once a year, people all over the United States of America gather to vote for the most powerful men in the country our President and Vice President. We should have the people of America be able to vote for who they want their president to be because the Electoral College has some major flaws and simply because people have their rights. I believe that we should let the people be able to make their own choices.

The Electoral College has major flaws. Something bad is bound to happen if we keep letting them make the people's decisions. Source A in paragraph 12 states, ""In 1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election In 1976 a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way."" The election is literally only a few swing voters away from a catastrophe. It would be hard to believe that the people of the United States would want to be embarrassed because we can't even choose a presidential leader correctly. The other countries would take us as a joke we would simply look like fools. Another thing is, what would we do if there were a tie in the electoral vote. Source B also in paragraph 12 says, ""Perhaps the most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote."" And with that being said, the election would be taken to the HOR House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. And because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing only 500,000 voters, would have much to say as the 55 representatives from California, who represents 35 million. That is the same population as Wyoming only times 70. That is a tremendous difference in population. Don't let our country plummet into bad election. If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio, they have yet to make it.

Ever since our founding fathers have settled here in America and made the Decloration of Independence in the late 1700s, the Amendments, and everything that gives us the right to be free, the people have had the right to vote. With the Electoral College, the people of America will not be able to freely use that right. Source C says, ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have a chance of winning, focusing only on the right races in the ""swing"" states."" Seventeen states didn't even see the candidates during the campaign in 2000. Those states including Rhode Island and South Carolina. Voters in the 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see not one, not two, but zero campaign ads. Just as Source D states, ""The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse."" The state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and keep in mind that those electors possibly could defy the will of the people. What if a state sends two state of electors to Congress? It happened in 1960 with Hawaii and luckily VP Richard Nixon validated only his opponent's electors, but made sure to do so ""without establishing a precedent."" What if it happened again? Remember when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush? Thank that to the electoral college. In the 2000 U.S. presidential race, Al Gore recieved more individual votes that George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election recieving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266. This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency. And yet, the electoral college still has its defenders. But why?

First of all, Source E states, ""So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small one does."" But the problem with this is is that it's simply unfair. The smaller states should get just as much attention as the bigger states do. This is like saying that on the baseball field, the bigger and stronger kids should be the ones picked first and be able to play but the smaller kids don't get to play. It is not fair to the people in the smaller states like Wyoming, to be considered not as good as the state of California. Also in paragraph 20 of Source F says, ""They are the most thoughtful voters, on average and for the further reason that they will have recieved the most information and attention from the candidates, and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election."" Once again, this statement is unfair. This is favoritism. This is saying that the better and bigger states should get all the attention just because they are more ""thoughtful"". Once again, people deserve to have their rights so I say, let them vote.

People want to make their own decisions. It's who we are as a person we want to be able to have responsibilities we want to feel important. With the electoral college we won't be able to get that feeling because we feel we aren't important enough to vote. So it's official. The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best. Over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind that we have now and there's a pretty good reason. It's fair. There's only one thing I have to say to you. State Senator, please abolish the electoral college.",0
b825ae1c,1,"The electoral college is one of the most heavily criticized institutions in the American government system. It has been considered outdated and antidemocratic. However, without it, the balance of power in America would be skewed to an unacceptable degree. States with large populations would be disproportionately empowered, without the electoral college. This leaves the smaller states existence to be controlled by the larger states, to the dismay of the American economy and people.

As it stands, most states vote in a way that presents a united front of electors to the electoral college. If just over half of the Californian voters vote for one candidate that they think would represent their interests, the map in source 3 shows that all 55 electors will present their votes to the college. It is better for California to be represented in this way so that the Californian economy would not be adversely effected by their minority voters. That sort of united front is beneficial to every state in the union, for the same reason.

The argument that the electoral college discourages voters of the minority party to vote is a valid criticism, but it is a problem that can be solved without the loss of the electoral college. Compulsory voting would be far more effective if voter turnout is an issue. People who would not have voted otherwise would still likely vote for the candidate they supported if voting was made mandatory.

In source 2, Bradford Plumer expressed dissatisfaction with the way political campaigns involving the electoral college focus on swing states rather than allowing equal debate in all states, but that does not make for a less desirable outcome. Dissolving the electoral college would make swing states irrelevant to presidential elections, as it'd be impossible to win votes in those states by any decent margin. Instead, campaigns would focus on the areas in which they already have an agreeable population, as to encourage them to vote, and get the most voters possible, using their resources. Trying to win states, rather than population, allows for voters to be more informed.

The electoral college might not be the best potential method for presidential elections. It is, however, far more desirable for such a large country than popular vote. Popular vote would lead to neglecting many areas of the economy that are important, but do not have a presence in states with large populations. It would make elections more one sided for each state at the same time. The problems the opponents say abolishing it would fix, would be fixed without it, but doing so would create far more problems than it solved. It is also easy enough to fix the same problems without abolishing the electoral college.",0
b8698450,1,"The electoral college is how america chooses its president. The electoral college should not be how you think voting works but the complete opposite. It is a process that consist of electors who count the electoral votes. When a citizen votes their vote does not go directly as a vote for the president but it goes for the electoral college in your state. If that state has more votes for one candidate than the other then that state votes for that for that candidate as a whole. If the person I vote for doesn't get the vote for my state then that defeats the purpose of me voting. The electoral college takes away my say in choosing a president, the fairness, and it might have been put in the Constitution by the founding fathers but it is outdated.

The first reason why the electoral college shouldn't be used is because it takes away voters say in the decision for the president. If I vote for someone and the state doesnt pick him, that would mean my vote didn't count. That means i would now mean no one would even care about my vote. My vote wont even help make it a closer race. It's like my vote just vanishes into the air and is never seen again. If there are millions in the country and only 538 votes count. This is unrational to voters.

The second reason why the electoral college shouldn be used is because it isnt fair. It is especially unfair because of the winner take all system in each state. Candidates don't even waste time going to states they know they cant win but only focus on swing states, which for one takes away the privilege for the others that want to vote for the candidate to see them. It also takes away from the smaller states who don't get to put out as many votes as California with 55 or Florida with 29. Alot of states only have three votes and even though it could win or lose a races it still isn't fair to the people.

The electoral college was put into the Constitution by the founding fathers but they are not always right. The Constitution says all men are created equal but we still have had slavery. The Constitution has given us freedom of speech but once we step on school property that rule is taken away. The Constitution is not always the right way to go for everything. The founding fathers were very smart men but they have to think of how the country feels now because they were alive a long time ago.

In, conclusion the electoral college should just be put out of work because it is not the best way to elect a candidate, it takes away my say in the decision,the fairness, it was made by the great founding fathers but is outdated by how the counrty is now. Everyones vote should be out into play with the elections.",0
b877294e,1,"It is in the best interest of the people that you do away with the Electoral College. When people vote, they want it to be a direct vote to the election, not a vote for their chosen candidate's electors. The Electoral College should be abolished because it doesn't guarantee your vote, the House's selection can't be expected to reflect the will of the people, and swing voters could cause a catastrophe.

To begin, the Electoral College should be abolished because it doesn't guarantee your vote. As stated before, when you vote, there is no say in who actually wins the election. You are voting for electors who then vote for the President. While it is a rare occurrence, those Electors may betray you and vote for the other party, cancelling your vote totally out. If a candidate gets the most popular votes, that doesn't guarantee them as President, because they still have to get the Electoral College's votes. In the third source titled, ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner, it reads, ""It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the first time since 1888."" This sentence means that President Bush won with fewer popular votes and more electoral votes. If their was no Electoral College, Al Gore would've won the election. The people would've thought that Al Gore was going to win, and they were probably in for a surprise when they saw that Bush had won with fewer popular votes. It just goes to show that an election can go either way, and there is no closure for a candidate until it is actually announced who won.

Next, the House's selection can't be expected to reflect the will of the people. Say a Republican candidate gets a majority of the popular votes, but the Democratic candidate wins because he is chosen by the Electoral College. The people of the United States might actually feel betrayed because they felt that the Republican party could benefit the economy and society best, and that President might not be uptopar and disappoint the people. Also in the third article, it reads ""...to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn't their president."" The statement really says a lot about both sides of the argument. If there is an Electoral College and if their isn't an Electoral College, people could still feel this way. If a candidate who has less popular votes wins, then those states that voted for himher might feel as if they ""will have no regard for their interests"".

Lastly, swing voters could cause a catastrophe. Swing states could be considered manipulative because they all know that the popular vote rests in their hands. Will it be Democratic or Republican? You never know. The candidates focus mainly on campaigning in these states because these are the ones that are half and half, states such as Ohio. While there are thoughtful voters, there are also ones who could care less about who the President is and just want to keep America on the edge of her seat while they decide who they want to vote for. In the second source, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" is says ""In 1976, a tie would have occured if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way."" The states are swing states and they truly determine the fate of the election. As said before, those states get the most attention from the candidates, who try to make themselves as appealing as possible. In the second source as well, the author says ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" Rhode Island and South Carolina are states that are almost entirely for one party so there is no use in the opposite party going there to try and persaude them to change their minds because it is most likely not going to happen. While they may feel neglected, it's just how it is.

To conclude, the Electoral College should be banished because it doesn't guarantee your vote, the House's selection cannot be expected to reflect the will of the people, and swing voters could cause a catastrophe.",0
b89252de,1,"I think that we should change to popular vote for president of the United States. Instead of the electorsal College. I think this for a lot of reasons, one is because you dont vote for the president but for the electorss. It is unfair because they have a winner takes all system. Also if there is a tie the state gets to decide. electorss can defy the will of the people. The electorsal college should be changed to popular vote for the president.

First, you have to vote for the electorss not the president. Then only if they win there votes go through. You can't even control who the electorss vote for. Voters sometimes get confused on who there voting for and vote for the wrong electors. Over sixty percent of voters would prefer a direct election than what we have now.

Then, they have the winner takes all system. Also candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning in. Seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all. states like Rhode Island, South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't even see a campaign ad. Though they established electorsal college in the constitution Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO all, agreed on abolishing the electorsal college.

Lastly, electers can defy the will of the people. The state legislatures are resposible for picking the electorss. If there is a tie between the electorss then the state gets to decide. Richard Nixon was presiding over the senate he then validated only his opponent's electorss. He made sure to do so without establishing a precedent. What if this possibly happens again?

The electorsal college should be changed to popular vote for the president. This should be done because the electorsal college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. You also dont vote for the president you vote for the electorss. Its also unfair because of the winner takes all system. Also if there is a tie the state gets to vote for the president. The electorsal college should be changed to the popular vote for the president, because the electorss can defy the will of the people.",0
b8e637b4,1,"Senator of the State of Florida, The Electoral College has been a part of our country since is was established in the Constitution by our founding fathers. Although it has been used for so long and some what effectively, I believe that the act of changing the process to election by popular vote would benefit the country and the residents more. Many poeple do think that the Electoral College is more fair and is better because of its certain outcome and other good aspects. My belief about the electoral College differs. I believe it is unfair and outdated, and I am not alone on that opinion.

An argument against the Electoral college is the disaster factor, information from the passage The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer. In 2000, the biggest election crisis took place in a century. In 1960, segregationists almost had success in replacing electors with people who would benefit them. Along with that, some electors may not be truthful and defy those who they are electing for and elect the opposer. All these examples come with fault in the system.

Another example from the same article claims that the idea of a tie is the most unsettling. The election would be put into the hands of the House of Representatives. An argument for the Electoral College claims the chance of a tie is very unlikely, but it has come close before. In 1968 and in 1976, a small shift would've cost the election. On the other hand, it would be much more difficult to tie a popular vote, seeing that there are far more citizens than electors for the college.

There are claims that the Electoral College is both fair and unfair for different reasons. People claim that it is fair because no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president, when a popular vote might, from the article In Defense of the the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President by Richard A. Posner. However, the process is unfair as well. In result of a winnertakeall system in the states, the presidental candidates don't spend time in states they know they don't have a chance in. This is unfair to voters because not all states get to see the candidates at all. Swing states have all the focus on them. These states are more likely to pay attention to campaigns. This is not fair because those running for the position will focus more on those states. With a popular vote, the candidates will want to contact each state to make sure those who reside there have paid attention to them and will hopefully vote for those people.

The process of the Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and risky. There are so many opportuntities for disaster and a lot of unfairness all around. With people relying on the fact that the chances are slim or disaster is unlikely to happen is just not smart and there are things we can do about it. With a popular vote, a fair count is given and the president who more people choose will take office. Our country is a whole, and we treat the process of election like it isn't. Let the population decide and it's a fair trial let a few electors decide and it could lead to disaster. Thank you.",0
b8fdb507,0,"Automobiles play a huge role in our everyday life. Its how we travel to work, home, and even just to cruise around the neighborhood. But does anyone think about what these traving pieces of machinery do to our planet? Cars are producing a environmentally harmful fumes such as greenhouse gas, and smog. These two chemicals are harmful for our ecosystems, as well as our health. It is unnessacary that people should be allowed to kill not only the nature that surrounds us, but also themselves so we need to become a carfree nation.

Giving up driving is like giving up a bad habit, you always have the urge to do it again. But is it all worth it. Think about it, you get up for wor, or school and you walk outside where the sun is shining and the birds are chirping and you think ""Wow it is beautiful out here"". And what do you do... you insert your self into a small metal barrier stoping you from being one with nature. so where am I going with this you might ask. ""When I had a car I was always tense. Im much happier this way."" says Heidrun Walter, a mother of two who gave up her car and decided to walk. When you are driving you can not say hello to your friends, or neighbors. In fact you cant have any social contact which is not healthy.

The U.S. is one of the largest producers, and consumer of motorized transportation devices. Companys such as Ford, Chevy, Jeep, and lincoln are producing cars that no one could refuse. But are they safe? Car companys advertise that they are ""safe"". Airbags, seatbelts, even blindspot protection moniters are some of the advances in vehicle safety technology, but technology does not alway work correctly. Most death tolls are not by murder, or suicide, but by car accidents. So why is it that all this technology that engineers are putting in our automobiles are not saving lives? This is why walking or running or cycling is an ideal choice of transportation, and why automobiles should come to an end.

Im not saying that all cars should be throw into a scrap yard and be forgot about. I know that there are those classic cars that every car collector wants, or that family car that has been passed down for ages. Im just stating that cars use should be reduced for the safty of our planet and ourselves. We always want to keep our old memories. Its just like keeping you grandmothers handmade scrapebook...priceless. We are of nation of collectors that can not and will not get ride of our memories and a car is one of the biggest ones that we can hold on to.

President Obama has goal that he is trying to achives that will lower the greenhouse gas emission say ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal. It is leaders such as Obama that will save this planet, and all we would have to do is become a carfree world. With the help of all the citizens we can become a clean, healthy, and happy world.",0
b9229a95,1,"I argue in changing the electoral college , popular vote would be a chance for normal americans to get there voice heard in the government. A big problem is how the voters votes go straight to the electoral college and wouldnt make a change at all also how theres a bigger chance of a tie happening in the electoral college then by popular vote One reason why the electoral college should go is because the voters votes arent really being heard. For example in paragraph 10 it says that ' under the electoral college system voters vote not for the president , but for a slate of electors who in turn elect for the president "" , thats techinally saying that the electors are the ones who are really voting our voice means nothing we could have wanted another president to have won but if the electoral college gets more votes then us then so be it , thats our new president! We dont even know who the electors really are they could have been picked by anyone like how it says in paragraph 10 they could have been picked by the presidential candidates themselves who knows. They say we control who the electors vote for but not always , theres a high unlikely chance that there would be more popular votes for one president like in texas for john kerry that all 34 electors would go to congress and vote for john kerry thats insane.

A second reason is how theres a bigger chance of electoral college tie happening then a popular vote one like how it says in paragraph 12 "" in 1916 , a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and a 3,3687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe"". If the electoral college has a tie then theres even a bigger chance of the people voice not being heard at all. Once a tie happens the election goes to the house of representatives where state delegations vote on the president as said in paragraph 12 , a single representative from Wyoming representing 500,000 voters, would have no say compared to the 55 representatives from California that makes Wyoming have no voice in the election compared to california. The house's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people.

Finally thats all i have to say regarding how the election should be changed to having the popular vote determine the president , we want our voice to be heard! Sometimes the electoral college doesnt pick the president that we wanted and if there was a tie to happen in the electoral college which is at high risk some of the states voices wouldnt get heard at all , thats why we should switch over to popular vote maybe more people would actually get up and go vote because they would know their vote actually means something. Like it says in paragraph 14 "" Abolish the electoral college! "".",0
b9246a43,1,"Dear Senator of the United States, I am a student in Miami Senior High School and I've been learning a lot about the Electoral College Vote. I know that the Electoral College is a process in the system and it consists of the selection of the electors and you don't want to get rid of it but I've got some reasons why you should remove it.

I've been reading about the Electoral College Vote and I found a passage that is full of details about how the Electoral College is affecting us, the citizens of the United States. The passage, ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"", states that, ""thanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" This is trying to say that the citizens don't like the fact that we don't even vote for a president anymore, we just vote for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. The electoral college vote isn't giving us the opportunity to pick a president we want to win and we sometimes even get confused about the electors and the candidate we decide to choose. This makes it really hard for all of us to have the rights of voting.

Also, I found another quote that supports our thoughts, it says, ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states."" What we're trying to say is that we need a chance in choosing who we want to win in an election. In my opinion, the electoral college vote is unfair to all the voters. Most citizens do agree with what Bob Dole said one day: ""Abolish the electoral college!"" To sum it all up, there are some positive things about the electoral college. In the passage I found called ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" says that, ""Obama received 61. 7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and rodney.."". However, we just want the electoral college vote to be abolished because the citizens would appreciate to have a chance in voting for a president by our opinion. I think that the popular vote is a better way to let us do this because it depends on the voters and who they chose for. This way, it will be equal for all of us.

I would like to thank you for taking your time to read this letter and to think about the thoughts that some of the citizens in the United States have in mind. Your service is appreciated by all of us.",0
b946d207,1,"The founding fathers established the Electoral College in order to compromise between elections of the President and vice president. This process has help us to elect great presidents in which changed and make our Americas history. The Electoral College is a great process in which we should keep doing it. I favor in keeping the Electoral College because it is a faster and reliable way of electing the president. For instinct, "" The Electoral College process consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President.""Source 1 All the 538 electors that is part of the Electoral College represents millions of people. In order to count all the vote takes a long time so, the Electoral College is a faster way of electing the president.

The Electoral College has a certainty of outcome for who is going to be the president and vice president. But, the electoral college has an invariably exceeds their share of the popular vote. What that means is that, if the popular votes get 55% of your votes but, the electoral college get 62% of your votes. The votes from the popular votes and the electoral votes have different percentage. For this problem you cant really predict what the Electoral College will elect.

The electoral college in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign. Because of these states like Texas, Florida, California, New York, and other states that have large amounts of Electoral College they are more likely to vote knowing that their votes are more important because of the winnertakeall method. ""The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution.""Source3 This explains that the electoral college is a process that is relivent in keeping some power to the people.

The bad the thing about the electoral college is that the people dont vote for the president , but they vote for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. This process is not always fair because if you live in florida and you wanted to elect James but slate of 29 Democratic electors pledge to Don, so that means none republican electors pledge to James. This means your vote dont really effect the election. This problem is argued and complained with many people. The problem of a tie could happen too but the probility of that happening is not likely.

Overall, the electoral college is process that is fair in most terms. It is a fast and reliable way in which I personially insist and favor of keep doing because the electoral college has help people to reconized the importants of people views and making people reconized how important it is to vote for their government.",0
b94ea1e3,1,"Every four years, the United States is turned into a political battleground by the campaign for presidency. The electoral College, the voting method used since the nation began, Is being highly questioned on its efficiency now vs the efficiency 250 years ago. However, the system has survived because it works. Despite its flaws, the Electoral College does a good job of simplifying the presidential election and eliminating disputes or a potential crisis. It produces a clear winner, it makes sure that the president is popular in all areas of the country, and it puts the weight of the campaign on the swing states.

In most presidentai races, the president wins only by a small margin. rarely is there a landslide victory or a complete vote for a president. This small majority can lead to many disputes over the credibility of counting the votes in the individual states. This is why the Electoral College helps the voting process. The Electoral College helps the voting process because it produces a more clear winner. For example, in line 21 it claims that ""In 2012's election, for example, Obama recieved 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and rodney"". This shows that while the popluar vote can be extremely tight, the winner gaining sometimes less than 1 percent of the popluar votes, the Electoral College helps the system by giving the winner a landslide advantage and therefore clearing up any claims over the credibility of the popular votes which the loser can produce. Also, the Electoral College helps prevent the situation of no president winning the majority of the votes. the introduction of third parties can sometimes mean that no party gains more than half of the votes. However, the Electoral College helps deal with that situation. In 1968 and 1992, Nixon and Clinton both had less than the majority, but won because they had the Electoral College in their favor. This is why the Electoral College still works today.

There are some areas of the nation that are very highly populated. The southern and western regions of the nation are becoming more and more populated, and the northern regions are diminishing in size. By popular vote, a president who wins the southern regions alone would have a good chance of winning the nation. However, that system does not work under the electoral college vote. The Electoral College is a good system for voting on the president because it requires a president to be popular across the nation. Under the Electoral College, a president can not suffice by winning the votes in a couple of states. They must get points from states across the nation and then will it add up to a victory. This is good because a president with only a regional majority will mainly focus on the region which he is based on. The other regions will be disregarded, and not paid as much attention to. The Electoral College prevents this outcome. This is another reason why the Electoral College is a good method of picking the presidency.

Most states will have a tendency to almost always vote for a particular party. The real difference in Electoral votes lies mostly in the states who will vote either way, or swing States"". The Electoral College is a good thing because it puts the emphasis on the states who will vote either way, ensuring the credibility of the candidate. These swing states know that they are the ones who decide the election. Therefore, it is the voters in these states who pay more attention to the campaign, who research the candidates more, and who listen to what the candidates have to say. This is a bonus for the Electoral College because it means that the candidate who will be elected is the candidate who will do best for the country, not necessarily the most popular. Because of this, the Electoral College should remain the system of voting on the presidency.

There are arguments that the Electoral College should be abolished. That the system of sending electors to congress to vote for them does not work because they can't guarantee that the electors will vote for who they are supposed to do. However, the chances of that happening today and the elector getting away with it are very slim. Today, The people and the government know exactly how much votes each state gave to each candidate, and they know exactly how much electoral votes a candidate should get. So even if you manage to add a vote to your candidate, It's very likely that someone will do the math and figure out that something's not right with the votes.

Like every system, the Electoral College has its flaws. However, the system is the best we can put in place to elect a new president. The system still is used after 250 years because it easily simplifies the disputes that can easily occur over the tight popular vote margins. So the next time you vote for the president, You'll know that you are voting in the most efficient democratic system to date.",0
b9b58079,1,"A president election is great but, there are some difficulties along the way of deciding who will be able to vote. People are asking themselves whether or not they should keep the electoral vote or get rid of it and have a popular voting method. To me, the popular voting method is reasonable. I believe that you should get rid of the electoral collage method and change it to the popular voting method because its fair to the voters, YOU are able to vote for the president of your choice, and because of the winnertakeall system. You need to think about everyone in the all the states not just electing your president. Your people need to agree with the choice that has been made.

The electoral collage should be changed to the popular voting method because it is unfair to the voters. everyone should have a say in what goes on where ever it is that they live. We the people make up the government. Who draws the line that states whether or not you are allowed to vote. We do! Therefore we should be able to decide ourselves who can be our president to the United States of America. It is not fair that we need to elect others to have our submission be made. Even when we tell our electors who we choose, they might turn around and vote for the other person. In Source 2 ""The indefensible electoral college : why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer"" backs up my response when stating,""In the same vein, faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please..."". That to me my friend, is not fair at all.

With the popular voting method you are able to choose the president of your choice, not the president's electors. In doing this you are having a fair vote in the election with everyone who is eligible to vote, voting whomever they please. If you vote for your own president of your choice there will not be any elector deciding for you if they do not like what you have elected. We need to have a say in what we want. I mean if we want someone to be watching over us, and deciding what to do, we want someone who everyone agrees on. Just a few hundred poeoplpe choosing for you is nothing compared to approximatley more than a million people choosing for themselves. In Source 2 ""The indefensible electoral college : why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer"" it says that the electors can always defy the will of the people. In my case I believe that no one would want that. I mean, would you want that?

Another thing that is unfair in the election is the winnertakeall system in each state. People don't usually spend time in states they know the don't have a chance at winning. Who would? these states only focus on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. Sometime around the 2000 campaign, apporximately 17 states didn't at all see those candidates. Even when there were voters in states that had 25 of the largest media markets, they were not able to see not even one ad from the campaign. This is being said in Source 2 ""The indefensible electoral college : why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer"" For my conclusion this proves that there are many difficulties along the way of an election, regarding the votes and voters. With this letter being written, people should not wonder whether or not the electoral college should be abolished, and go with the popluar voting method. You shouldn't be thinking about just a couple of people, but of a whole nation and deciding who is worthy enough in our eyes to lead us to more victories with the popular voting method.",0
b9c23f5d,1,"When the US Constitution was first made, the idea of equality between the states was made. This meant that the size or population of a state gave it no distinct advantage over another. They did this through the creation of the House of Representatives and the Senate, yet there was one more issue they had to solve. This issue was how they could count the votes of citizens all aroun the US fairly. They solved it with electoral college, a system in which the voters don't directly vote for the president, but vote for a group, or slate, of people who have sworn to a candidate who vote for you. This system as Source 2 states can easily be broken with a group of swing votes in some states, but because it keeps thing equal, we must see that making popular vote the process isn't a good idea, because larger states will have more power. The US should just remove the winner take all system and replace it with proportional representation"" to preserve equality and functionality.

The first reason why we must change to proportional representation is because it preserves equality. As Source 1 states, this proportional representation is only done by Maine and Nebraska, but it makes it so that one party wont win the state, it is regional in the state meaning that more people are represented through this. The winner take all system is too harsh, and can discount many people in swing and regular states. As Source 3 stated, the larger states need to be left alone to represent the US population. Proportional representation allows this with the ability to include even more opinions. With this information, it is easy to see how proportional representation will preserve the equality that popular vote represents.

The second reason why we must change to proportional representation is because it preserves functionality. One of the main arguments for electoral college, is that it is more functional as compared to popular vote. This can be maintained through proportional representation. Source 3 stated that while the regular electoral college has a chance of failing, it is not as high of a chance as popular vote is. Proportional representation keeps this functionality that those who support normal electoral college hide behind. This is also been proven to work without a hitch. As previously mentioned, Source 1 stated that this for of electoral college is already in Maine and Nebraska. These states have proven that this form of electoral college works, thus proving that we should change to proportional representation in order to maintain the functionality of regular electoral college.

In conclusion, we should switch the rules of electoral college from ""winner takes all"" to ""proportional representation"" in order to maintain equality and functionality. showing that while the founding fathers did have the best on their minds when electoral college was made, a change in it can benifit America for years to come.",0
ba31c1dd,0,"If we never do anything about the air pollution coming from cars will the human race last a long time? If you had to choose from killing yourself slowly or making the world healthier by walking instead of taking a car what would you choose? Many people don't understand the damage that driving all of the time is doing to our world. But, limiting car usage has many advantages that come along with it.

Limiting car usage come along with many advantages. One advantage of limiting car usage is that you can limit the amount of smog that goes into the air and also into your lungs. In source 2 it says, ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine31."" That is a very good choice of action because without hearing that they would have any consequences people still would have drove their cars. In source 2 it also says, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" So, by limiting car usage just by the even numbered license plates there was less smog in just one day. In source 2 it says, ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" So, the success of just one day made people want to do it a second day with just the oddnumbered license plates. If they keep this up and eventually have a day where neither odd nor even numbered license plates can drive the smog will eventually clear all the way up.

Also, another advantage to limiting car usage is there won't be many traffic jams. In source 3 it says, ""In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams,"" meaning that everyone got around easily without all of the congestion in the roads. In source 3 it also says, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said the businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife."" Traffic jams tend to cause alot of people stress. People stress because they can't get to important places on time, they spend hours on the same highway, etc. By limiting car usage, they limit their stress and have a good day instead of being so angry just because of traffic which will help them out in the long run because alot of stress isn't good for the body.

There are many more advantages to limiting car usage. In source 4 it says, ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety."" By just taking the little time to figure out a different, less polluting way of transportation all of these advantages come out of it.

Many people don't understand the damage that driving all of the time is doing to our world. But, limiting car usage has many advantages that come along with it. A way that I could pitch in would be to ride the school bus with everybody else instead of driving myself to school. Some advantages to that would be using less gas, saving money and carpooling so that there are less cars on the road and less air pollution, because we need the air to stay clean so we can breathe and stay alive. So by limiting car usage we can have many good things happen to our lives and to our world.",0
ba58f9e5,0,"Limiting car usage is a good idea. Limiting cars usage it a wonderful idea for many reasons. most people have the ability to live there life without cars, this would help cut back on pollution, and for most people it would be cheaper. Although some people may see this as a impossible way of living some of us do not.

To begin, people can live without cars people have done it before us and eventually people will do it after us. As shown in source 1 these people in Vauban, Germany have given up a life of cars for a simpler much quiter life in the suburbs. Life in this city has been condensed down into a one square mile area where people are able to go on with there everyday lives without having to get into a car to go somewhere. Life in this city is does not go completely without cars if these people need to leave the city they can simply walk to their very own parking space in the parking garage right on the outskirts of the city. these people have the ability to keep there cars but they have to buy a parking space when they buy there house you also generally wouldnt need your car unless you were going on a long drive that required you to leave the city. There is also the fact that there will be a day soon when we run out of fossil fuels and what is a fossil fuel? gas. there will soon enough be a day where we dont have any gas and we will not be able to drive cars everywhere that we want.

Next, this would be one of the most effective ways to cut back on pollution. as shown in the 2nd source paris was struggling with a very bad pollution problem that they needed to deal with. Paris was having the same sort of problem that beijing, china is having and beijing is the most poluted city in the world. so they banned all the cars that ended in a even number on monday and a odd number on tuesday. Just doing this for one day cut the amount of pollution in half. Imagine our worldwide pollution levels if driving was limited. The second largest form of pollution is cars so limiting driving could even drop cars a few ranks back. Every part of getting to fossil fuels that fuel our cars is more and more pollution. gas is a very large pollutants and it causes lot of problems for our nation and one day there will be no more gas.

Furthermore, limiting driving would almost be cheaper for the people as talked about in source 4 less and less people have been getting there licenses and driving cars because it isnt needed as much anymore. there are more ways of public transit that people are taking advantage of such as the mans son who takes the Bay Area Rapid Transit instead of driving his car. some might say that taking these other forms of transportation might take longer and yes they might be right but they are also much cheeper instead of having to pay a large amount of money to first, buy a car and then, buy gas. which the gas prices only seem to be going up lately. They have the ability to buy cheep tickets for the ride on the train or maybe a bus. As i spoke about earlier we will one day run out of fossil fuels. Gas is a fossil fuel and leading up to the time where we wont have gas anymore the gas will just keep getting more and more expensive because the less gas we have in our community the more that it will cost. also the more that people will want it one day most of us will not have the money to drive cars not because of the cost of the car but because of the cost of the gas.

Coming to a end, there are many other ways to travel other than buy a vehichle and some may be easier for you cheeper for you or better for the environment so why keep on hurting the environment when you could simply make the world a better place by just not driving a car. there are many reasons to limit driving but we could easily do it because people can live without cars, it would help the environment and cut back on pollution, it would also be much cheeper.",0
bab943b4,1,"After the research I have done I think that changing the system would be a good idea because of the followingg reasons, its not really fair because your not actually voting for the president, but for a slate of electors, also becuse of the candidates are more focused on the bigg states, and the swing states.

The first reason that changing the system is a good idea is that lots of people think that it is unfair. Like in source 2 by bradford Plumer, ""If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for John kerry, You'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry."" but if the electors dont win the statewide election he wouldnt get the votes, so its like your vote didn't even count. The winner take all system is unfair because your actualy not choosing your own president.

The next problem are the big staes. The candidates dont spend many time is the small state because they now that those votes won't really help them win so the go to the bigger states where they now they will get more votes. In source 3 by Richard A. Posner says "" a large state gets more attention form presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state dose."" For example in 2012 obama won the votes from florida, get got 29 electoral votes. But if he were to go to a small state and won he would only get a few votes, so its not fair for the smaller states and it's not equal.

The finall issue are the swing states. Candidates focus more on the tossup states. In these states they spend more time and give out more information because in these states the people really pay colse attention to the campaign. The candidates dont spend any time int the staes they now they no chances for winning, that why during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all!

In response, based from the following informatom given I think that The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational. It should not be the elecotal votes that matter it should be the peoples votes. Also some states dojnt even hear from the candidates because they are busy with the big staes and trying to win over the swing states. If you do change the system you will make lots of people happy and I think that it will work out well for the U.S and everything will be equal.",0
baf8d484,1,"In the United States, the process to pick the president is rather complicated. From nationwide voting to states that swing from party to party, it has intricate parts that most people find confusing. The electoral college, the process that in the end picks the president, is also rather complicated. It was made to be a compromise of picking the president by votes in congress and popular vote from citizens by the founding fathers. In modern times however, most citizens agree that popular vote makes more sense and that the electoral college has become rather bloated. In the case of finding reasons of why the electoral college doesn't really work is because private citizens vote for someone else to vote and that voters from different states don't control who the electors choose.

First of all, because of the electoral college, citizen's vote counts less when they vote for someone else to vote. Most citizens would relish the chance to vote for the candidate that they choose to support. But when they do vote, their vote only just might sway the electors vote. For example, during the 2000 presidential election, instead of the intended candidate winning the vote, the electoral college choose another. It removes any sense of personal worth when participating in general elections and makes it harder for some candidates to win.

Furthermore, not only do electors choose the president, but the votes themselves from private citizens don't control who the electors choose. Electors are people chosen at state conventions, presidential candidates, and state party's central committees. The amount is chosen on the populations of such states, making smaller states with still a significant population seem insignificant. However, the biggest slight is that the votes made by the citizens don't obligate electors to choose what the general population has already choosen. It takes away control from the ""people"" and is inherently wrong.

In conclusion, the electoral college is rather useless because it does the job that citizens already do and takes away control from them. By voting for electors, the electoral college process takes away a sense of self in elections while giving the power to choose the president to a group of about 200 people that can be persuaded or just simply choosen by the candidates themselves. Its a bloated system and should be dealt with.",0
bb187d54,0,"In today's growing world to many it may seem as if living without a car would be impossible. Our ever evolving lifestyles and cultures though may prove otherwise. Across the globe it is becoming more likely for people to leave their car at home, and walk opposed to driving a short commit. The benefits of this decision are incredibly impactful on the environment, improving human health and safety, as well as on our, the people's bank accounts. Becoming a society nonrelient on cars will prove not to be easy, but justifiable when those three points are taken into account.

The effect that cars have on the environment is no suprise to most. If you turn on most news channels, global warming is talked about by the hour. Thus proving drastic measures need to be taken to secure our planet's future. What better way of doing so then by reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere. Source one line five states ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" The article goes on to state in line seven our lives being centered around the use of cars will have to change. Our planet needs it's inhibitors to treat it with the same respect people do to the dignified, and a car free world is one way to do so.

By decreasing the number of people using cars as their mode of transportation good health and safety will soon be boosted across the globe. The effect of walking instead of drving will decrease obesity and increase positive moods. According to source one line 3 Heidrun Walter believes she is much happier and less tense without a car. If she a working women and mother of two can live without a car I find many other people could find ways to also. Limiting the use of cars would not only improve health but safety. By limiting cars you limit the amount of possible accidents. Whether an accident results from carelessness, accident, or intoxication there is no arguing the fact they take many innocent lives daily. By reducing the amount of car usage this will no longer be a major factor in the premature deaths of people. According to all four sources the idea of leaving cars parked in the garage at home, or choosing to live a car free lifestyle is catching on now more than ever. Personally I hope we soon have healthier, safer pedestrians.

In today's economy money is tight. People looking to save a dollar will justify almost all reasoning to do so. Throughout the world many countries have decided to become less relient on cars. By making cities more compact people are finding it very possible to live a life without cars. Imagine cutting the price of not only a car, but car insurance and gas out of your life. I can promise you your wallet would thank you. Source four line 35 states ""We are witnessing a long term culture shift."" The internet has made it possible to connect with friends and family without meeting face to face and because of this the use of cars is rapidly declining. Source four also states many of America's youth are declining the possiblity to be licesnced and drive. Suprisingly enough Mr. Sivak, a socialogist's children do not drive their ages being in the early twenties. This is yet more proof of our ever evolving lifestyles.

Fellow citizens, at times our lives can deal us many unexpected difficulties that make living in this day and age problematic. Cutting out the use of cars however would not be one of them. Deciding against the use of cars would impactful the environment, improve human health and safety, and our bank accounts from draining. All four sources prove the possiblity of a car free society throughout the entire world. So my question to you is why not stop using cars now? The world and your future self will surely thank you.",0
bb5166e7,0,"Cars may actually disappear from the modern world humans live in. Cars sales are decreasing, and fewer cars actually are a benefit by making the air cleaner and making traffic and travel time faster.

Pollution is one issue that people have been trying to limit for years now. One way people can reduce emissions is to stop using their car. According to Paris bans driving due to smog by Robert Duffer , pollution in Paris drastically decreased after driving bans were implemented. The ban on driving cleared up enough smog, that the French government was able to rescind the ban. Across the globe, transportation is America's second largest source of emissions and pollution as explained in The End of Car Culture by Elisabeth Rosenthal. Rosenthal explains how that the decreasing number of cars on the roads in America will help the environment and decrease carbon emissions. Car emissions may be the largest form of pollution in America, but the percentage in American cities where most people are found has a drastically higher amount of emissions. Both Duffer and Rosenthal show that automobile decreases lead to pollution decreases as well. Cars limitations will lead to greener grasses and bluer skies.

Traffic is a problem that most people experience during their daily travels, whether its going to school or work. Limiting cars will lower traffic in cities everywhere. Shown in In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars by Elisabeth Rosenthal , the city of Vauban, Germany has stores placed a walk away instead of far away in malls. Vauban has its stores located closer, which will be easier to access to citizens, instead of waiting on a highway with a traffic jam. Also in Bogota, Columbia, car and rush hour restrictions have drastically lowered traffic time, as well as opened bike lanes for a new means of transportation, according to Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota by Andrew Selsky. New bike lanes and sidewalks open up a new way to travel, distributing people between two ways of transportation instead of cramming everyone onto one highway. 118 miles of bike lanes have been built in Bogota and hopefully in new places too, to lower traffic and transportation time. Car limitations will lead to a quicker way to get to the place you want to be at, instead of waiting in a line full of automobiles.

Cars are disappearing anyways, due to culture and people being happier.

In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars by Elisabeth Rosenthal shows how people in the city feel about the restrictions on cars. Heidrun Walter said ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Walter is joyful now that car limitations were implemented. Rosenthal explains the stressfree life in Vauban, with its children playing and riding bikes in the outdoors. This happy life may actually be shaping citizens of America due to its decrease in car purchases, and license decreases.

The End of Car Culture by Elisabeth Rosenthal explains that the peak of driving was at 2005, and now people are going through a longterm cultural shift. Driving decreased by 23 percent between 2001 and 2009 in younger people. People are not buying cars, because they do not need them. Car limitations may not even be needed due to happier people and the downfall of driving.

Cars are dissapearing due to limitations, and that is a great thing. Less cars means less pollution and traffic, along with happier people and a carfree culture. A better environment and a faster way to travel, will result in joyous people.",0
bb69c8f1,1,"Dear Senator the electoral voting system should be abolished it is unofair and undemocratic electoral votes are not the votes of the people and thats all that should matter but there are countercaims that I will address. when person votes they do not actually vote ofor their candidate they vote ofor a group oof electors ofor that candidate electors who may not even vote ofor the candidate they are sworn to. the electoral voting system is extremely unstable there are an even number oof electoral voters in the united states making a tied vote a possibility which is very bad. Even though electoral votes are supposedly based on which candidates people vote ofor it does not at all mean that the candidate who most oof the people voted ofor wil also be voted ofor by the electoral college.

The electoral voters are separated by state and each state has its own number oof electoral voters proportional to their population. because oof this candidates change their campaigns to only ofocus on stateswith more electoral voters while this makes sense ofrom a competitive perspective it makes it extremely unofair to states with smaller populations. This is wrong in many ways but the worst oof all is that the electoral voting system encourages this kind oof competition The electoral voting system is undemocratic the united states prides itselof on being ofor the people and ofreedom but the electoral college represents the exact opposite oof that. the electoral college votes not the people. the people are not voting and that is the exact opposite oof what the united states supossedly stands ofor. Anyone who learns about the united states and sees the electoral college will think that the united states. is not all its cracked up to be and that is not what the united states wants is it?

in conclusion the senator you should deofinetly try to work toward abolishing the electoral college as it is undemocratic because it does not allow the people to have a direct say in who they are voting ofor. it is a very volatile voting system that could cause crashes and severities in the united states by aving tied votes and such. the electoral voting system encourages some states to be leoft out by unofair competition because oof the unstable way the number oof electoral voters are balanced between states. And the electoral college essentially goes against everything the united states stands ofor and is supposed to believe in.",0
bba147cf,1,"The Electoral College is how America votes for the President and Vise President, which is a process that the U.S. shouldn't have. initially, if people are voting for a President, they know what they want and have done their research. Along with that, it gives the electoral College more rights than the actually people voting for the President and Vise President. Lastly, it's just down right unfair to the voters. The U.S. wants every person to have equal chance at the election for a president and if about 500 people are voting compared to the millions, it's just unfair to the citizens. In the world now, this process is taking away the freedom of decision or making it seem useless to the people. The electoral College shouldn't be a process we use for voting.

Most people voting, actually care who is running the country and they took the effort to make sure they got the vote in. The votes from the actually people should count because, evidently, they know what they want. Most people do not go to a place if they do not care for the purpose, but if citizens are voting for their president, it should count, not having other elected officials vote. The elected officials voting, are in the government and that creates a biased vote which is uncalled for. The votes need to be from the people because they see the actual truths of what is happening to the economy, salary, taxes, the process of the government, and much more. It is obvious that having the people vote is a more efficient choice than preelected officials.

Secondly, the electoral college takes away the rights to choose what president they want. Yes, they get to vote for which electoral college member they want but, it doesn't actually add up to the number the citizens actually participate in. As stated in the Constitution, citizens of America have freedom, and they should have the freedom of choosing the Preseident and Vice President they want without out any ifs,ands, or buts. America has the freedom to choose and the electoral College shuts it all down, which is disrespect to citizens and to the country.

Lastly, it is such an unfair process. As said previously, it geneuinly takes our freedom of choice away. People need to be heard and listened for what they actually want but the government lives their own way and doesn't take into count what the people, that make the country up, want. ""Because of the winnertakesall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states.""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the laidback defenses of the syster are wrong by Bradford Plumer. This here proves that the candidates are only in for the game and not the real true choice in who will be a perfect official that runs the country all together. Clearly, the process all together is a complete unfair, brutial game to the people.

In Retrospect, having the electoral College is a disaster and having it as a process makes we use every four years is unbelieveable. It treats the Americans like there freedom is worthless and makes the voting process unfair. If the people take the time to actually stand in line to vote, they hould earn the right of having their vote count in full picture. This process shouldn't continue on, for it is 500 or so people voting for the President and Vise President for over millions. That itself, is outragious and shouldn't be apart of the American voting process anymore.",0
bbf35643,1,"To Whom It May Concern, The Electoral College that is used when electing the president is a flawed system and should be replaced by and election by the popular voted. The Electoral College does not always show what the people want and it is unfair to voters in certain states.

The Electoral College should be replaced with an election by popular vote because it is not always a fair representation of what the voters want. This means that if most of the popular votes can be for one candidate, but the other candidate wins the majority of the Electoral votes. This is shown in the article In Defense of the Electora College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President by Richard A. Posner. In thsi source the author states,""But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed...however, it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral voter will not win the popular vote.... It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush, but fewer electoral votes""Posner, Line 16. This shows how what the majority of the people want to happen, will not always happen in this flawed system.

This system is also unfair to voters in certain states. Candidates usually campaign in what are called ""swing states"" that could vote for either candidate, but this means that many states that candidates are confident of winning in or states they are sure of losing in, will not be campaigned at all. This unfairness is shown in the article The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer. This article says,""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they have no chance of winning... During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all,including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't see a single campaign ad""Plumer, Line 13. This unfairness causes voters in some states to be uninformed about the candidates which could cause them to vote for people they wouldn't if they had seen some campaigning.

The Electoral College is a flawed system that is unfair to voters and does not always reflect what the citizens want.",0
bc749273,0,"Many people in the world today think that cars and driving everywhere is a necessity however, many people feel that owning a car is ""impractical and undesirable."" paragraph 43 There are many advantages to having cars, but there are also many more advantages to not using cars wherever people go. Some advantages include conserving resources, making people have a little more money in their pocket and it also improves safety in many suburban cities.

In the world today, a major problem that still exists is greenhouse gases. Cars emit a lot of gas that isn't good for the environment. In the first source, it says that people living in cities ""is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe... passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent...in Europe...and up to 50 percent... in the United States.""paragraph 5 Exports mean to say that it is better for people to live in cities so they don't have to drive everywhere. This means that the more people that live in cities, the less gas goes into the air. In Paris, the city issued a ban for driving to try and reduce the smog. The second source says that ""congestion was down to 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog."" paragraph 14 Only after five days of the no driving ban, more than half of the smog was gone in Paris. It also says that the amount of smog was almost as polluted at the city of Beijing, China, which is the most polluted city in the world. Bogota also did the same thing. They have an event called ""A Day Without Cars."" Participant Carlos Arturo Plaza says it is a good way ""to take away stress and lower air pollution.""paragraph 24 They also got other cities, and even other countries, to follow suit and join the event. America faces the same problem as Paris too many greenhouse gases are being put into the atmosphere. President Obama has a goal that he wants to achieve and that is to try and make the environment healthy. The last article says that driving less ""will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants.""paragraph 34 This implies that the amount of gases let into the air will be reduced. If peolpe didn't drive as much from place to place, the world would be a happier, healthier place.

Apart from the fact that cars give of gas, not driving everwhere also means people save more money. In Vauban, Germany, nobody has any cars, they walk or bike to wherever they need to go. ""Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to parklarge garages at the egde of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home.""paragraph 2 People would be more inclined to not getting a car rather than spend an extra 40 grand on top of getting a house for a parking space. Also, in Paris, a fine was issued for people who drove their cars during the car ban. The second article says ""evennumber license plastes were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine..""paragraph 11 If people didn't drive their cars around when they weren't supposed to, they would still have the 22 euros they lost. The same type of fine was issued in Bogota, Columbia. If people drove their cars on ""A Day Without Cars"", then they would have to face a 25 fine. However, in the United States, ""recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by.""paragraph 29 Without having to pay for a car or gas money, Americans are saving way more money they had been when they first got a car. Wit people not having to worry about payments or gas prices, they have more money in their wallet.

Not only does not driving save money and reduce gas, it also improves cities and people's lives. Heidrun Walter, a German media trainer, says that ""when she had a car, she was always tense. She's much happier this way."" paragraph 3 She likes not having to drive everywhere, it makes her feel more calm and less tense. It's not only changing peoples lives, but it's changing the cities. Cities are attempting ""to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with eless space for parking.""paragraph 6 Cities are changing their apperance in order to intice people into driving less and walking or biking more. They intend to make the stores closer together rather than having to drive across the highway to get to the next store. Also in Bogota, there has been a ""cunstruction of 118 miles of bicycle paths"" and ""parks and sports centers...have bloomed throughout the city.""paragraphs 27&28 With more people walking, the city wants to make the outside apperance different and more appealing than what it looked like before people just used cars. Not driving is not only good for personal well being, but for the a city's well being.

There are many advantages to driving cars, such as saving time and getting to places faster but, not driving cars is way better in the long run because of a better environment, saving money and better cities and personal health.",0
bc77d834,1,"The Electoral College, to begin with, is the electoral voting of the President and Vice President. In the articles ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer and ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner, both articles argue on the subject of if the Electoral College should be kept or if the election should be changed to popular vote.

Although it is true, according to the article by Richard A. Posner, that larger states get the majority of attention when it comes to votes, it is still possible that regardless that the legislatures choose the electors, the electors may ""defy the will of the people"", according to the article by Bradford Plumer. It is stated that electors have declined the voting of their party's candidate and went on to ""vote for whomever they please...."" Furthermore, in the article by Bradford Plumer, Plumer states, ""the electoral college is unfair to voters."" In other words, the popular vote basically gets no say in who they are choosing for presidential candidate, only who gets to choose the candidate. Even as stated in the opposing article by Richard A. Posner, Posner states, ""the electoral will not win the national popular vote."" This is stating that basically the popular vote is powerless in voting for a presidential candidate.

Moreover, Posner explains in his article, ""The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."" However this has happened before where there has been more of a ""tie,"" Plumer backs this up quoting that ""In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president."" In short, if the Electoral College fails, they have Mommy and Daddy to back them up. In this case, the simpler route would be to have the election dependent upon popular vote.

In conclusion, it would appear as the electoral college is ""unfair, outdated, and irrational."" This goes to prove the electoral college has no place in deciding our votes for us.",0
bc857771,1,"The Electoral College is a process by which we vote for electors not actually the president themself. When you vote for the electors, they decide who will be the president. We, as voters, have a right to be able to vote for whomever we choose not someone to choose for us. We should change the Electoral College to election by popular vote because it gives the people a say in who runs our country, an easier way to elect persons into office, and no one state has more of a say.

Many poeple believe that we are voting for the president when we vote for our electors, but in reality, we are voting for them to vote. We, as the people of the United States of America, have always had the right to freedom freedom of speech, religion, ect. so why don't we have the freedom to directly choose our president? In the source, the Indefensible Electoral college: Why even the bestlaid defences of the system are wrong', it states ""...voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" This means that we do not vote directly, only for someone else to decide our fate. Written in the text fo the first source, 'What Is the Electoral College?', it reads ""...when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors."" With this method, we are never getting results directly, only becoming the middleman when we should be front and center.

Most think that if we have electors we won't have as much trouble getting a person in office. In the eleventh paragraph, in source 2: The Indefensible Electoral college: Why even the bestlaid defences of the system are wrong', under what's wrong with the electoral college', its speaks of a ""disaster factor"". The ""disaster factor"" is when we vote for electors and they defy the will of the people as this had almost happened with segregationists, nearly making the popular vote for Kennedy not go to Kennedy. As well as the fact that we could easily of had a tie in the electoral vote. As it says in the second source, the matter would fall into the hands of the House of Representatives ""...the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president."" This means each state has one vote, meaning the will of the people wouldn't have much say in the election.

People in a state all have the same electors, made by a popular vote, practically taking away the people's voice. If things were to change to popular vote we would all have a say in each election. In the Electoral College way of voting, it is ""...unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakesall system in each state."" Along with the fact that in the Electoral College way, the amount of electors is based on population, making the people of a small state insignificant. ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all..."" If all small states stay this way, they may never be able to have a say in any big decision made by the public.

In conclusion, we, as the people of the United States of America, need to inderstand that the road we are headed down with the Electoral College, is not a good road. We need to stand up and allow everyone to be able to have a say in elections. With the popular vote every citizen will have they're own say in what gets made of our beautiful country. We, the people, need to make the change from Electoral College voting to popular vote becauseit gives people a say in who runs our country, an eaier way to elect someone into office, and no one state has more of a say than another.",0
bd50cf72,1,"Dear State Senator, I think we should get rid of the electoral college because they are unfair. There are only a few reasons to why we need the electoral college. I think we should get rid the college because it is a non democratic method of selecting our president. It should be overruled by declaring the candidate who got the most popular votes. Its the electors who select the president not the people. When you vote, you are actually voting for a slate of electors.

Another reason why would get rid of the electoral college is because of the winner takes all system. Canadiates dont spend time in the states they know have no chance of winning. They only focused on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states did not see the the candidates at all including Rhode Island and South carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets did not see a single campaign.

It can be argued that the electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state, demo crates in texas, or reblicans in California for example. Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign thean they would have if the president were picked by popular vote... The voters in presidential elections are people who to want to express a political preferance rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election.

Whats wrong the electoral College?

When we are under the electoral College system , voters vot not for the president, but they vote for slate of electors. For example if you lived in texas and wanted to vote for John kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the off chance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to congress and Kerry would get 34 electorial votes. These electors could be anyone not holding public office. Plus voters can not control who the electors vote for. Voters end up getting confused because of the candidates the electors vote for.",0
bd86183a,0,"Countries like France, Columbia, Germany and USA have took part in reducing greenhouse gasses by reducing if not excluding vehicle transportation. Stats have shown less amounts of carbon in the air and less congestion in immense cities like Paris, France and Bogota, Columbia.

Source two states that Paris typically has more smog then other cities in Europe like Brussels and London. They're taking action by allowing evennumbered license plates to drive one day and have the oddnumbered license plates leave their cars at home and the same would apply to evennumbered plates the following day. Anyone against that restriction would be given a 22euro fine or 31 dollar fine. That method decreased smog and congestion by 60 percent.

Source three talks about the country of Bogota, Columbia. This town or city has took a big step into reducing gas emissions where not only they participate but other local towns and cities as well. They contribute by leaving their cars home all day for one day to reduce the amount of carbon and smog in the air which helps the environment. People hiked, biked, skated or took the bus to work. violaters faced a 25 dollar fine. Not only does this benefit the environment but it helps people conversate more with each other. "" it's a good opportunity to take stress and lower air pollution,"" says businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza.

As it is said in source one, "" As a result, 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here."" The small suburb town of Vauban, Germany is home to 5,500 residents were its perimeter is just a rectangular square mile. It is separated away from all city life where people get around by walking to nearby stores. It may be the most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life. Developed countries or developing countries should think about all the gasses that go into the air and damage the surroundings and take part in to reduce the harmful greenhouse gasses.",0
bd9f22f7,0,"The number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005. From there, it steadily dropped to, as of April 2013, nine percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995. This decrease has had positive effects, though. Limiting car usage saves time, improves safety, conserves resources, and causes more social interactions with people.

Recent studies suggest the Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less, and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by. Still, in places like paris, cars are still causing pollution. After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. On Monday, motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day. Because of this ban, congestion went dow 60 percent in the capital of France. By having fewer cars out on the streets, it lowers rates of traffic and the time it takes people to get to work. Also, in result of a decrease in traffic, there would be less accidents and less lives lost to motorvehicle collisions.

France's tax policy that favors diesel fuel over gasoline results in higher percent of people using diesel vehicles. Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of Western Europe. By cutting back on car usage, the world would save an astronomical amount of resources. If people stopped buying cars, there would be less production of them. Thus conserving the metal, as well as other materials, used to make the cars.

""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdent streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor. Sitting in a car to get to work, or any where in fact, restricts how much interaction you have with other people. By walking, or even taking public transportation, you get the chance to run into people you know or meet new people.

Time saving, improvement on safety, conservation of resources, and more social facetoface interactions can be accomplished by limting car usage. The decrease in the percentage of miles driven in the United States from 2005 to 2013 proves that people are starting to understand this. If the pattern persistsand many sociologists believe it willit will have benificial implications for carbon emissions and the enviornment as well.",0
be0547ba,1,"Dear State Senator, Im going to tell you why im in favor of keeping the Electoral College. I will give you a few reasons why we should keep the Electoral College and don't worry I will also tell you some stuff, that's not really good to keeping it.

Lets start off with the first reason why we should keep the Electoral College. The first reason is the big states. I probably have confused you but let me explain to you what I mean. The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution. For example, in 2012 the popular vote was really close in Florida nevertheless Obama, who won that vote. In other words, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does.

The second reason why is, avoiding runoff elections. The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College. There is pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast which would highly complicate the presidential election, which is reduced by the Electoral College. It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state for example, Democrats in Texas or Republicans in California. Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign. Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election.

Next reason is swing states. The winnertakeall method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidate, as we saw in 2012's election. The voter who are in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign, really listening to the competing candidates. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters and for the further reason that they will have received the most information and attention from the candidates, the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election.

Now im going to tell you something bad about keeping the Electoral College. Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. Let me ask you a few questions, who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding for public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? Well, sometimes state conventions, or state party's central committee, or the presidential candidates themselves. Did you know the single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people. Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states.

I'll admit that the Electoral College is a bit unfair and irrational...but there is also some really good reasons to keep it. No matter how hard it is to decide, I have stated my reasons why we should keep the Electoral College. To me I believe that Bob Dole was wrong when he said, ""Abolish the Electoral College!"" We should not abolish the Electoral College but instead, keep it and maybe make it better.",0
bed52766,1,"Dear Florida Senator, I think we should change our voting system to a popular vote instead of an electoral college. I think this should change because the electoral college has many flaws in it with the way it is done. The popular vote is much more reasonable and practical.

One of the main reasons that I believe we should switch is because of the ""Disaster Factor"". I think that this really stood out to me when researching. According to source two,""The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse."" The author is onehundred percent correct. The state legislatures are responsible for picking electors, and the electors can ALWAYS deny the will of the people. This would not happen with popular vote because the people's opinion translates directly to who they want as president.

Another reason why the popular vote is the better way to go is because you will never get a tie. With the electoral votes, a tie is possible because there is an even number of electoral votes across the United States. Also, not one citizen of the united States wants a draw because then the House of Representatives would have power and state delegations would vote for the president. The houses decision will almost certainly not reflect the real voice of he people.

My last reason why I believe that the electoral college is unfair to voters is because the swing state votes. If its a tight race all the way to the end and theres only a few states that need to make a final decision, sometimes a small state ultimately changes the end result of the presidency. With the popular vote, this would never happen. The electoral college basically says that some states are more important then others by giving them more say in who is president. Popular vote counts every single person as one.

So after reading my letter I hope you have come come to the conclusion that popular vote is by far better. Electoral College is just old school, not fair, and can cause stupid issues that can easily be avoided with Popular vote. Popular vote will never tie, let others choose who is president besides the people, and would never let a swing state change the destiny of the United States of America.",0
bedc5a2a,1,"Dear United States Senator, Voting in the United States of America has always been the same way, by using the Electoral Collage to cast votes for the presidency. Now, the Presidential Election should be based on popular vote rather than using the Electoral Collage. It is an unfair, unbalanced method for determining the president of the United States. Every president changes history, so if the wrong one is put into office, American history can be altered.

An unfair, preposterous method is sure to have great detestment. Say one candidate had the majority of votes from the American people, by popularity. Yet, the other candidate had the majority of electoral votes from the Electoral Collage. The candidate who received votes from the Electoral Collage wins, even though his opponent had the American peoples' majority vote. This happened in the year 2000, when nominee Al Gore had more popular votes the George W. Bush, yet fewer electoral votes, allowing Bush to be president. Even more so, when voting for a presidential candidate, one is in truth voting for a late of electors, rather than voting for the candidate straight on. Source: 3 If the electors vote one way, when the majority of a state really wants to have the opposing side, there is nothing that can be done to change the electoral votes. Some may argue this is a fair method, but in reality, it is not. Source: 2 No American should be misprepresented when voting for a presidential nominee.

Unbalanced voting is sure to be an uproar, especailly when speaking about the president of the United States. California has the most electoral votes, stacking up at 55 votes in the Electoral Collage. Wyoming, along with other states, has a mere three votes. A grand total of 538 Electoral votes is what results from adding up all states votes, but 270 is needed to win the presidency. It won't matter who has the popular vote, all that matters is the person who wins the electoral vote. On the other hand, people who live in states with small populations may argue this is a more representing way of voting for president. But it really isn't balanced. The state may have a popular vote towards one side, but when the electoral voter palces his vote, he may choose to betray the people of the state. People cannot change the electoral vote if they are misrepresenting their state. That doesn't sound balanced or equal at all. The scales should not tip towards the lighter side. If the election was determined based on popular vote, rather than the Electoral Collage, then the American people would recieve a more accurate determination of presidency rather than what is already in place.

An unfair, unbalanced mehtod should be thrown out the window, trashed. People want want people want, and should be fairly and equally treated to reflect thier true intents. The Electoral Collage is an unfair, unbalaned election strategy that should be disregarded. We should change this election to using popular vote to acurratly, justly portray the wants and political views of the people living in the United States, where the citizens have power in determining what they choose happens in the counrty. The land of the free, America, should have free say in choosing the president. Abolish the Electoral Collage, and instead put in its place the means of popular voting.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerly, an American Citizen.",0
bf0d9e83,0,"There are many advantages of limiting car usage. Limiting car usage helps reduce smog in the cities. In the article, "" Paris Bans Driving Due To Smog"", the author, Robert Duffer, talks about France banned driving in order to clean the polluted air. According to the text, "" Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals"". Here it is evident that Paris has major pollution problems. Most of the vehicles in Paris have diesel fuel rather than gasoline, in which they favor due to a tax policy. ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party"". This clearly shows us that the ban on driving in Paris had an advantage in keeping a clean air.

Not only will limiting car usage will maintain an polluted air for us to breathe, but it will decrease traffic jams. In the article, ""CarFree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", by Andrew Selsky, a program is to ""promote alternative transportation"". Selsky writes, ""Rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic"". This tells the reader that this has positive impact on the city.

Limiting car usage could save time, improve safety, and conserve resources. According to the article, ""The End Of Car Culture"", the author mentions how her children live in places in which driving a car would be useful, however its not their priority because they ""organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends"". Although they could have gotten their own license to drive, it would have been a waste of money and time when there is always an available and less cost transportation.

Limiting car usage indeed does have advantages. The limiting of our car usage has positive effect on our enviroment by the reducing of smog, the decrease in traffic jams, conserves our resources and time, and also improves our safety.",0
bf33bb7f,0,"Cars are seen as a necessity due to the fact that they make everyday lifetasks easier but wait, so can the internet, cellphones and other technological advancements of the modern era. Cars are no longer as useful as they were made to seem due to the fact that the they come at too much of a figurative and literal cost when compared to other technological advancements or houses. Cars emit a large amount of greenhouse gases ""choking cities"" which is a large contributed to air pollution. Along with the toll they place on the environment, cars cause stress, leaving a mental and physical toll on your body as well.

Cars are no longer as useful as when they were first invented. They provided forms of easier transportation to communicate and socialize with others, reach the designated location within a shorter time, and limit how much people had to walk. They are stilled used for these purposes today, but are no longer necessary. The internet allows you to ""feel more connected without driving to meet friends."" Although there hasnt been a ""solution"" to having to walk, there shouldnt need to be. Cars give people another excuse for being lazy. In Bogota, there is an annual day known as Carfree day. on this day, cars are banned from being used and only buses and taxis are permitted in this capital city of 7 million. With a city of so many you would think that the day would have a terrible turnout, but many people benefited from the experience. It allowed people to view the world face to face, instead of behind a sheet of glass. While either riding their bicycle or walking, people are able to take in the sites and try new things that they'd usually pass by while driving.

Cars emit a large amount of greenhouse gases ""choking cities"" which contribute to the worldwide problem known as air pollution. Along with the toll they place on the environment, cars cause stress, leaving a mental and physical toll on your body as well. In Europe, passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emission. In some carintensive areas in the U.S. it is 50%. It has gotten so bad that Paris had to enforce a ban on partial driving to reduce nearrecord pollution. The stress this pollution leaves on the environment is similar to the physical and mental toll, caused by cars, on the body. The large amount of car usage causes traffic jams which can lead to stress and aggitation, and sitting in one position for so long can leave stress on the body cramping. Cars can also cause mental stress due to the fact that they cost so much. many people choose not to own them do to this fact, but the ones who do are not only required to pay for the car, but also have to pay additional fees for things such as insurance.

Cars are no longer necessary. There have been many technological advancements made to do what cars can do without the toll placed on the environment and your body.",0
bf9968d8,1,"There have been many discussions whether or not having an electorsal college as the system to decide the president is alright. Many people say this system is corrupted and that it must be thrown out to think of a new better government system, while many other people disagree and state that ""yes"", this system works perfectly well and that we should keep it this way for many years. Of course, most of the population of the country simply believe this system is best and we should keep it. This may be because certainty of the outcome, and because the system is made out well. Of course, there is also a downside to this such as when a person goes to vote, their not necessarily voting for whom they believe to be voting for.

To begin with, having the electorsal college is great because of the fact that there is certainty of the outcome. As said in source 3 by Richard A. Posner, there is absolute certainty of the person you're voting for is going to win or lose. The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. For example, in the 2012 election, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electorsal vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and rodney. Useing this as an example explains that the electorsal college, to win it, you must need the majority votes.

Furthermore, the system it self is made out really well. As said in source 1, the electorsal college process consists of the selection of the electorss which consists of 538 and only takes 270 electorsal votes to elect a president. During this meeting they vote for who they want as president and vice president. Also, your state's entitled allotment of electorss equals the number of members in its congressional delegation. In a way you could say that, the electorsal college is like a game, and many people just want it gone because they aren't good at it, or just don't understand it.

Of course there is always a downside to everything. This flaw is that, when you're voting, you're not voting for who you believe you are voting for. As said in source 2, when you vote for your president, the vote doesn't go to the president, but for the slate of electorss, who in turn elect the president. This may not sound so bad, but with something such as this, there could easily be some corruption in that and could change the outcome of the election. But even with this said, it's an unlikable chance. when you vote, the electors you voted for is most likely going to be an electors which will vote for your president. So no worries.

In conclusion, letting the electorsal college stay is a good idea. It is a well thought out system, and the certainty of which president will be elected is completely accurate which doesnt make it a big guessing game. Don't pay attention to those conspiricies of the electorsal college, that we have a great system.",0
bfe1f62c,1,"The presidential Elections.

The elections are a brutal time candidates compete for the favor of the citizens they campaign, give great speeches about why they would be best for the position of leading the nation, often state why their adversary would be the worst person for the job. This causes opposition in the nation tearing it apart, however now not only are the people emotional about the election but also about the process, their are aguments about whether or not that the original process would remain. The system that the elections have been held since the Constitution has been written was that each citizen in a state would vote for one candidate or the other by voting for the electors of that specific person then the electors in turn would vote for the candidate and their votes would decide the presidency as stated in paragraph six and seven of the first source"" What Is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the Federal Register. This system although it has worked so far it is not the best way of conducting the elections in this time and age citizens should modify and conform the process to fit the need we have now.

The problems claimed by the ones poised to the electoral college, as told in the second source "" The Idefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer, are that the process cause individuals to have little to no say in the person that will be their leader for years, they do not have control over who their candidates elect and must simply hope that they do indeed vote for who they promised to, also the election is decided by the few states that do not have a predetermined majority of voters in each state leaving the rest of the country feeling left out of the fiasco of the election and as if their perfered candidate dose not care of them or their support and opinions. This presents the system to be truly flawed in the way that it is currently operating.

Individuals,as source three ""In Defense of the electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner, wish to claim that the system is not flawed in great lengths because it has worked for such a time that it is seen by them sufficient in its orcastration. It is said that the electors often do vote for who they pleaged they would and that decite is uncommon: however why should America risk the possibility of decite it has happened befor and if not prevented it will happen again. Do we not owe it to ourselves, posterity, and country to fix all potental harms to our nation the presidency should not be taken lightly it is a grand position that gives power and fame to all who hold those who have it could maintain the country, grace the nation with new prosperity, or condem Americans to years of suffering, toil, and misery. As citizens we should not alow anyone but the most valid character obtain this place. Mistakes are not alowed! we should take it upon ourselves now to modify this method be for it is to late and avertid.

There is no mitake America must act fast and modify this method for the nation, for their children, and for themselves.",0
bff0a2e2,0,"Limiting the usage of cars has personal and professional support all across the globe and yet it has yet to be embraced everywhere. Statistical proof show where it may help and real life examples of some of the effects of reducing, or getting rid of altogether, cars in one's daily life. While ""recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by"" Source 4, is that really enough or for the right reason? There are plenty of reasons to stop, or limit, the amount of cars being driven on the roads for every kind of person, from the hippie to the businessman, from the mom to the college student. With so many things in this world that few people agree on, this is a nice change to see in regards the removal of so many cars. Why would they all agree, one might ask. Well, there are plenty of reasons.

For starters, stress. It is no secret that morning traffic jams and o'clock traffic is often enough to send any driver into a fit of unadulterated rage and what better way is there to prevent that than to simply not drive at all? Mother and media trainer, Heidrum Walter attested to this after moving into a mostly carless community, claiming ""when she had a car she was always tense. She's much happier that way"" Source 1. If that were not enough, businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza who participated in the Day Without Cars in Bogota, Colombia, after just a day was able to say ""it's a good opportunity to take away stress"" Source 3. Just one day was enough to destress this man and if that does not speak wonders, one has to wonder what does. The event ""left the streets of Bogota eerily devoid of traffic jams"" Source 3, which goes to show how stressful it was everyday, with traffic jams a common occurance. No one enjoys them, so why continue to suffer through them?

Additionally, the environment suffers greatly from the many car emissions let out on the roads. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" Source 1. This alone should be enough to horrify anyone out of such copious amounts of car usage. If that were not enough, ""transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions"" Source 4. It is clear that cars are only doing more harm to this earth all humans live on and happen to only have one of, so there is no need to continue on knowing this without changing something about that. Even carpooling could significantly reduce emissions as there would be less cars out there, which is possible through ""more flexible commuting arrangements, including the evolution of shared van services for getting to work"" Source 4.

Of course, adding the last two reasons together makes for another very important factor in all of this: everyone's general health. Both stress and high concentrations of smog can do a toll on one's body and the reduction of cars, once again, helps to reduce this terrible downsides to the easy transportation option. If it must be described as ""emissions... are choking cities"" Source 1, then why not be a bit more concerned. Air pollution can affect those with preexisting respitory issues and stress can be a deciding factor in how effient and well a person can function. Stress on the road can lead to unsafe driving and a worse performance at work, school, or any other taskoriented location that many go to with the aid of a car.

It is also worth noting that cities that have embraced a no car lifestyle such as Vauban or Bogota have generally improved as a community and have given back anything the newly carless citizens may have been missing out on through saving them time and money. In Vauban, ""stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway"" Source 1. This is not only much more costefficient, but also convienent. This is saving both time and money, just like in Bogota where ""parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"" Source 3. Not only does this help individual citizens and business owners, it helps the overall economy of the city as well.

Individual car use isn't bad. Millions of individuals using cars, however, is very bad. Note the emphasis. Even just making a concious effort to car pool, bike to work or school, use public transportation, or use some sort of alternative transportation could be enough to clear up the air of some of it's emissions, keep oneself and others happier and less stressed, save time and money, and improve their city all in one little decision. It's just a matter of going ahead and doing it, so what is stopping anyone from going out and making that change now? Be the change you want to see and limit your car usage now.",0
c0014379,1,"Dear senator, I believe the Electoral College System is wrong.

In source number 2, Bradford Plumer states, ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."". In other words, your vote is basically in the hands of someone else, and hopefully they vote for who you want what's even worse is electors are picked on at state conventions, sometimes state party's central committee, or even sometimes the presidential candidates, so you, the citizens don't get to pick the elector. Voters can not always control who their electors vote for and voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate.

Moreover, in source number 2, Bradford Plumer states, ""The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor... state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people...electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please."". Furthermore, this shows how the citizens of the United States of America really don't have a direct, liberal,voting system to choose who they want to won the election because at anypoint the electors can just go against what the citizens want and vote for who they please.

Lastly, Plumer states, ""the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each states, candidates don't spend time in each state because they know they hvae no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the 'swing' states."". Basically,this is saying that small states don't get to see campaigns or any of that because they're small states so they don't evem get a visit from the elector.

Overall, The electoral college is unfair, outdated and irrational. We should all have the right to vote for who we want directly and not have to go through electors which there is a very high chance they might change their minds and vote for the other party.",0
c0192f48,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, After reviewing information about the Electoral College, I believe that the Electoral College should not be used in deciding or electing the president of the United States.

""Under the Electoral College system, voters vote not for President, but for a slate of electorss, who in turn elect the President."" The sitation before states that it is not the President the voters are voting for, it is actually the electorss that the people are voting for, who in turn will vote for the President. This situation does not allow for the people to directly vote for who they believe will be the best President. It is really in the hands of the electorss who will become President.

Secondly, after realizing that the number of electorsal votes decides if you become President or not, the Presidential candidates are going to want to focus on obtaining the most votes as possible. After determining which states they ""have in the bag"", the candidates are going to put their campaigning efforts toward the ""tossup"" or ""swing states"". Here they will have to compete in a tight race between the other party to sway the voters of the state to vote their way. This method of campaigning in the swing states doesn't allow for much campaigning in the big, numerous votes states. An example of this would be that during the 2000 campaign, almost 20 states did not see the candidates at all as well as campaign ads. With the Electoral College system in place, Presidential candidates are focusing more on obtaining the ""swing state"" votes and not so much on supporting and visiting the states and people they know they have.

Finally, the system of electing electorss who then vote for the President can be considered unpredictable. This being because the electorss could at any time defy the will of the people. These shady electorss, also known as ""faithless electorss"", can deny to vote for their party's candidate and instead cast the vote for whomever they desire. This shows that it is not the people's choice, instead the choice of the electors. Also, the state legislatures are responsible for choosing the electorss. This could cause an issue where the state legislatures are choosing electorss who will vote for their party. Let's take it back to the 1960's where an example of this corruption almost took place. Segrigationists, or people who favored racial separation, who were state legislatures in the state of Louisiana nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electorss with new electorss who would not vote for John F. Kennedy. This would've caused the popular vote to go to Kennedy's opponent. For the many reasons listed above, the Electoral College could be considered unpredictable and in some cases... shady.

Overall Mr. Senator, I believe that the Electoral College should not be used to determine who becomes the President of the United States instead they should use popular vote. This being because the people are not directly voting, the candidates are just focusing on getting the votes and not on the people. And lastly because it can be considered unpredictable with the ""faithless electorss"" and bais state legislatures.",0
c03c0d45,0,"For many years now people have been cutting down on the usage of their cars. Their are many advantages to limiting car usage like you become happier, less pollution, and money is spent wisely. many different outcomes come from limiting the amount of time you use your car.

In many countries around the world people have reduced the amount of time they use their cars and the outcome has been phenomenal. Heidrun Walter was asked about how she felt about taking cars out of her life, she answered ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" Rosenthal par3. Cars have been liked stress and when cars were taken out of Carlos Arturo plazas life he said ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress..."" Selsky par24. When cars were taken out of their lifes they felt happier and stress free.

In these last few centuries we have polluted the world more than anyone else has. This is due our technological advances. One of the biggest advance in these centuries is the motor vehicle. The car has now become a household item. Cars are one of the main reasons why our ozone layer is open and we responsible for ""50 percent...of greenhouse gases emissions"" Roseenthal par5. It's shocking to see how far we have advanced but to see how much we have destroyed in the world at the same time is crazy. Paris has become so poluted that they had to get a ""partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"" Duffer par10. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of france, after fivedays intensifying smog"" Duffer par14. Imagine what would happen if cars were reduced in use for a month.

For many people in these countries they have gotten many benefits back. The government has always used ""80 percent of appropriations have by law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport"" Rosenthal par9. Its shocking how much money goes to bulding roads and not things for the development of our communities. The people in Bogota,Colombia have cut back on their use of their cars anf the money the government usually uses for cars or gas is now going to other things. ""Parks and sports centers also have boomed throughout the city.""Selsky par28. many of the ""uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramaticly cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"" Selsky par28. When the goverment did not have to pay for highways or streets they used that money for parks or smooth sidewalks.

Their are many advantages to limiting car usage like people become happierand stress free, less pollution, and money is spent wisely. If everyone cuts back on the time they use their cars the world would be healthier, the population would be heathier and happier, in addition the government would use money for more important things. Reducing the use of cars is step one in the world becoming healthy again.",0
c0968fc0,1,"Dear senator, We should change the electoral college to an election by popular votes for the president of the united states.

I believe that everyone should have a say in who their future president should be not just a group of selected officials. Sure some of the peoples choices may end up bias or thoughtless but atleast they get to feel as if their a part of the state. like stated in ""what's wrong with the electoral college"" sentence 11 ""Those electors could always defy the will of the people."" meaning that sometimes the chosen electors neglect their positions and use it the wrong way. The selected electors may end up going against the people andor choose a bias decision. No matter how you look at it their still human and they will make mistakes.

Electoral college shouldn't only allow government official or ""qualified"" citizens to bare that huge responsibility because if they make one wrong move then everyone will blame them but if we have popular vote everyone will have a say in the presidential voting. If we have electoral votes your only giving specific people power while as the other citizens sit down to watch complete stranges balance their countries future in their hands. like stated in ""what's wrong with electoral college"" sentence 13 ""At the most basic level ,the electoral college is unfair to voters"" meaning that electoral votes is unjustified to the people.

Electoral votes should be abolished because it isn't justified for all of those hardworking citizens who always pay their respects to this country. It even states in ""what's wrong with electoral college"" sentence 14 "" It's official : The electoral college is unfair ,outdated, and irrational."" meaning that the electoral college has been here long enough, it's not justified ,and it's irrational. Something like that should no longer exist. The citizens should have a say in who will become their new president. They should have a majority vote.

Like stated in ""choosing the president"" sentence 15 ""the electoral college is widely regarded as an anachronism""meaning that the electoral college is really old and we no longer have any need for it. The electoral college is something that was meant for the past. There may have been some sort of issue that they could not properly deal with ,so they created the electoral college in order to deal with it. But now we have more advance ways of doing stuff so we don't need electoral college any more. We can now change our ways for voting so that it'll match our time and period.

Electoral votes is filled with holesbias. So we should find a new way of chosing our new president who is willing to change our couontry for the best and not corrupt our country.",0
c0f1a3b8,0,"Cars! Cars! Cars! Some might say that you cant even live without them. Which is why cars and motors have become a serious problem all through out the globe. Passages like "" The end of a car culture"" Source 4 By Elisabeth Rosenthal and "" Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in bogota "" Source 3 By Andrew Selsky, Explain and show to the reader that The pollution that is caused by engines have become a serious problem through out the world and we need to limit car usage now!

Source 4, Explains The actions that our president Barack Obama is Taking to make the world a safer And Cleaned air place. By limiting car use it can help us tramendisly but what you do to make that happen is key. As written, Studies show that americans are purchasing fewer cars, licenses, and also driving as more and more years go by. Some might have a different opinion or perspective and say that cars are their life and that is the only way they will function. While others see and appreciate the advantages of limiting car usage. Many things including Less traffic, less accidents , more safety , and better health come as positive outtakes for lessening automotive use. One thing surprisingly that is good for your health as a result of no cars is cycling. ""New yorks bike sharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls reflect those new priorities"". I can see that just by leaving your car once a week at home and using a bike, You can get a workout , arrive at your destination quicker, and you might even get into the habit of leaving your car at home more often. So it does'nt hurt to try it once, Plus you can also save about thirty bucks which is fine by me and my wallet.

Source 3 , Explains the rules and laws that some countries are making to prevent less auto use and cleaner air. Andrew emphasizes on the program in Bogota,Columbia that makes a mandatory carfree daytwo days throughout the well populated city. Over all it was a great turn out ,but know matter where you go their is always going to be some of those hard headed people who just dont like the whole concept. Which of course those violators are fined with twentyfive dollars. I think this was a great idea in showing that the city does care about the environment and care about the peoples safety and health."" It is a Good opportunity to take Away stress and air pollution..."" as well.

Cars! As much as we love them they are some what damaging so it wont kill you if you just give it a rest and try cycling or walking ,you can benefit from it in many ways and it might even save some ecosystems.",0
c12cf8ad,0,"Many people use cars to get from one place to another,but however, many states around the world are having people not using cars. In other words, many states are car free states and this has changed many cultural changes in the society that the people live in. Not using any cars provides many beneficial factors to not only the environment but to the people too and here's why. Having carfree states reduces car emission and canprovidehealthier productive lives of exercise.This changeto the world can inspire lots of people and open up the doors of nature's beauty to provide a peaceful way of living to the environment of the world.

We use cars everyday in our lives from going to restraints, jobs, homes, schools,ect. However, do we ever think that whenever we drive we are causing more pollution to spread from every mile we go? Cars are the number one leading pollution emission environment destroyers in the world. This pollution causes many close suburban areas with homes around to breathe in gas emission from cars. This is absolutely not healthy at all to many people. For example, in the article written by Robert Duffer in his title, ""Paris bans driving due to smog."" States that, ""Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particular matter PM per cubic meter..."" That is more toxin to inhale that could possibly kill you! There are countries, for instance, like Germany that have some cities ""carfree"" as an experimental way to stop pollution emission and traffic jams causing loud noises to some closespaced suburban areas. Now, instead of using cars the people living in Germany are walking, riding bikes, or using trams to get from one place to another. So far, the people do not mind having any cars around and they even say they are happy and like the new change on where they live. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" says Heidrun Walter from the article by Elisabeth Rosenthal titled, ""Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars."" So whenever you first sit in a car think about what you are about to do and think about how you can benefit yourself and the world by not spreading pollution emission from cars.

Many people want to exercise, stay fit, and lose weight depending on what they want to do. Some people like to jog or run to go to there jobs as a productive way to not use there cars but to get out and exercise more. Many people around the world perfer not to use cars but instead use anyother means of transportation to either make themselves healthy or to not use any means of spreading pollution. In fact many people that live in big cities such as New York and San Francisco with more cars driving in the population. Have young people from 1639 year olds that don't have a drivers license use other means of transportation to benefit themselves. In the article written by Elisabeth Rosenthal titled, ""The End of Car Culture."" States that, ""They organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends."" People ages from 1639 year olds are not caring about using cars or getting a drivers license but using any other means of transportation even if it is longer way to get to a destination. This is very beneficial for young people of 1639 year olds to have healthy lives at a young age so they can live longer and they can feel good about themselves.

Can you see now why having no cars as the means of transportation is a good thing? Many people are having healthier lives and live on not using pollution but using other means of transportation. People in many states and countries are happy with this change for the better as new meaning of change in cultural experiences.",0
c1400407,1,"The Electoral College is the cause of many political disagreements and problems whenever mentioned. Although established in the constitution, it is seen as undemocratic by many. The Electoral College takes away the ability of citizens to vote for their president instead they are voting for Electors, not always loyal to the candidate. As a result, I believe the Electoral College should only be used in instances of a tie between two candidates.

Each presidential candidate has a group of Electors, which will be part of the Electoral College process after the popular vote is taken. The Electoral College process consists of the selection of electors, the meeting in which the vote for both President and Vice President occurs, and then the votes are counted by Congress. Office of the Federal Registera When the popular vote occurs, and the candidates are selected, the votes are tallied, and then the electors of the two candidates attend the meeting, and then the final decision for President is made. This is viewed as undemocratic, because there have been instances where the Electoral College disagrees with the popular vote. Such as the case of Al Gore in 2000, who won the popular vote, and then lost the Electoral vote and therefore his presidency.Bradford Plumera This caused over 60 percent of voters, to wish for a direct election opposed to the electoral process, according to a gallop poll, also occurring in 2000. Bradford Plumera Anotherr issue within the electoral college, is the electors themselves. While they may claim to be loyal to their candidate, loyalties can be bribed, changed, or electors may even be replaced with only a certain party Republican or Democratic. Which occured in Louisiana in 1960. The segregationists almost replaced Democratic electors, with ones who would instead oppose Kennedy, as a sabotage attempt at Kennedy's Presidency.Bradford Plumera There have also been cases in which the loyalty of the elector was switched, and the citizens were seemingly forgotten at the electoral college. While there are over millions of people residing in the United States, there are only 538 Electors, and the fate of our country is put in Electors who can't be trusted.

Over 60 percent of Americans oppose the Electoral college, but there are still some which still believe in the compromise established by our founding fathers. The Electoral College provides a smaller chance of election ties, and an equal vote from each state. While a tie is possible in the popular voting system, it is also possible in the Electoral College, with 538 electors, 269 votes from each side can cause a huge dissagreement within our Legislative System, which could be avoided by using only the popular vote. When politicians and presidential candidates are looking for votes, they most commonly travel to the larger states, because of the larger population. A larger population provides an even larger chance of obtaining voters. But, this leaves the small states with no attention from candidates, and a smaller population weakens the states chance of the candidate they desire. Every vote counts for a candidate,5,559 voters from Ohio, and 3,687 from Hawaii stopped a tie by voting. Bradford Plumera Even the small states contribute in a presidential elections, their votes are just as big as ours, even if their states ae small.

The founding fathers formed the Electoral College as a compromise, and hundreds of years later, I believe it is time for a compromise once again. The popular vote, should become the deciding vote for who is elected as President, Vice President, etc. With this, the chance of a tie comes, so i propose that the Electoral College remain only for the purpose of a tie in the popular vote, or if state legislature has reason to believe this candidate is not the best for America.

aExcerpt from ""What is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the Federal Register,from www. archives. govfederalregisterelectoralcollegeabout. html. In the public domain aExcerpt from "" The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best laid defenses are wrong"" from Mother Jones by Bradford Plumer. Copyright 2004 by Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress. All Rights Reserved. Permission Pending.",0
c14e2581,1,"Dear Florida State Senator, It has been brought to my attention as to which method of voting shall be used in future elections. As of now we use the Electoral college method, but looking back through previous years there is evidence this method has caused some dispute. Due to these problems I suggest using the popular voting method. The popular voting method is not only a direct vote for the desired candidate of the people's choice, but this method is also less complicated, leaving less room for many problems.

Initially the Electoral College voting method sounded like a great idea but over recent study some people are beginning to become more fond of the popular voting method. The popular voting method is directly controlled by the people and their vote is sent directly to their desired candidate. On the other side, by using the electoral college method voters vote for a select member of the state's electoral college votes and that member is eligible to vote for any presidential candidate of their choice. According to the article ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five Reasons to keep our Despised Method of Choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner, "" when you vote for a presidential candidate you are actually voting for a slate of electors."" Further evidence from this article quote on quote claims there is a "" lack of democratic pedigree."" Electoral voting also only benefits the larger states because of there is a larger amount of members of the electoral college for the larger states. Popular voting provides a more direct way for votes from the people to reach their desired candidate as opposed to someone who may not vote for a candidate of their choice.

In addition to many down sides of the electoral college voting method, there have been incidents in the past while using this method of voting. For example, evidence in the article "" The Indefensible Electoral College: why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer, in 1960 there was an indicident pertaining to the election of John F. Kennedy. In his case, segregationists from Louisiana were planning to and just about succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with electors to whom opposed JFK. This article also brings up another problem with the electoral college votes in the year of 2000 listing it as the ""2000 fiasco"" and ""biggest crisis of the century."" While the electoral college holds many faults I'm sure in the past there have also been popups of downsides to the popular voting method also. Through reading a select amount of articles I have picked up more recent and destructive faults within the electoral college voting method.

In conclusion, the popular voting method should be applied as the designated process of electing the United States President because it guarantees a direct vote towards a desired candidate of your choice. As our country is listed as a democracy, the votes towards the President should lie in the hands of the people. The electoral college is prone to many more problems and is a more complex method of voting. With votes in the hands of the people, voters can get a full "" hands on"" voting experience. As to not repeat myself, in this way voters can really understand the voting system and get the idea in their head their vote is going towards their chosen candidate. Popular voting has not only been proven to be the more preferred method of voting, but in my opinion, shall be the established method of voting to use in the future elections.",0
c168b452,0,"The black smoke that leaks out of your car's tailpipe is killing you.

With its toxic chemicals, and the stress that goes along with driving ,it's no wonder why our vehicular casualty rate is so high. The answer seems to be clear,there are many advantages in reducing our car use. Not to mention the money saving opportunities and traffic reduction that come along with letting go of our beloved crutch.

The world has long bin involved in a ""love affair"" with its cars and other forms of motor transportation, and now in 2015 we are by far, paying the price.

The dangers to your personal health and the health of the environment are cringe worthy. France, being one of the most polluted ares in Europe. at one point had 147 micrograms of particulate matter in there air. As a result Pairs put a partial driving ban to clear the air and the results where drastic. In just one week the smog cleared up just enough to lift the ban. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up too 50 percent in some areas in the United states. Transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions. This is cold hard proof that cars are a major contribute to our carbon foot print.

Many other countries have taken the lead in ridding the world of this environmental burdon. One of the most major examples being a community in Vauban Germany. The inhabitants of this upscale community have simply given up there cars. The residents agree that the lack of cars have greatly reduced there stress. Similarly, in Bogota Colombia, they have created a set carfree day. This has encouraged other means of travel including biking, walking and skating. It's a fantastic way to lower stress and air pollution all at once. The word is now spreading through Colombia and 2 more cities have joined and municipal authorities from other countries are very excited about the event. It sparked a mass improvement leading too new sidewalks, a reduction in traffic, and more upscale businesses.

More and more people are startting to catch on. The amount of licenses registeres each year are going down drastically and people ""just dont see a need for a vehicle anymore."" A study last year showed the decress in young people driving is at 23 percent between2001 and 2009. People organize there social life or jobs around where they can take public transportation or a bike. The main point in it all is that a car is just another way to get where your going and most dont really care how they get there in the first place.

Vehicle ownership is proving to be impractical, harmful, and expensive. With the rise of pedestrian accsess, bikeing, commercial and public transportation the over use of cars is becoming obselete. We need to improve our safety and lower our emissions to keep the planet and ourselves healthy. ""The proof is in the pudding,"" life without cars is on the rise and it is welcomed with both arms open.",0
c174a794,0,"Throughout the decades of humans being on earth, we have evolved into a higher innovating society. We have designed technologies that ceased to exist one hundred years ago. Us humans designed ""touchscreen"" phones, the internet, and much more. throughout the decades we started advancing through technology and we keep perfecting every device andor engine on the planet. For example, a car is a major part of the human society. We use cars to get from place to place and we're always making new versions. If you look back during the 1930s1950s, cars weren't used as often we use them. If you were to look around, you would see families, men, and women walking alongside the road. During that time period, cars were not used constantly unless it was necessary. Presently, many people believe that humans should limit car usage. There are some countries that banned cars for a short time period. such as, Paris,France and Bogota, Columbia. There are also some areas that completely banned car usage forever. Take Vauban, Germany as an example they have decided that no one should use a car because it would be better for them. I second that motion We should most definitely limit car usage because it is better for the earth and we would be saving loads of money. Not to mention that limiting car usage IS safer.

Limiting car usage would be making a statement. Many people would never stop using their car, but what they are not considering is if we stop using cars, we would be helping the earth. Pollution has become so horrible throughout the year. Now that there are scientists and experts that are making new cars every day, we cause a lot more pollution then you know. Beijing, China is known as the most polluted city in the world. The people that live there have to wear a mask so they don't inhale the smog. Smog consists of smoke and fog from engines and exhaust I would think that people should take that to account because who wants to live in a world where you can't even breathe safely in? Instead of making more fueled engines, we should be making more electric powered engines, or ""hybrids"". There are a handful of Hybrid cars around, but they are insanely expensive.

Moreover, limiting car usage would save us money. Instead of paying gas fees of 70 dollars and up, we can just carpool, ride the bus, walk, or even ride a bike.

Although, If we do limit car usage, it would be a bad busnes for car dealerships like Ford, Honda, and much more. Saving money can go a long way in America. With all the money you save you could pay for college tuition, buy enough food for multiple families, or anything that you want depending how you save or spend the money.

Many people also believe that limiting car usage will help with stress and worries. People should take the time to walk to a closest friend's house and relish the nice oxygen that you breathe in. With the way it's looking now, we won't be breathing in oxygen for long, but mainly car emissions.

Furthermore, no cars equals safety. Many people pass away or becom seriously injured because of car accidents or getting hit by a car. If we do stop car usage , it would be safer to walk alongside the road and not be afraid of reckless drivers. There are people out there who won't even come out their house from fear of getting hit by a car or getting in an accident. There are many other safety precautions and dangers in the world, but limiting car usage could help a lot.

To conclude, every citizen across America should take account that fuel powered cars are a hazrd to the earth. Without fuel powered cars, we could do so much for the world and for ourselves. We would be saving money and we would be making the streets a safer place to be.",0
c193f1aa,0,"Could you imagine what it would be like if we limited the usage of cars? We could save money on gas, who doesn't love saving money?! More money in our pockets means buying more items that are useful to us. And muse about how much pollution would decrease! We could all breathe in sublime air, clean air! Instead of huge car garages and parking lots we could save a lot of room, and use that room to build cheap houses for people in need.

Gas prices are hefty these days. They used to be a whopping 5 cents! Now they are around 2.90 almost three dollars! Could you even imagine how much money you would save a month? If you pay for 5 gallons of gas everyweek you would be saving around 60 a month! You could go out, buy extra groceries, have fun with it! I remember back in 2014 gasoline prices waged to 5 in some counties. Me and my father had to walk to our favorite stores, but it turns out that we very well like the sun beating on our skin, so we usually walk, and we rarely use our car unless we travel far distances.

Pollution will always be a big problem on Earth. We may not have cars, but we still have ships, and guess what? They can cause pollution, too! It would be so much better and healthier! if we all could breathe fresh air. If pollution were are main problem, ""plug in cars, and hybrids would be an exception"", as quoted in Paris bans driving due to smog.

Whew, I'm sweating thinking about how much excessive you could get if there were a limited usage of our cars! Everyone uses their phones, and sits on the couch all day long. How boring! You could go outside with your friends, walk to the mall, or walk to a store. Most of our daily life would be revolved around if we could move our feet. I walk to and from school, and I enjoy it, although the nasty gasoline smell and strange puff of smoke that comes out of the car I do not, and Heidrun Walter is with me. In In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars , Walter states, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way after she sold her car."" Being carfree wouldn't be so bad after all! Thanks to technology, we can breathe cleaner air because of hybrids and plugin cars. Pollution is deadly, I know no one wants to die this way, especially if it can be solved. Carfree? No problems.",0
c1df21f6,1,"It'd be better to stay with the Electoral College when it comes to voting for the president. They try to evenly distribute the votes with every state, they don't favor certain candidates, and they're better trained for voting. Overall the Electoral College tries to keeps things fair for everyone. The Electoral College so far hasn't made a big mistake or elect a horrible president, so there's no need to mess with the voting system. Without the Electoral College, California would have the most votes put in to elect a president.

If there was no Electoral College all these little states like Rhode Island would have a hard time since their votes are rational compared to the big states like California. Richard A. Posner states ""other things being equal, a large state get more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does"" which makes things fair for everyone in small states or large states. The one big problem with the Electoral College voting is that there's only 538 of them while the United States consists of over 300 million citizens which makes almost all of the U.S. not voting for their president but instead for the people who vote for them.

Even though that is a pretty big problem, it does help keeps things fair when it comes to the favor of one candidate over the other. With the Electoral College, candidates that come from a certain region like the South aren't praised over more than a candidate from the North. If it were up to the citizens to choose, there'd be favor for candidates from different regions that represent them. Paragraph 19 says, ""a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president""Posner,19. The same paragraph brings out that no region has enough votes from the Electoral College to elect a president.

Within the Electoral College are people who are better suited to make the huge decision about who gets elected as president. If it were up to anyone to vote, then the whole system would be messed up. The Electoral College has electors who don't focus on candidates from their region or appearances but they focus on who they think would be able to run this nation the best. Even in most cases, the candidate with the more popular vote still wins. Along with that, the Electoral College tries to keep the electoral votes from being too close for disputes and ties.

So overall the Electoral College is better for the people when voting for president. They try to evenly distribute the votes with each state,they don't favor certain candidates, and they're better trained for voting. With the Electoral College, they try to keep things fair for everyone so that we can all be happy.",0
c24a8b22,1,"In my opinion, I think that the Electoral College method should be abolished, because with it the Presidential elections are quite useless. I'm specifically talking about the way Presidents get popular votes. The system is very outdated and very irrational. When the Founding fathers founded this country, they said that the ""People of America"" get a voice and say in everything, well, not everything. But still their own say during the presidential Elections are useless, the only real true thing to do is vote for the Senate Electors for the Presidential elections since the Electoral College process is mainly controlled by the Senate, the Senators vote for the Presidential candidate. You see, the only way candidates actually win the every 4 year elections in November is by the amount of votes they get, by NOT the people, but by the Senators that pledged with them during the Electoral College. In this essay I'll explain why this system is to bad for our today's world and how it can lead to false moves and corruption.

First off, is what's exactly the Electoral College? It's not a place, it's more like a process of choosing and voting for a Presidential candidate. You see the votes that regular U.S citizens do, do not count as the actual votes, though back then the system did work it doesn't today. Back then around the 18th and mid 19th century, this Electoral College system worked outstanding for it's time, mainly because at first America was a new country, and the Senate that did do the voting and choosing were well educated and have experience. Most citizens in the American States weren't really that educated very well, mostly for new borns since the nation just finished their revolution and they were still in debt at the time, and so not everybody was rich enough to afford anything, in turn they have no knowledge of the way the world now works. Then during the civil war, half the country became another country known as the confederate States of America, which opposed the ideals of a more freer nation of other half of the country, known as the United States of America. The Electoral College did help President Abe to be elected, though it was mainly because he was popular since he used the ideal of abolishing and freeing slaves to gain populraity. And alot of people opposed him to become President, but thanks to the College process he won the Elections, and reunited the two nations into the United States of America.

So, does this will in today's world? No, abosolutely not, it doesn't work, and will never work unless America gets 1984'ed and become a false and brainwashed Utopia. Due to our general corrupt society, the right President's get denied, and the corrupt and wrongful citizen gets elected. I can relate this issue with the 2000 Presidential Election crisis. In the 2000 elections, Al Gore gets the most popular votes, infact so much more then George Bush, that it was clear he can easily win the 2004 elections. But since the Electoral College is still intact, they voted for George Bush, and Bush won the elections by 5 more votes then the popular and better organized President, Al Gore. Because of this, most of America got an economy train wreck from in 20072008 and also wasted many resources on a the War on Terror battle from 2003, which is now gone and has a similar operation that is still ongoing called Operation Enduring Freedom. Also unlike the old times when America was a new country, in today's modern 21st Century America, I can assure you that we have 95% percent of the Population educated by our today's educational standards tops. Which means that America doesn't need a hand when voting for a new President, and that shows that the Electoral College is not needed anymore, anytime. The Governments and it's people today are also very corrupt at times. This will also include the Electoral College, and can affect many lives for many people. Everybody can now make their own choice thanks to our very effective education system. So this proves the College group is now useless for voting.

Finally that's why we should abolish like Bob Dole said, it can cause a lots of corruption, and was only made for it's time since at that time many people were uneducated and couldn't even read, and now a day's today's society is very well off on educated minds. And has enough corruption as it is. And so that's the nutshell of this essay, and this is why we should remove the Electoral College. As its unfair and unfit for today's world and society of the American Government.",0
c2c66921,1,"Florida Senator I had not known much about the electoral college until now, and I am appalled that this election process has been used ever since the establishment of the Constitutiondecades ago. The electoral college is unfair, raises dispute, does not provide an accurate representation of the country's vote as a whole, and the process is simply not logical. I feel like we, as a country, could avoid a great deal of dispute that arises, regarding the electoral college voting system, if it were changed to election by popular vote.

First of all, when the electoral college voting system is used, while people may think they are voting for a presidential candidate, they are not. Voters are actually choosing a group of electors that then elect a president. Shouldn't something that has a great impact on our country, such as electing the president of the United States, be chosen by the people living in the country under the president's decisions? Anyone would agree that the people should have the power to contribute to these decisions, yet somehow the electors are taking this huge responsibility into their own hands.

Another issue with the electoral college is that it gives candidates different motives for their campaign. I believe that in an electoral campaign, candidates should be advertising their views equally to all parts of the country, if all parts of the country get to have a say in their voting. However, most of the time, entire countries are skipped over by candidates, as if they don't matter, so that the candidates can talk to states that they find more important to get a vote from. In the election of 2000, a seventeen whole states didn't see the candidates at all, and some of the larger states didn't see a single campaign ad. If the presidents know that they are practically guaranteed the electoral votes by a state, why would they waste their time trying to persuade a state that is already persuaded? It makes sense for the candidates to see ""swing states""the states that are more divided, and whose electoral votes are not guaranteed one way or another. I don't blame the candidates for their methods, but the electoral college itself for bringing about these techniques for campaigning.

The last problem with the electoral college that I would like to address is how the electoral college discourages people from certain states from voting. For example, a Rebulican in California or a Democrat in Texas are obviously aware that their vote isn't going to count towards the majority of the state's votes, or to which candidate the state's electoral votes will be going to. People are definitely more likely to vote if they know that their vote will be heard in some way. The ""winner takes all"" method is eliminating any representation of the opposing party's vote and discourages the minority of the state from voting. Everyone says that being a good citizen requires being aware and involved with government decisions, and voting whenever possible, yet in the 2012 election, onehalf of Americans that were eligible to vote, did not. I'm sure that a good portion of nonvoters were influenced by the unfair ways of the electoral college.

As you can see, the electoral college brings about many issuesissues that could be easily avoided if the electoral college was changed to the much simpler and straight forward popular voting system. Our country would be accurately represented, people would feel as if their vote actually makes a difference, presidential campaign would be consistent for all states, and we would actually be able to vote for the specific person we are trying to vote for in the first place. With all of these reasons been said, I think it is pretty clear that the electoral college should be abolished, and that government should change to election of the president of the United States simply by popular vote.",0
c3014be8,1,"Dear Senator, The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The system has been around for millenniums from our founding fathers and the Constitution in the 1700s to present day America, it is critical that we update our system to a more realistic process where the citizens have more say in the leader we choose to lead us. I am in favor in abolishing the Electoral College because most of the power should be held in the hand of the citizens and the popular vote should have more regards than the vote in Congress. I am not in favor in keeping the Electoral College because under the college system, voters don't vote for the president but for a slate elector, who in turn ""elect the president"", the process is unfair to voters, and over 60 percent of voters would perfer a direct election rather than the kind we have now.

When people go out of thier way to vote, they vote because they want to have a say in their potentially future. They vote for who they believe would lead our society and modern day world in the right direction. They would like to think that one vote could make a difference in a election, but with the Electoral College voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than vote who they actually want to be president. Under the Electoral College voters vote not for the president but for a slate of electors, who in return elect the president. In reality the people are not voting for the president they are putting their trust in somebody they vote to vote for the person they have choose to lead. Democrats in Texas for example knowing their vote will have no effect in the election they become less interested in the campaign than they would if the president was choosen directly by popular votes and that is unfair to the people.

The process is unfair to the people because of the ""winner takes all"" system in each state the candidates dont take time in states in which they know have no chances of gaining them any power, they stay in states that are more genetically to them. The candidates mostly focus on the tight races curing in the ""swing states"" in 2000 many states didnt even get to see the candidates because they were ""little, irrelevant, and worthless"" states. I'm sure many people in those states such as South Carolina and Rhode Island had a lot of input to add in the 2000 campaign but because they were little minority states they werent focused on as much as the other larger states. This is very unfair and judgemental to these states because the Electoral College is based on involuntary effects, the inhabitants of North carolina or Rhode Island cannot control where they choose to live, they might have to live in the certain geograpic location because of finaces or religous persecution. They may want to have a say in the election but cant because of their living arrangements.

Many might contradict that the Electoral College is benefical because it has more of a certain outcome but with that certainty comes many votes and state votes that were disregarded. The Electoral College is unfair in many different aspects we need to update our system of election, because like everything else in the world has an expiration date. Their is an expiration date on almost all of our food and beverages, an expiration date on salvery, an expiration date on our life, and so now we need an expiration date on the Electoral College.",0
c30881b5,1,"There have been a few close calls during our presidential election over the past decades, but it doesn't mean it's enough to scratch it out and throw it away. We should keep the Electoral College for many reasons, but mostly to keep chaos from happening.

To begin with, the Electoral College has been the method we have used for years for choosing our next President, so why would we change it now? Well, the answer is we shouldn't. It may seem like a good idea at first to change to the election by popular vote, but here's the problem. A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible, but less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The Electoral College is what helps the candidates from winning from a landslide. The Electoral consists of 583 electors and a majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. So even though some may say you're not choosing your President, you're actually helping to chose your President. When you vote you're actually voting for an elector that will most likely vote for the candidate to your appeal.

Furthermore, many people such as Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, and even the Chamber of Commerce have agreed to abolish the Electoral College. According to a Gallup poll in 2000, over 60 percent of the voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. Although, this all may seem like a time for change, isn't the Electoral College doing us a favor? ""The Electoral College consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress."" The Electoral College is a process, as a compromise established by our founding fathers, between election of the President by a vote in cCongress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

Last, but not least, the Electoral College helps with voting for President. ""Each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee, and that trust is rarely betrayed."" It is possible for the winner to win the electoral vote, but will not win the national popular vote. ""The Electoral College requires a candidate to have transregional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president."" ""So a solid regional favorite has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, that he knows he will will."" Therefor, he will not gain any electoral votes by increasing his plurality in those states in favor of him. ""This is a desirable result because the candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president.

All in all, we should keep the Electoral College because it helps balance out the nation's amount of votes for a good successful President that will help it's people.",0
c3b1bbab,0,"Normally in everyone's mind when they are a teenager they want to have a car to go to places such as the mall, beach, etc. There are advantages though to limiting car usage. The whole planet should really hear or read about it, it's amazing to what these advantages can do for you, others, and our ecosystem.

The first of many reasons why we should limit car usage is because of greenhouse gas emissions. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United StatesSource 1."" This just shows the evidence by the future if this keeps going like this the Whole entire planet would be all polluted which would make living conditions harder than they have to be. Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two states ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this waySource 1."" Looking at this quote tells me that she must have been stressed with the car, maybe it was because of the traffic or the gas bill who knows, but she does feel happier without it so she must feel more at ease that her area is not cramped up with cars. In Vauban, Germany if you own a car where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, there are only two places to parklarge garages at the edge of the development, where a car owner must buy a space, for 40,00, along with a home. Well sign me up with a bike or running shoes because I don't have that kind of money to spend just to live in a area with no cars.

Furthermore I would like to go to Paris, but sources state that ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitalsSource 2."" Reuters had found 147 micrograms of particulate matter or PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London. That is pretty bad and knowing that people say that you must go to Paris, yeah sure for I can get polluted air into my system got it. ""Diesel fuel was blamed, since france has... a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline."" According to Reuters ""Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of Western EuropeSource 2."" Even bogota, Columbia has a ""Carfree day"" and if you don't follow the rules of carfree day you will be fined 25. Carlos Arturo Plaza stated ""It's a good oppurtunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" as he and his wife rode a twoseat bicycle with his wifeSource 3.

It is just clear that most areas in the world are trying to change the way we live our lives for the sake of all human life. It is a good oppurtunity to relieve stress and lower air pollution as the source stated before.",0
c3c17135,1,"Dear Senator, The electoral college is a process that the founding fathers established as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and popular vote of the people. This process involves selecting the electors, meeting with the electors, and counting the votes by congress. There are 538 electors total in the Electoral College. The presidential election happens every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. After the election the governor makes a ""Certificate of Ascertainment"" which has all the names of the candidates who ran for President. I believe we should keep the Electoral College because there is a certainty of outcome, it helps avoid runoff elections, and the electoral college helps balance out the smaller and bigger states with more people that vote.

The outcome of an Electoral College has a possibility of creating a dispute like in 2000, but this dispute is less likely to happen over a dispute over the popular vote. This is because the winning candidates share of the Electoral College is greater than his share of the popular vote. Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote in comparison to the 51.3 percent of popular votes for him and Mitt rodney. Transregional appeal is required in the Electoral College. If we got rid of the Electoral College then there would be a greater possibility of dispute.

Furthermore, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes while winning a majority in the Electoral College. This proves that the Electoral college avoids the problems of elections in which neither candidate receives a majority of the votes. When no candidate wins a majority the pressure complicates the presidential election process. The Electoral College minimized this pressure be invariably producing a clear winner every time. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President.

In addition, a large state gets more attention from candidates than a small sate in a campaign. As an example in 2012 Obama, got 29 electoral votes. In Wyoming the winner only had 2 electoral votes in the same marin as Obama. The Electoral College provides some kind of restoration for the weight in the political balance that large states lose by malapportionment of the Senate. Voters in tossup states are more likely to read into and pay more attention to a campaign because they know they are going to decide the election. It is most likely that these people are going to the the most thoughtful voters.

To conclude, there are many reasons to keep the Electoral College. This process has made the winner of the election much clearer to decide. There are a lot of pros and cons to the Electoral College but the list of cons is way shorter than the list of all the pros to the Electoral College. We should keep the Electoral College because it creates a certainty of outcome, diminishes runoff elections, and creates a balance for the bigger states. The Electoral College has created a positive impact for our presidential election.",0
c3e2e9e5,0,"Driving is the primary way of transportation, to get from point A to point B. It's a great way to reduce traveling time, and traffic is almost nonexistent. Some people would say it's better than walking, or riding a bicycle. But what if we limited these polluting vehicles and replaced our transportation for our daily routine? Well, we can. Limiting car usage can help us from lots of city andor regional pollution. It can improve safety and conserve the resources we already have. Saving even more time is also something all people want to try to accomplish. Limiting the use of cars can help make this world a much better, and more breathable, reusable, and not a timeconsuming place.

To begin with, the answer to why we should limit the use of cars is stated in the form of pure science: pollution. All around the world, from North America to Asia, every continent has a majorly polluted city. Beijing, London, Mexico City, Miami, New York City, you name it! Major cities nowadays are becoming more polluted than ever before, due to gasoline and diesel fuel used in cars today. Overpopulated cities can have too many cars, and too many cars driven can increase the amount of polluted air around us. In document two, the capital of France, Paris, is home to almost ten million people. After days of an almostbroken record amount of pollution intoxicating the city, Paris enforced a driving ban for two days. Cars and motorcycles were forced to be left at home, or a steep fine will be charged. Even though almost 4,000 drivers were fined, congestion in Paris decreased by nearly 60%, after intense smog. Diesel fuel was the culprit to this pollution, due to France's tax policy that favors diesel fuel rather than gasoline. Diesel fuel cars make up about 67% of cars in France, comparing to an average 57% of diesel engines in Western Europe, according to Reuter's. The smog cleared enough on Monday for the French politicians to rescind the ban. In document three, Columbia's capital city, Bogota, had a goal to promote alternatives to personal transportation and reduce the amount of smog throughout the city. Day Without Cars was born, one day every month where cars are not allowed to be driven, or a fine will be charged. The turnout of people was immense, even though rain showers and thunderstorms poured onto the event. Mayor Antanas Mockus stated that the Day Without Cars ""was a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Parks and sports centers rose from the city streets, and sidewalks have been paved for bicycles and ongoing pedestrians. Limiting car usage is not be a bad thing, considering we need the air we already breathe.

Furthermore, limiting car usage is not a bad solution to the global pollution, and is not a bad solution to improve safety and conserve resources, either. Teenagers all over the world are more prone to accidents than any other age group. Getting your license is great, and driving alone is equally as awesome, but having no regard for safety while driving? Not as awesome as it sounds. For an additional document, it's life itself. Driving on a daily basis takes up gasoline, and lots of it. On average, a normal driver takes up about twenty gallons of gasoline a week, if not, more. Diesel fuel used in pickup trucks and semitrucks is more expensive, but lasts longer than regular gasoline. Resources have dwindled since the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico of 2011, and regular Americans are running out of the food for their car. On the safety spectrum, looking out for a street to turn at, for pedestrians, and for people that may cut you off sounds like a blast, but safety and crashesaccidents end up to be a result in many driving situations. Many people consider for driving to be unsafe, due to the statistics of daily crashes on highways, and even intersections, which happen to be the most dangerous place you can have an accident. Those types of people have put a hold on driving, and have caused a decline in the nation's miles driven per person scale, stated in document four. As of April of 2013, the number driven per person went down almost nine percent. Factors to that decline may have been the 2008 stock recession, or the fact that cars got smaller and more expensive. As a result, more people started to walk to work, or buy a bicycle, like they use mainly in Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Safety is becoming a subject that is mainly disregarded by citizens, and resources are becoming less and less, yet the alternatives for driving, such as walking or taking the city bus, are becoming more and more popular.

Moreover, car usage should become more limited because they are other ways, faster and more efficient ways, to get to your destination. Major cities all over the globe have a multitude of ways to transport people from one side of the city to the other. Taking buses, walking, taking the subway, helicopter, taxis, anything! Except a car. Car use in major cities is almost unheard of, as traffic is everywhere in a big city, and overpopulation can cause the traffic, or at least, be the contributing factor of it. People want to get to another place in sixty seconds or less, and driving in that matter never happens. For example, car use in New York City is busy. Of course, being ""the city that never sleeps"", cars are not the best way to get around. Walking or taking the subway underground helps get the people around easier and faster. As expected, a large drop in the percentage of teenagers getting there license has occurred, according to ducment four. New York has a new bikesharing program, and it's skyrocketing bridgetunnel tolls reflect those new priorities taking place. Driving by young people decreased significantly between 2001 and 2009. Woven into a connected web to save time, new alternatives to the polluting machines we call cars are slowly backing up into reverse, and disappearing from the category of main transportation.

In conclusion, limiting car usage is the best option to acheive all of the contributing factors. Pollution hurts cities and their environments, even their people. The air we breathe is more important than the amount of time it takes reach our destination. Safety improvements need to happen to make drivers have common sense and to not run over someone crossing the street. Resources are limited everywhere, and what we'll do after they've been gone? That answer has not been found yet. Saving time is our numberone priority, and we try to beat our records every time we go somewhere, whether it be using the same mode of transportation, or trying out a new one. Next time, be spontaneous for a day, and don't use a car. Try a new way to get to work taking the subway and watching a new scene come at you every two seconds or walk to work and admire the time slowing by around you. Breathe the fresh air like never before. Remember: it's not the destination that yiou should look forward to it's the journey.",0
c4816e09,1,"Dear Florida State Senator, The Electoral College is an unamerican, and unfair voting process. In America we believe in the people living in our country having the right to vote for their leaders, but what if they're not directly voting themselves? The electoral college is an inaccurate way of determining the leaders of our country compared to the other actually accurate way of voting, a direct vote election. The method of The Electoral College cannot always be controlled by the voters from their state, and is unfair to states with lower populations whereas the population of that state might not understand what exactly they're voting for. This doesn't seem exactly the way things are supposed to be in our nation since ""...over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now.""source 2, does it?

Though it is highly unlikely that a choosen elector from a state would not vote towards the chosen side their state decided and voted upon, they still have the opportunity to. This opportunity is unfair to the voters of the state as they are not directly voting for the president, such as how things are in a direct vote. A direct vote allows the candidate to be choosen and voted for directly by voters knowladgebly voting, then the highest popularity percentage from votes are then to have the candidate be elected, not by a group of people that have a chance to be bias from the voters in their state. This problem can occur by things such as state legislatures picking electors that may not vote in favor of the states population's choice, but their and state legislatures choice. Even though ""...almost all states award electoral votes on a winner take all basis,..""source 3 not all states electors must do so. They can and have the chance to choose whoever they want as the power to pick is in their hands, and out of ours.

In smaller states such as Hawaii and Alaska they are only given a total of 34 electoral college votes as their population is not as large as somewhere such as California, New York or Florida. This does not only matter due to the low number of votes awarded, but it also effects how much they may know about the candidates running for the position. A lot of candidates only choose to go to ""swing"" states California, New York, etc. in order to recieve more votes in the electoral college. ""...candidates don't spend time in states they have no chance of winning,..""source 2 this causes a lot of people in areas not visited to be unknowledgable about eligible candidates in the voting process, and what they could be voting for. These ""swing"" states help candidates reach their goal of the winning 270 majority votes out of the 538 possible. 538 may seem like a large number but compared to the population of the United States its not really all that large of a group of people. The population of our nation and the votes of our voters is much more larger then the decisions of 538 electors.

Now hopefully it is clearer to see the many problems of the current electoral college system, as it is unfair and irrational. Our nation's voters are the ones who should be voting in a direct vote in picking the president compared to the electoral college. As the method of the electoral college cannot always be controlled by the voters from their state, and is unfair to states with lower populations whereas the population of that state might not understand what exactly they're voting for. These are only a couple of the large problems caused by the electoral college.",0
c4f8d0e6,0,"Limiting car usage is beneficial to more than just the environment, it is also beneficial to humans. With all the pros and very few cons of limiting car usage, it would be impractical to not make the change. Some may argue that it would waste time to limite car usage, however, if widespread limitation of car usage occurs then the way we live will evolve to adapt to life without much car usage, making it far more convenient in the future.

A common misconception is that limiting car use is solely beneficial to the environment. In paragraph three a resident of Vauban is quoted saying, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" this shows that humans too can take advantage of limiting car use. In common culture today, destinations are far spread out and not compact unless in a large city. This is because it is possible to transport one's self those distances in a car. Limiting car use would effect the suburban culture of being spread out and change it into a more compact, convenient environment.

The obvious reason to limite car usage is to reduce air emissions that would allow us to have a safer earth to live on. Pollution has become a legitimant problem and if change isn't made, then the earth will be changed for the worse. Large cities where cars are abundantly used have a major problem with smog as seen in paragraph ten. In attempt to clear record breaking amounts of smog, Paris enforced a partial driving ban and it worked. This shows that by limiting car use change can be made to our environment for the better.

Without using a car, one would clearly need to find an alternative method of transportation. Common alternatives such as biking or walking spark a much more active lifestyle for those who do so. As seen in paragraph twentyeight, Bogota sponsors alternate forms of transportation and when this active lifestyle was embraced by the city, it changed the city for the better. As result it is quoted that, ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" This clearly displays a much healthier, active lifestyle by those who limite car use.

All of these products result in clear advantages caused by one thing, limiting car usage. It would be unsensible to not acknowledge that there is change that needs to be embraced in limiting car use in our society before it is too late to change the culture of driving.",0
c54eb14d,0,"Cars have been popular and widely used ever since they were invented. They offer a fast and efficient form of transportation across both long and short distances. In this aspect, cars may appear extremely beneficiary and useful in everyday life, but there are always downsides to great inventions, especially the invention of the car. More and more people from all around the world are realizing the harms that car usage brings and are beginning to abandon their cars altogether. The most apparent reason as to why cars are damaging is because of the great amount of greenhouses gases they emit into the atmosphere. They also bring about pollution and smog with them. Finally, and maybe surprisingly to some, people are actually happier without these pollution monsters.

To start, cars expel shocking amounts of greenhouses gases from their tailpipe. By limiting usage of these automobiles, the amount of green house gases can be significantly reduced. According to the source, In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars, cars produce up to 12 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in places like Europe, but an eyepopping 50 percent in the United States where there is heavy car usage. This is a lot of noxious gas that is being put into the atmosphere, and poses a serious harm to the people living in these cities. Greenhouse gases are an especially maleficent form of pollution because greenhouse gases tend to trap heat and other types of pollution from escaping the atmosphere, leaving filth in the air that are then absorbed by the lungs, ""choking cities Rosenthal 8."" This is without a doubt a serious problem, but it can be corrected simply by not driving as frequently. According to The End of Car Culture, ""But America's love affair with it vehicles seems to be cooling...If the pattern persistsand many sociologists believe it willit will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants Rosenthal 3234."" Simply by reducing car usage, these harmful toxins can be removed from the atmosphere.

Pollution is another quite obvious reason to why restricting car usage is beneficial. Cars release other toxins and gases as well that contribute greatly to pollution and smog.

Paris bans driving due to smog tells the story of how driving had to be banned for days because of the worst pollution the city has ever seen. According to this passage, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog...Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 144 in Brussels and 79.7 in London, Reuters found Duffer 1417."" This is a ton of particulate matter that will be all breathed in by the people there if they are not removed. Paris, Brussels, and London are not only the cities plagued by this pollution from cars as ""The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world Duffer 14."" Smog from pollution negatively effects many aspects of life, but the worst was that ""Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions Duffer 14."" This phenomenon forces the people to breathe these particles into their lungs. Pollution is a terrible occurence that tags along with car usage, but by simply banning cars with evennumbered licnese plates off the road for one day, the smog greatly lightened in severity, enough for the city of Paris to lift the ban. No one wants pollution in their city, and simply by cutting back on car usage, pollution can be greatly reduced for the benefit of the people.

Finally, and most surprisingly, people are actually happier and less stressed without these modern horses. Heidrum Walter, a mother who lives in the city of Vauban Germany, a community devoid of cars, says in the passage, Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars , ""'When I had a car I was tense. I'm much happier this way Rosenthal 3.'"" Carlos Arturo Plaza, a man in Bogota, Colombia, also commented during Bogota's Day Without Cars, in the source, Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota ""'It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution Selsky 24.'"" This may seen a little puzzling at first as to why people would not enjoy fast and convenient transportation, but then the answer becomes pretty obvious. Without cars, parks, sport centers, and other outdoor recreational places have started to pop up more amd more on the streets of cities once bustling with cars. The roads are much less congested and new shops and food centers have appeared as well. Limiting cars pleases people in many different aspects of their life.

Cars may appear to be helpful at times, but in reality, citizens are better off without these transportation machines. Not only do they greatly pollute the air and cause smog, they also spew out noxious greenhouse gases that cause more damage to the society as a whole. Finally, and probably most importantly, the citizens themselves enjoy life better when these cars are out of them. Although this doesn't mean cars should stop being manufactored altogether, people should think twice before jumping in their car next time.",0
c5c0a23a,0,"For more than a hundred years now, we have been relying on automobiles for many things. Since the beginning, we've seen a tremendous increase due to the more factories built and more company founded to create different versions and models of cars. We use them to go place to place. However, it does have its downfall. The majority of pollution caused by cars driven around the entire planet is caused by the emissions released from the car itself. Obviously that's nowhere near healthy so why not try limiting the car usage?

Many places round the world have already begun trying little projects inorder to cut back on smog or pollution. In Vauban, Germany, for example, a tremendous amount of people don't own cars. According to the excerpt from ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, it mentions how 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars and 57 percent sold one to move there. The streets are completely carfree minus the main thoroughfare where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs. All of this turned into a growing trend throughout Europe to separate suburban life from car usage. It's referred to as ""smart planning"". Experts say these changes are a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe. Another positive effect of this experiment, stores are placed a walk away, on a main straight, rather than in malls along some distant highway. Think about living in an environment where you can actually breathe in the fresh air and not choke on it thanks to the smell of exhaust fumes coming from all of the automobiles contesting the streets and cities you'd like to walk in.

Another advantage of limiting car usage is reducing stress and tension caused by driving. In Bogota, Colombia, millions of Colombians either hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during their ""carfree day"", according to the excerpt from ""CarFree Day is Spinning into a Big Hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky. The only permitted automobiles are buses and taxis during those days. The goal of the entire event is to ""promote alternative transportation and reduce smog."" Anyone who violated the program would face a 25 fine. ""'It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower pollution,' said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a two seat bicycle with his wife."" During one of the years, two more cities from the country joined. Due to event, it improved a campaign which began in the mid1990s where there's been a construction of 118 miles of bycicle path which is the most of any Latin American city, according to Mockus who is the city's mayor. Another positive result of this project was the blooming of parks and sport centers throughout the city. Even the uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced, rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut the amount of traffic and new restaurants have cropped up. It was as if the entire city itself was reinovated thanks to their CarFree Day.

Considering the fact that transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions according to the excerpt from ""The End of Car Culture"" also by Elisabeth Rosenthal, it's not a bad idea limiting car usage. At the end of the day, we have more advantages than anything else. Those include reducing the amount of smog and pollution caused by the automobiles' emissions and reducing stress plus the tension while drivng. Again, who wouldn't want to be able to walk around town enjoying the outside beautiful environment nature provides us with, without having to hold their breath everytime a car or truck passes by with their nasty exhaust fumes? Make the world a better place to live in.",0
c5e341ba,0,"Cars are the main cause of pollution in major cities. Cities are covered in smog from gas emmisions from a car's exhaust. This is not good for the environment. Something must be done about this. If the usage of cars is cut down, then the amount of pollution in the air will be less. A less usage of cars allows people to have a clean community and helps the environment.

In Germany, there is a small community that is completely carfree. This community, Vauban, has about 5,500 residents, and not a single one of them use a car. This community is very clean and all of the people that live there are happy. Just think, what if every family in Vauban had a car? It would completely change this happy, clean community. There would be a lot more pollution and more stressful citizens. More and more small towns are beginning to ditch the cars for walking and taking a bicycle.

More cities are starting to have carfree days to help with the pollution problems that are causedby automobile engines. Examples of these cities include Paris, France and Bogota, Colombia. Pollution is starting to be a big problem in big cities like these, so they have decided to take action. Pollution is destroying our atmosphere. The gases that are released from the exhaust of car engines slowly deteriorates the layer of atmosphere of our world.If cars begin to be frequently used like they are now, the atmosphere may become damaged beyond the condition for being fixed. Earth only has one atmosphere, so once it's gone, we can't get it back.

People in the United States are beginning to cut back on the number of people who drive cars. The U.S. has been one of the leading country with the number of people who drive cars and the amount of pollution, but people have been taking action and going for a greener alternative. In the fourth passage it says, ""A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009."" A lot of people between 16 and 39 do not even have a driver's license. People are starting to take public transportation and carpool instead of driving their vehicles from point A to point B. With more and more people doing this, it just lessens the amount of emmisions in the atmsophere more. America has passed it prime for driving because of the more and more who are taking action in making a change in the health of our world.

In conclusion, there are many reasons that we should start to lessen the amount of people driving on the road. It just causes pollution and makes the health and well being of others and the earth worse. People are already beginning to make a change, but we need more than there is to make a difference.",0
c5fcad85,0,"Throughout time, pollution has been known to be a huge environmental problem. The excessive amount of individual car owners driving down streets is in no way helping this issue. Efforts to diminish the number of cars we see on our roads have been taking place in order to help the environment and therefore citizens as well.

It is no news that passenger cars are harmful to the environment. They release gases that pollute the air we breathe affecting not only us but the environment as a whole. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of green house gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some areas in the United States Source 1. This realization has led to the promotion of ""carreduced"" communities by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency Source 1. But the problem is more widespread than that. Paris has acknowledged the importance of this issue after witnessing smog that rivaled Beijing, China, known as one of the most polluted cities in the world Source 2. Paris's solution was to enforce a driving ban in order to help clear its air. Due to this ban, congestion was down 60 percent shortly after the intensifying smog Source 2. It is a known fact that transportation is America's second largest source of emissions, therefore, limiting passenger car usage can greatly benefit the environment as well as citizens everyday lives.

Limiting car usage has not only proven to be helpful towards the environment but towards citizens as well. With a decrease in car usage comes new benefits not just to individual citizens but to communities. Less cars means less time in irritating traffic. Usually, car traffic and traffic jams leads to huge amounts of stress. This is because the idea of not getting to work is stressful not getting to work means losing money. Losing money adds even more stress. But when limiting car usage, losing money is not an issue one has to think about. Carlos Arturo Plaza agrees by stating that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress..."" Source 3. Rushhour restrictions and other efforts towards limiting car usage have cut traffic making it easier for citizens to get to their jobs Source 4. Those who choose other forms of transportation that are less harmful to the environment have even less of a problem and appear to be much happier. Heldrun Walter states that when she had a car she was always tense but now she is much happier Source 1. The evidence has proven that limiting car usage is beneficial to not only the environment but to citizens daily life as well.

Keeping a clean environment is something of major importance. If one does not take care of the environment there will seize to be a healthy environment in which to live in. Limiting car usage is a big step when it comes to keeping the environment free of pollution. Not only is it beneficial to the environment but it helps citizens live a much happier life lessening the causes of stress. Limiting car usage helps the air needed to breathe, the money coming into your pockets, and one's overall happiness.",0
c61b2b81,0,"People all over the United States, even the world, drive their cars to get to where they need to go work, school, the mall its a normal thing. But, the increasing number of greenhouse gas emissions are not normal. Imagine our world crumbling down, our air supply at its alltime minimum, the exuding amout of smog forming around us, our families and friends too ill to breath all because of cars. Along with many advantages, there should be a limit of car usage worldwide.

In the article paris bans driving due to smog, it explains the drastic change in smog formation, leading Paris officials to temporarily ban driving. Though a small percentage citizens citywide ignored the ban, the pollution was lessened enough to end the law after a day. Adding on in a different source written by Andrew Selsky, Bogota started the revolution of a carfree day once a year which promotes ""alternative transportation and reducing smog"". The productivity of this event has caused other countries to do the same, lessen vehicle usage.

Although there are a small number of cities and countries that have reduced their car usage, people can not hold the reliance on those multiple thousands of responsible citizens. Said in the End of Car Culture' by Elisabeth Rosenthal, ""... Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" and that is without putting an effort like Vurban. Vurban is a small city in Germany that has little to no cars. Stores are purposely placed on a walkway or a main street which eliminates the excruciatingly long car rides needed to get to a specific place. Because of telecommunication, sociologists believe that sooner or later people of America will take initiative and there will be no more vehicles, that the internet will be our form of connection. Therefore, eliminating the threat of greenhouse gasses.

During times of panic and frustration one is tempted to blame. If the beautifully lush world we live in goes crashing down, we all are the ones to blame. We, the ones who use our productivity wisley, will know we did our part limit the usage of cars.",0
c6ef94f2,0,"Cars have been a part of our culture for some time now. Since Henry Ford created the Model T, we have been crazy about these machines. Molding, crafting, and improving since, we have come to know these as daily objects. However, with all the new and progressing theories now, is there really a need for cars? Limiting car use cold be beneficial not only for the Earth, but also for people. Limiting car use can improve people's moods, can reduce pollution, and improve community interaction.

Firstly, limiting car use could in turn improve people's moods. In Vauban, Germany, there has been an experiment of great proportion. They are living a suburban life without cars. Not only is this community close and in touch, the people are happier. As mother of two Heidrun Walter stated, ""When i had a car in was always tense. Im much happier this way,"" it is showing that not having a car can really relax a person. Just think about it, no insurance, no car payment, no thinking if wil my car last until the end of today, just saving thousands a year and having a lot of stress put off.

Secondly, limiting car use can reduce pollution. Im almost certain we've all heard about Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases, and the devastation they do to our planet. without cars these problems are still present, but lack the massive numbers in which it was rising. Smog is a horrible kind of pollution that affects the biggest cities through the world. Paris banned cars for an entire day to remove the amount of smog in the area. This shows that pollution can be stopped. Even though they only banned even numbered license plates one day and odd another pollution still went down. If all cars were banned then pollution would have gone down even further.

Lastly, limiting car use can improve community interaction. People now dont need cars for everything. They can walk, and take trains, and carpool. All these interactions strengthen the community. Walking makes people maybe wanna buy things from stores along the way and help local stores. Taking trains can create friendships and long lasting personal businesses. Carpooling city down on emissions and reduces pollution. The community can do nothing but benefit from these.

In conclusion, limiting car use could be extremely helpful. It could improve people's moods, reduce pollution, and improve community interaction. Maybe someday we could actually get rid of cars and listen to the grinding of the pedals down the biking highways.",0
c71d940b,1,"Dear Senator, I, STUDENT_NAME, am in favor of changing our democracy to popular vote. Electoral college does no good to our society. It's out of date, it's irrational, everybody in this case has a great chance of becoming president. That is no good, we do not need idiots running our country. Election by popular vote is the best way to go. You will have a certain outcome and votes will be fairly made. It benefits everybody. More than half of our population wants you guys to make the switch.

The electoral college is not an up to date voting method. Our founding fathers made it many years ago while writing the constitution. It is a long process of nonsense that has no advantages to us, the people. By popular vote, it's faster, simpler, and better. Popular vote is basically a group of qualified citizens voting for the president. Popular vote is the best way for people to directly voice their opinions by picking the president of their choice. If we use the Electoral college, the electors of our state may not deliever it properly.

Over 60 percent of voters prefer direct elections. Government officials such as Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others all thought we should abolish the electoral college. Many things are wrong with the electoral college, we don't directly vote for the president but for the slate of electors, who eventually vote for the president. It in no way benefits the people, they have no control over who the electors pick. In many cases, people have decided to not even vote because there was no hope.

If there are greater chances of everybody being president, not only is there a fool running the country,he isn't going to worry about your interests or needs. If your own president won't help your interests, potential voters may be turned off. Isn't that horrible, to feel that our president isn't our president? Knowing that our vote will have less of an elect, we won't want to vote. Voters in presidential elections are people who have something to say and actually want to express themselves. They are not the people who don't care and just vote to vote.

You and the rest of the senate should consider this very deeply. It isn't just benefiting the people, but congress, the whole senate and most importantly, the president. It will make us a better nation and one as a whole. I hope you take this into great consideration and make the change. The only way to get back the peoples trust and votes is by taking baby steps. This is one great step and good things may come out of this.",0
c72e0e15,1,"Dear State Senator, I argue in favor of keeping the Electoral College, for this reason it wouldhave to be the fact that it is a much easier method electing presidential candidates. At times I know it can be unfair to most of the voters around the nation but this way is more easier than it might already seem. Instead of the people voting for which they think is the new president, it would be more likely the electors who elect the president for the state. These slate of electors are trusted to vote for the party's nominee. For some states it wouldn't be just random it be either democratic, or republicans. When having the electors it wouldbe possible to be the winner of the electoral vote but not the national popular vote.

For the president's chance of winning having an Electoral College will exceed his share of popular vote. An example would be the election backing 2012, Obama had 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to what Romeny had because most of the states awarded the electoral votes on the winnertakeall basis, can get a chance of having victory in winning the electoral vote. But there would be a possible chance of having a tie against the states.

Another reason for this debate would have to be the reason that the candidates themselves have to get the regional appeal from the states. For Romeny that gave him an opportunity but had little to offer. He no electoral votes in the states that he knowshe will win. For this unsuccessful result, Romeny only had regional appeal there for he was less likely to successes in the southern region. For other states that felt as if their votes didn't count, so there for assumed that Romeny had little interest, leading to the thought of an unlawful candidate. Swing states on the other hand have a chance of making it. The reason for that being is voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign knowing that they are going to decide the election. On avergae they are are thought of as the most thoughtful voters the result is that they have recieved more information and attention from the candidates.

Electoral Colleges balance the weight in political balance that larger states lose virtue of the Senate. For Obama he won that vote based on the amount of electoral votes he recieved from Florida was 29. Also 3 from the state of Wyoming. In other reasons, larger states recieve the most attention from the candidates than the small states do.

Based on the information I have provided you in this statement, I will concluded that sometimes this method can be a little complicated to most voters in the U.S. For the reason is that most of the smaller states remain unseen by the candidates of the elections but sometimesend up winning thepopluar vote for the candidate they chose. In the beginning in starting the Electoral College was held by our founding fathers of this great nation. There for this methodshouldremain as it should. Thank you for your consideration.",0
c72e64e1,0,"Limiting car usage can put a new perspective in your life. Limiting car usage can be a huge benefit because first of all, you'll have better healthe. This even goes out to thee healtheiest people in theis world. Secondly, Global Warming will be less harsh and dangerous to all thee living creatures of thee world. Lastly, you can be more open and associate withe many people. Limiting car usage is probably thee best idea to reduce all thee hazards and bad theings on Earthe.

To begin withe, I want to inform you theat car usage has become worse and worse over thee years. Our healthe is in jeopardy because of how much we use cars. But withe limiting car usage around thee globe anyone can become a healtheier person. A great percent of our population in the United States are overweight or obese. Even all over thee globe! Withe limiting how much time we use cars we can reduce theat percent and become healtheier people because theat way we can walk to our places and not just sit down in a car doing absolutely notheing. People have become much happier in limiting theeir car usage. Those people go out and get fresh air and not sit in a car going from place to place. And withe being much happier has come less stress. People who are too stressed are not to happy theat's why its better not using a car just to go grocery shopping. You wouldn't have to worry about thee lights and stop signs or be scared if your going to be in a car accident. The only time you should be able to use a car is going long distances and places like otheer cities.

To move foward, Global Warming has become a really big issue for us. All thee pollution theat Planet Earthe gets from cars is absurd! Cars release so much gas and harmful substances theat we breathee in. It doesnt only affect us but animal too and all living theings. Now thee smog has gotten way worse. Paris has a huge percent of smog covering thee city theat even France has enforced a partial driving ban to clear thee air of thee city. Congestion has gone down to 60 percent. Beijing, China is known as one of thee most polluted city in thee world. Now everywhere you go even if its really cold nights arent as cold as theey used to be. Cold nights and warm days have caused thee warmer layer of air to trap car emissions.

Anotheer theing about limiting car usage is theat you can even associate withe otheer people around you. Just walking to you local market or a food restaurant you are probably say hello to different people some even communicating withe theem. You can walk to parks or go walk to a nearest pool or beach and I guarantee you theat you're going to be talking to many different people theroughtout thee day. You can use alternative transportation such as bus, bikes, scooters and let me tell you being in bikes and scooters is a lot more fun a relaxing theen driving a car or being in one. Walking and hiking around is a huge relieve of stress.

Hence, limiting car usage is a big improvement for us it will help us in so many ways. Such as, we can improve our healthe and we could be so much better because a great percent of theis world is eitheer overweight or obese and limiting cars can help you go out and walk or even bikes can get you where you want to go and theats a form of exercise. Global Warming has been on thee rise. It's been rising and rising and limiting how much we use cars can absolutely help withe it by lowering thee pollution thee temperatures may not be so hot you wont feel like your boiling just walking outside your front door. You can associate withe many different people theroughout your day even if it's just a simple hello. Walking to grocery stores and restaurants can make you feel a whole lot better and relieve your stress and also communicate withe otheer people.",0
c74af9cf,0,"""Life goes on without cars.""Rosenthal.There are many advantages of limiting car usage. Two advantages to limiting car usage is it reducees smog and it helps with greenhouse gas emission.

To start of with limiting car usage helps with the reducetion of smog. To illustrate,in the text ""Paris bans driving due to smog""Duffer the city of Paris decides to put a ban on driving:""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31.The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day.""Duffer 10. This ban was put to good use by some but others still did not follow with the ban about 4,000 people were fined. People will still find away to break a ban or regulation that is put out. This just shows how many motorists are actually out on the streets of Paris but still a good number of people went through with the ban. Many people did participate inthis ban,it helps reducee the smog that is desperately needed in this city. To further illustrate , in the text ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hot in Bogota."" Selsky. Bogota, Columbia decides to put into place a carfree day to ""reducee smog. Violators faced 25 fines.""Selsky 21. Also like the ban in Paris this ban was put out to help with the cities problem with smog. In a capital city of over 7 million and people trying to get to work and on with there day of course there would be a problem with smog. The smog can cause many problems with the environment and health of the people in that community,especially in a city with a hot climate like Colombia. Also two other cities joined in this car free day: Cali and Valledupar. In both of these stories the ban limit on the usage of cars is for the one problem that many big cities face like Paris, booga , Beijing and many more:smog.

To continue , limiting car usage also helps with greenhouse gas emission. For example, in the text ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars""Rosenthal one of the reasons that Vauban, Germany decided to become a carfree suburb "" is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emission from tailpipe...""Rosenthal 5. ""Passenger Cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emission in Europe""Rosenthal 5 by having this city in Germany go carfree its going to help that 12 percent of greenhouse gas emisssion go down. Also, with that many cars in Vauban the environment is healthier which makes the people in that city healthier more stress free. Another example is in the text "" the End of Car Culture.""Rosenthal. With less Americans buying cars and driving less "" President Obamas ambitious goals to curb the greenhouse gas emission""Rosenthal 29 is beginning to happen. The greenhouse gas emission will be reaching a decline with the miles that people are driving going down. If the driving rates continue to go down and Obamas goal to reducee the greenhouse gas emission in the U.S. will go down and the country would not be responsible for up to 50 percent greenhouse gas emission in some parts of heavily populated car areas in the United States. Limiting the usage of cars can help with greenhouse gas emission.

In conclusion, There are many advantages to limiting the usage of cars. Two advantages to limiting the usage of cars is it reducees smog and it helps with greenhouse gas emission. Having a limit on car usage helps with the well being a the community.",0
c7c1cf69,0,"People all over the world are saying goodbye to their cars and saying hello to different, oldfashioned ways of transportation. This new trend involves walking, bike riding, and other types of public transportation. Certain cities, like Vauban and Paris, have started to set limitations on car usage. These limitations include days where cars with specific license plates are not allowed to drive that day or even complete days where no driving is allowed, failure to follow these rules results in a fine. Most citizens of these towns have been following these rules and have found to be quite rewarding. These advantages include stress relief and a happier attitude, less greenhouse emission into the atmosphere, and a overall better environment. Limiting car usage is more beneficial than it is negative.

One of the most beneficial parts of not using a car often would be the loss of stress and a increase in a happy attitude. Most people who have participated in the limitation of car use have had positive feed back. One woman in Vauban, Germany, where most citizens are giving up their cars, said ""when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."" Rosenthal, 3. Another man in Bogota, Colombia participating in their carfree day said ""'It's a good opportunity to take away stress...' said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife."" Selsky, 24. All around people who have joined this trend have started to become happier and less stressed as the start to leave their cars behind.

Another advantage of limiting car usage would be less greenhouse emission into the atmosphere. Cars play a huge part in greenhouse emission into the atmosphere, so limiting the usage would have such a positive result. According the the article In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars , ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive ares in the United States."" Rosenthal, 5. Knowing that, cutting out cars would minimize the greenhouse gas emission a huge percent in certain regions, like the United States. The article The End of Car Culture discusses how the amount of people who own cars keeps getting progressively lower each year, which will help with greenhouse emission. After discussing statistics of the amount of people who own cars in America, the article goese on to say, ""If this pattern persists and many sociologoists believe it will it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest sourse of America's emissions..."" Rosenthal, 34. With limiting the amount of car usage the atmosphere will be exposed to a lot less greenhouse emission.

One huge advantage of limiting the usage of cars would be a overall better environment. Many cities are so polluted and have air filled with smog, like Beijing and Paris. Some of this smog comes from cars. Paris is doing something to stop their smog from becoming any worse, they are banning driving. ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day."" Duffer, 11. A similar situation is happening in Bogota, Columbia. Bogota started a carfree day to help with their situation. ""The goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced 25 fines."" Selsky, 21. These new limitations on car usage are going to help save the environment.

Overall, the limitations that are being put on car usage have many advantages. The lack of car usage in certain areas is helping to create a better environment, give out less greenhouse emission, and give people a happy attitude. Putting limitations on car usage has benefited many areas and continues to benefit them now. Most of these places are continuing to progress and put more limitations on cars as they head into a nicer, brighter future.",0
c7cee2f0,1,"Dear State Senator, The Electoral College is a process of selecting electors to vote for the president. The Electoral College has both its pros and cons, many reasons for it to stay or be abolished. However, it has more reason to stay rather than changing to election by popular vote for the President. The wnning candidate for U.S President should be who's the best rather rather than who's more popular. The Electoral College may not be the most democratic method but, it does create a sense of balance. The Electoral College has equal tranregional appeal, and guarantees an outcome. therefore, the Electoral College should not be abolished.

The Electoral College guarantees an outcome. With popular voting and a tie could occur. As, source 3 ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" informs ""The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariable exceeds his share of the popular vote.""18. So the losing candidate could argue that winner isn't who the people want however, it's the political party members who chose the electors. In, Source 1 ""What is the Electoral College?"", it states that ""Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party..."" Therefore, there is no mystery or deceit, each party knows their electors and candidates so the people are the ones who indirectly chose the winner. As a result, the Electoral College promises an undebatabe outcome.

Also,the Electoral College doesn't have any prejudice based on region or location. ""The Electoral College requires to have a transregional appeal."" source 3. Therefore, a candidate has to campiaign in all regions, withought just focusing on just one. So every region has an equal oppurtunity and knowledge to be able to vote. Also this way there's a less chance of ""The residents of other reions to feel disenfranchisedto feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interest, that he really isn't their president.""19. That feeling of equality and ""my opinion matters"" is exactly what America is about and this aspect of the Electoral College captures that beautifully.

In conclusion, the Electoral college may not be the most democratic way of voting however, it is quite fair. If we only had popular voting candidates would possible just focuse on one are to build a strong support base. This would'nt give every region or person a fair chance and strong word, which is against everything America stands for. Equality is one of the major virtues of America and the Electoral College expresses equality through balance more so than popular vote. The Electoral College guarantees a certaint outcome without debates or tie breakers. It allows every region to have a fair chance in the election by making sure they are well informed and included through the recquirment of transregional appeal. For these reasons the Electoral College should not be abolished and changed to popular vote for United States of America.",0
c7f747cb,1,"Dear State Senator , I wrote this letter to you to talk about keeping the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote for the President of the United States. My opinion on this intriguing subject is that we should keep the Electoral college , my reasons being that voting by a popular vote can sometimes go wrong and we avoid the RunOff Elections. When its time to pick a new president very few people research about this president and his slate of electors , they just vote for the most appalling to them , the one that is always out and doing meetings, or brunches , or just having a perfect day with their family. People that research or dig deep to find out who they are really voting for.

Let me start by saying that the ones whom created the Electoral College , where our founding fathers , these men are thought as wise and caring for their country. The reason stated why the Electoral College should be kept because popular voting can go wrong. Yes the popular vote of the Electoral College its worth but maybe not that much. In Defense of the Electoral College : Five reasons to keep our depised method of choosing the President , it states that "" But each party...win the national popular vote""source 3. Posner is stating that each party picks their electors to be trustworthy , not someone who would do dirty work behind their backs. People go out and vote for our next president and see them running our country , but sometimes people vote for a president for the reasons being that they just want to vote. Its not like the lines outside are not long enough for a person to just go into the voting booth and pick a random president and just leave. People dont actually look behind, search for whom they are voting for.Thats why the Electoral College shouldn be ruled out , the Electoral College is actually helping out more then we thought. When we least expect it we have a crazy wako running our country , then that would be the time when the people would Notice that they made a huge mistake.

RunOff elections , sounds like a tedious process. When RunOff elections occur some people get annoyed , why its a longer process. We get a little bit delayed on finding out on whom the president of the United States is going to be. People want to know who going to be the next president of their country , whos going to try to fix the small little problems the last president left. THose are mainly alll the questions these voters ask. In The Indefensible Electoral College :Why Even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong , Bradford states "" At the most basic level...in the ""swing"" states"" source 2. Bradford claims that the candidates dont spend much time in states that they know wont get plenty of votes. Well true but why would they both of theses candidates are running for president they need to get as many votes they can if they are bad or good. Even though we are technically not being fair with theses states why because the candidiates arent paying so much of the their attention and aren't caring for those states votes. This country runs off on what the people want but sometimes are the people being fair?.

Keeping the Electoral College can be a really good thing do to the fact there are people that do know about choosing a president.It's been stated before that some people dont care at all who the next president is, as lonmg as they fix their problems and they have jobs, and good medicare they are perfectly fine who the president is. The Electoral College is like a helping hand.",0
c8505f9b,1,"Dear Mr.Mrs. Senator, The Electoral College is a process created by the founding fathers of America to choose a president by a vote in Congress and by a popular vote of qualified citizens. I believe this is not a very effective process. I think that we should go to popular vote because it allows the citizens to have a vote and it is not up to people that alread run our country and it allows the president to be chosen fairly.

To begin with, the electoral college is not a good idea because it allows citizens to have a voice and it is not decided by people that already run our country. If we resorted to this method, there might be a higher voter turn out because the citizens will feel that they really have a say in who runs the country. They won't think that if they vote for one person and they win, that some lousy people in Congress will come in and make a different decision and go against the majority. This will make more and more people want to make a difference in the country. Then we will have more concered citizens and the U.S. will be a better all around country. As stated in Source two, ""voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" That fact is why we should absolutely not have an electoral college. Then if we don't have an electoral college then we will have a higher voter turn out. Then after that, the good ole USA will be a better country than all of the other countries in the world combined except for our health and education. That is just one reason why should not have an electoral college.

Additionally, we should not have an electoral college because it will then allow us to chose the president fairly. With not having the electoral college vote on a president, it would make the voting system more fair and not based on a few people. Then when people try and figure out if they will vote or not, they will think, ""hey, my vote does matter because there is no electoral college to spoil my vote!"" This would make for a much better run country because the citizens have a voice in the government. The only reason a citizen would not vote would be if they were critically injured or they didn't like any of the canidates. This is just one of the many reasons why we should get rid of the electoral college.

In conclusion, we should get rid of the eclectoral college because it would give the citizens more of a voice and it would make the voting process more fair. This would make the government and the country run smoothly and a lot better than if we keep the electoral college.

thank you for your time Mr.Mrs.",0
c88db4ed,1,"Even though the Electoral College is known as a disaster factor, it has its benefits. The Electoral College is a process that consists of the selection of the electors. Each candidate running in your state has his or her own group of electors that are voted for. When you vote on election day, which is held every four years on Tuesday after the first Monday in november, you vote for the candidate's electors. Many politicians wanted to abolish the Electoral College because of its lack of democratic pedigree, but the college doesn't allow voters of other regions to feel disenfranchised, it avoids runoff elections, and thinks that the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election.

The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have a transregional appeal. It would not be fair for a candidate to campaign heavily in a state that they know they are going to win. This does not gain them any electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows will win. This causes voters that are from the opposite region to feel as if their votes did not count, that their new president would not care about their interests or values. The president would not really be their president because of the fact that they were ignored.

Voters that are more likely to pay attention to the campaign by listening to each opposing sides that compete against one another should decide the election. If voters that voted didn't care and picked the weaker candidate, then everyone would pay the price. The knowledgable voters listen to the competing candidates and will receive the most information and attention from the candidates. This leads to a candidate worthy enough to become president, which will choose the country's decisions for the next four years.

Runoff elections, where elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast is avoided. There is pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast, which complicates the presidential election process, but is reduced by the Electoral College to announce a clear winner. The runoff election once happened to Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992.

Many argue the fact that the Electoral College method may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope for carrying their state. People knowing their vote will have no effect, will have less intentions of paying attention to the election then they would have if the president picked the popular vote. Voter's in presidential elections are people who want to express a political reference and want the best for their country's future rather than people who think one vote may decide the election and disregard the point of voting.",0
c8a6cc20,0,"Not a day goes by that you don't see a car passing by on the street. Often, we don't think much of it and the effects it has. Throughout the world there are communities campaigning, trying to lower the usage of motor vehicles. The citizens in these communities are aware of all the cons that come with driving cars. There are plenty of benefits to not driving cars everyday such as, lower the amount of air pollution, being inclined and motivated to exercise often, and the money that this act can save.

The number of cars being purchased in America has been dwindling with each year that passes. If this pattern persists it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment. This is due to the fact that transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just barely behind the power plants. At one point in Paris, France, there was an extreme case of congestion which provided the air with more than its fare share of smog. The city was told to momentarily stop the driving of motor vehicles. congestion went down 60 percent after five days of intensifying smog. The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the world's most polluted cities. By driving a car less the environment benefits emmecely.

In Vauban, Germany it costs 40,000 to have a place to park your car along with your home. As a result from that about 70% of the families in Vauban don't even own a car, let alone drive one. Heidrum Walter notified people saying, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" She along with &0% of the citizens walk verdant streets and ride bicycles. As a result they are getting a measure of exercise more than they would be getting if the drove cars. When you excersise and sweat, your body releases endorphines which triggers a chemical in your body. The triggering of that chemical causes you to feel happier which is just what the people of Vauban are.

Some people are very well capable of purchasing a car but don't. Just that simple Non act saves them quite a handful of money. Now, sometimes things like driving a car are necessary, so I'm not saying NEVER drive your car. However, if in the cases where it isn't necessary you were to walk or ride a bike you would potentially be saving pockets of money because gas isn't being purchased as frequwntly as it would be otherwise. The reduced amount of car driving even benefits your bank account.

Motor vehicles, such as cars and motorcycles, are not always necessary. Not utilizing them comes with plenty of benefits. It reduces the amount of smog and air pollution, it makes you healthier and potentially happier, and lastly it saves you money. Walk around a little. Go on a bike ride. Experience all the beneifts of leaving your car in the garage.",0
c8b89dd4,1,"Dear, state senator I think we should change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. I think this because the Electoral College does not seem fair, the president that usually wins in popular vote loses to the vote for presidency, it is considered a nondemocratic method for selecting a president, and it is all up to the electors of a candidate. The Electoral College should also be changed to popular vote because it is not the people who are choosing the president, it is the three electors sent from each different state.

The Electoral College should be changed to election by popular vote, because it is not fair to the candidates. This is because most presidents that win the popular vote section of the election then end up losing the presidential vote section, an example of this is when candidate Al Gore received the most individual votes when running against George W. Bush, but Bush won the electoral section, receiving two hundred and seventyone against Al Gore's two hundred and sixtysix. The Electoral college is also unfair to voters, because of all of the states winner takeall system of government, and in seventeen states they did not get a chance to see the candidates. Most people believe the Electoral College is outdated and irrational, a person named Bob Dole, believes that the Electoral College should be completely abolished. Another big problem in the Electoral College is segregationists who do everything to go against certain parties and their candidates, like the time in 1960 a group of segregationists almost succeeded in their effort to get rid of all democratic electors so that new electors would be opposed to John F. Kennedy.

The Electoral College should also be changed to election by popular vote, because people consider it nondemocratic. This is because the voting is all up to the electors selected by each of the different states, meaning that the actual people of the state have no power in the election of the candidates for president. When the people of the state take their vote for the candidates they are actually voting for potential electors who will then go represent the selected candidate, this gives rise to problems like corrupt electors who are dishonest and using cheating tactics, also most states know that their votes will do nothing to help the candidates being represented, examples would be the Democrats in Texas and the Republicans in California. It is also believed that the Electoral College makes potential voters not want to vote at all and they end up not representing their candidates. And most people already have a certainty of the outcome of the election, meaning they already know who will win the election based on the number of votes so far in the popular votes section and the electoral section. The system of electors is also not fair because the people can not control who they are voting for has the electors, and the states number of electors are equal to the number of people on its congressional delegation, which gives big states an advantage over small states.

To conclude this letter, I again say that the Electoral College should be changed to election by popular vote because, popular vote is fairer then the Electoral College, the people have no power compared to the electors and the are subject to corruption with in the system.",0
c8c72ecb,1,"When you vote for president you want to vote for who you choose. Thats not how it always works though. We you vote for president you are actually voting for a candidate who will then go and vote for president. Is that really fair? Many people dont think so. The electoral college should be abolished because it isnt always fair, who cant be sure if your voting right and it is not democracy.

When you vote for a candidate you trust they will vote for who they say they will. but is it always true? what is the candidate feels like they dont agree with that person any more and vote for a different one? You and everybody else who voted for that canadaite are now voting for an opposing candidate. is that fair to who ever voted for that candidate now?

You can never be sure if you are voting right. what if that candidate dose not vote like they are supposed too. ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always."" says Plumer about the chance a candidate will vote for someone else. You can never really trust someone you have never met. Humans are very despitefully creatures, we all lie and decive. how can you trust a random canadite just because he says he or she will vote for who you want to vote for? wouldnt you rather vote yourself?

Democracy is giving people the rigth to help govern there own country. Isnt the electoral collage taking that right away? Even though this is in the Constitution it is unconstitutional. ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to all voters."" says Plumer. He is correct about the electoral college and its unfairness to US citizens.

The electoral colleage may have had a good reasson for existing when they made the constution but that was about a 100 years ago... Dont you think we have chaged since then? The anwser is we have and so should they way our goverment works. If we keep the same goverment into the future where everything will change we will be in for a load of trouble.",0
c912a6c3,1,"The President of the United States is currently determined by an electoral college. The electoral college process involves the public voting for their elector and not the main focus, the candidates. Through this, many of the states gain more power than they should, and the votes are set up as a ""Winnertakesall"" system. This unnecessary and inaccurate use of votes is outdated and needs to be shut down.

In an instant, an electoral college voter could change his or her mind and go against his or her original political party. This is a completely unfair use of power because it reverses all of the votes that went to the elector and to all of the voters who were counting on the elector to properly represent their vote. The voters have no say in whether the elector will stay true to his or her party.

The easiest way to prove that the electoral college must go, is to reveal the facts. In source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College it states ""over sixty percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now"". Multiple icons such as Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO have stated they would like to abolish the electoral college as well! We now have the majority vote to put an end to the electoral college and the unfair system.

""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote,"" says source 2. A tie in the votes, which is very much possible since the total number of votes is 538, according to source 1, could then allow the fate of America to rest in the hands of the House of Representatives, a miniscule representation of the people. If the voting system were to be changed to the popular vote, the results would accurately display the winner that the majority of America chose.

""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational,"" says Bradford Plumer, and he couldn't be closer to the truth. The electoral college system does not represent the people of America accurately and is more likely to result in a tie compared to the popular vote. To conclude, source 3 says the electoral college is ""a nondemocratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner "".",0
c9148c88,0,"when looking at the world from a birds eye view, it is possible to see the beauty in the world Even so, in certain developed and developing areas, the people are choking. The choking is not just supported by the violated environment, but along with that, society is an advocate for the pain of the people. An intrugal part of the current society is the usage of cars. With the progressing world also comes regress, and according to an article written by the New york times in 2013, it was stated that in countries such as the United states of America, ""Americans are buying less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" This eventually has lead to a limiting in car usage in the U.S.A. Although the car industry may suffer from this, it is essential to note that, the limiting in car usage does not really have a negative impact on the public. In fact, in the long run, the limiting of car usage will be beneficial to society as a whole. This can be seen in three major ways, with first, public benefits , second, cheaper and timesaving methods , and finally the unmatched environmental benefits.

As people continue to choke from the pain, it becomes important to identify the remedy to the problem, and limiting car usage is the definitely one of the best ways to reduce the harms. The public benefits can be broken down into reduced stress , more space , and increased safety. Starting off with stress, Heidrun Walter, a mother of two children stated that she was ""always tense"" when she had a car. she now lives in the German city of Vauban. Here most people have given up on cars, including Mrs. Walter. As a mother of two she ultimately is a strong advocate of car usage limitation. With Mrs. Walter, businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza stated that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress"". These people have already felt their stress decrease with the limitation of car usage and this is a major benefit. Moving toward space, an article written by Elisabeth Rosenthal in 2009, states in this new approach, we will have make it so there is less space for parking. With less space for cars, there is more space for people. Not only that but with the increased limit, there is a decrease in traffic. Traffic can be extremely long, and in this case it will help to increase public space. Although traffic does not pose threats to the people safety, in the long term car accidents do pose a major threat. Therefore, with their limit, there can be an increase in safety for the people. Moving back to Mrs. Walter, she as a mother of two did want the best for her children, and above all comes their safety. Meaning that her choice can also reflect the safety that this limitation produces.

Although people do want to benefit as individuals, it really comes down to the cost at the end point. But limiting car usage is actually not that expensive to the average person. In fact, by limiting cars, alternate transportation is promoted. Countries such as Colombia, have move on to bicycles. The major of Bogotaa city in colombia said that due to the limitation of cars for a day ""It has seen the constuction of 118 miles of bicycle paths"". This is cheaper because the prices og bicycles are pale in comparison to cars. This means that transport would be so much more affordable. Now with the increase in bicycle travel, there would hardly be any large amounts of traffic. And although cars are much faster than bicycles, the fact that traffic will be a major factor in travel, bicycle travel will be more efficient. This ultimately means that by limiting car usage, transportation will be cheaper, and it will be just as efficient, if not more. It can be said that it would be difficult to manage bicycle travel, but David Goldberg, an offical of transportation for America said that in countries such as the U.S.A. 80% of appropriations have gone to highways. This ultimately sets the stone for the construstion of these lanes. By limiting car usage, these appropriations can be set aside for other means of transportation. Indeed in the end Vauban is correct in calling this ""smart planning"".

Now comes out the benefits everyone knows about: the environmental benefits. Smog has been one of the largest problems that is choking the people around the world. In countries such as China, it is elementary that those people as facing large amounts of smog, daily. But what may not be as common to people is that a country such as France has also started to see a similiar problem. Pollution in France is actually rivaled by Beijingone of the most polluted countries in the world as reported by the Chicago tribune on 2014. Cars have been the major cause of this, considering the fact that a large amount of carbon emission were sent out by cars. In fact an article named ""The end of car culture"" states that cars are one of the highest sources for carbon emissions. By limiting car usage, cities such as Bogota and Paris, faced amazing results. Overall by limiting car usage the environment benefits exponentially.

In the end the solution to the people choking in the world, is simple: limiting car usage. The advantages of this limitation can be seen with benefits to socitey. This can be seen with public benefits, cheaper and time saving methods and of course the environmental benefits.",0
c9401097,0,"The usage of cars has really changed the way our world works. These expensive vehicles are what make make our world what it is and people take advantage of it. With cars we get to places faster than on a bike or even walking. Many people forget how cars work though. It takes up about 2,000 dollars a month depending on which car they have on gas and maintenance. The advantages of limiting car usage is reducing the amount of fuel the we use, we would save thousands of dollars, and become more green in the world. People prefer walking or biking to school or on their way home.

Driving starts at the age of 15. Imagine all the work parents do to drive their kids to school, then to work, and then pick up their kids from after school. Its crazy how much of gas an adult would be using every single day. Ofcourse picking up their kids from school is a guarantee but their are many other solutions to these type of things. If we started to use less fuel it would bring our economy out of debt. In the article by Elisabeth Rosenthal ""The End of car culture"" states that Americans have not been buying cars as often and driving less and fewer license being given over the years. The era of cars and driving could be coming to an end and creating a new way of getting to places. People would say that taking the bus might become the new strategy but who knows what the future holds for America, by the year 2030 we will be flying in cars or transportation to get to where we need to be. Transportation is the second largest source in America and vehicles are becoming something much different.

In New York a bikesharing program has started due to all the traffic and crowded streets their are people just take the subway and get to places faster than a car. Things like that save so much money. A change in the world would be very dramatic since everyone is so used to driving a car and getting to where they need to be. Studies shown by Elisabeth Rosenthal that even kids who live in urban areas that are 1921 do not have license and are perfectly happy with out having one. With the amount of money people can save in motorvehicles is ridiculous. The money they save can be used for many other important things in life like food and house spending all those things can get someone stressed could be fixed just by reducing the use of cars. Who says walking or biking isn't good for the soul.

Technology has really changed our lives and made our generation of children a new perspective that other never saw. As a teenager we are so dependant on many thingas and get addicted very fast to whatever comes at us. A day with out a car is like a day with out a phone. We wouldnt be able to particapat in anything. A car will take us where we want to go. Unlike in those movies where all the kids just bike to places, it seems more fun and interesting in that way. With all the money being spent we could be more green in the world as well. Everything is so manufactured in the world that people wonder why our economy is awful. Being eco friendly is the best way to go if everyone particiaptes in the cause. The world would honestly be such a better place if we all particapated in making it better.

Causes and actions have consequences in our world. The usage of cxars are very dependant on people and if we made a change people will be happier in life because they'll have more to recieve. Our world can become a much better place where people won't have to suffer with money because due to cars we pay alot of money that doesnt have to be spent. Cars can increase alot of positive things in everyones life and it will start out just by a casual walk on the street.",0
c973d4d8,1,"Dear state senator, I personally believe that we should stick to and continue the idea of the Electoral College. For one, there are trusted electors in the Electoral College that are trusted to vote for the right candidate. Secondly, there isn't much that can go wrong in the Electoral College. Last but not least, by electing a president of the United States through popular vote, the right person may not be elected to be president for our country.

To start off, there are trusted electors in the Electoral College that are trusted by the parties to make the right vote for president. The Electoral College is a system that was created by the founding fathers created in the Constitution. When voters go off to the polls most have the thought in their mind that they are voting for their next president when they really are not. In the Electoral College there are 538 electors, which ever candidate gets the majority of 270 electoral votes wins the election. In source 3, the passage states ""When you vote for a presidential candidate you're actually voting for a slate of electors"". The electors that are in the Electoral College are selected by a certain party and the party trust that the person will vote for that certain party's candidate. With this process, the candidate that ends up getting elected is more likely the right candidate for the president spot.

Secondly, when using the Electoral College there ins't too many things that can go wrong. Most people that choose to go against the Electoral College would say that ""with the Electoral College its not really our choice when we vote because in the end the electors from the party vote for the president"". In source 2, the passage states ""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote."" If a tie with the electoral votes is to ever take place, the House of Representatives would handle the election and state delegations would have the final vote for president. Also, if a tie does take place then the Senate would vote for the vicepresident.

Last but not least, if we switch to the popular vote election process then the right president candidate may not always be elected. This point can go against both sides. The side that supports the Electoral College may say ""the people may vote for a certain candidate because of his color or race"". The side that supports the popular vote system may say ""when we go out to vote it doesn't count towards anything because of the electors in the Electoral College. So why are we even going out to the polls to vote?"" Also, with the Electoral College there will not be any runoff elections. In source 3, the passage states ""The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast"".

In conclusion, I believe we should keep the Electoral College system going so we can have a more fluent election process. For one, there are trusted electors in the Electoral College that the parties trust to make the right vote. Secondly, when using the Electoral College there isn't too many things that can go wrong with the election process. Last but not least, if we switch to the popular vote election process them the right president candidate may not always be elected.",0
c9d4dbc6,0,"Since the car was first created there has been many innovations to different types of cars. However, studies have shown that in the last few years the percentage of people getting a license has dropped. There are many advantages in limiting car usage not only in the city but also in the suburbs.

The first of these advantages has to due with our never ending problem with our environment. For example, as stated in source number 2 the city of Paris had been very polluted. To solve this problem the ruling party in France enforced a driving ban. After five days of this driving ban being in effect the smog in Paris had gone down by 60%. because of this ban the city of Paris is a cleaner place to live now and another result of this ban is that people truly can see how much pollution these cars create.

Another advantage of limiting car use is that once these cars are gone people are much more sociable. In source 1, the government of Germany has created a suburban community where there is no cars. Car ownership is allowed however there are only two places to park and it is very expensive. Because of this 70% of families in this community do not own cars. To get around in this community you are able to walk, ride a bike, skate, etc. As a result, you do not hear cars on the streets but you do hear bike swishing and kids playing with eachother. Many studies have also shown that a day without a car is a very effective stress reliever, as stated in Source 3.

Now a world without cars is very hard to imagine because of all the different places that everybody has to get there however, there are many alternatives to using cars on a daily basis. These alternatives include public transportation, bikes, skates, walking, and also car pooling. If there is a reduction of car usage the environment will receive a very large benefit.

As the articles provided has shown, there are many advantages to the limiting of car usage and it will not only benefit us as humans but also our environment.",0
c9fdddd7,0,"Automobiles have proved to be very convenient to our modern day society. It allows people to travel 20 miles in ten to fifteen minutes. By foot, it would take about four hours to travel that distance. Although cars have been beneficial, the limitation of car usage would outweigh the benefits of constantly relying on them. Decreasing the amount of time we spend in them would improve public transportation, improve air quality, and create less stress.

Cutting down the amount of car usage would encourage the use of public transportation. According to Source 1, the essentially carless suburban, Vanbaun, has made public transportation more accessible. Increasing the use of it would decrease the time it takes to commute from place to place. Less cars on the roads mean less traffic. In small towns, not as many people currently use the system on a regular basis. With the limiting of car usage, public transportation could become more popular in suburban areas, not just metropolitan cities. Some may not want to take this form of transportation because it may not meet their sanitary needs. However, if the popularity increases, cities will be obligated to improve the conditions. Public transportation could be the new primary form of transportation if we limit the amount of time cars are allowed to be used.

Additionally, a large problem in the world today is air pollution and global warming. Automobiles cause the majority of this ongoing problem. Less time spent in the car would eventually lead to better air quality. Source 2 states that in Paris, France the smog in the city was nearrecord pollution. This caused Paris to enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air. Congestion was cut down 60% after this action was taken. Vehicles release numerous harmful greenhouse gases that we have been trying to reduce. These gases not only harm the environment, but the people as well. New and popular alternatives to the common diesel cars are hybrids and electric cars. Less car usage would result in reduction of pollution.

Also, using a car less decreases stress levels. According to Source 3, in Bogota, Colombia, citizens participate in the very popular carfree day. A businessman in Colombia said, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress."" Cars do not allow people's mind to stop and rest. A driver's mind is constantly thinking and attempting to get to their destination as fast as possible. If cars were barely used, people could take a serene stroll to their destination, allowing the mind to slow down, think, and relax. Parks and recreation would expand and improve as well due to the smaller vicinity we can reach by foot or bike. New and improved public areas would become more enjoyable, making us less stressed. Stress levels decline as car usage declines.

The increased use of public transportation, improved air quality, and lower stress levels all result from the limitations of car usage. As beneficial as a car may be to people, limiting the use of it is more advantageous than not. Car companies are still widely developing as highways and roads are expanding, but our society should go the other direction and find healthier sources of transportation.",0
ca8de10c,1,"Many elections have passed throughout the years. When its time to vote people go out crazy just to cast in their vote. They are hoping that the candidate they selected gets nominated and win. The Electoral College is a method to elect presidents which in some way its a good thing. The way i see it its not, so i claim to change the way presidents are elected by changing to election by popular vote rather than the Electoral College because it is unfair. Also, its not really you who is being a part of which president you chose to win. Last of all, its a waste of time.

To start off the Electoral College should be replaced with election by popular vote because it is unfair for the most part. The Electoral College has its good part which states in source 3, paragraph 22 "" In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep your despised method of choosing president"" "" The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."" It shows how it helps with the majority votes. Yet it is more unfair as it states in source 2 paragraph 12 ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" ""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, he election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote the president."" This shows how if there is ever a tie then really your vote doesnt count since someone else has to end up deciding who to elect for president.

If we were to elect presidents by popular vote then it would be more fair since we are electing them with our votes.

Following how the Electoral College is unfair, it also shows how we really dont elect the president. In source 2 paragraph 10 it states ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" This shows how our votes go to their electors rather than us electing the president. That is not a good way to count our votes because you never know if the elector is in favor or not with their candidate. Also, the electors could be anyone as it says in source 2 paragraph 10 "" They can be anyone not holding public office."" We never know if the electors are reliable and it can affect some people since they voted for that specific candidate to be president and they didnt get enough votes when in reality its between their electors and states. It just shows how in reality our votes dont really have a say and count in the way where we don't elect the president.

Not only is the Electoral College unfair and it really doesn't let us elect the president, it also is a waste of time. It's good how the Electoral College has steps and takes time to go through the motions of how many votes and who does the electors vote for and all, but it takes a whole lot time for nothing really. The election is really not with our votes, but between the state, House of Representative , and their electors. It just waste time as in source 2 paragraph 12 it says "" Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives. where state delegations vote on the president. The Senate would choose the vice president. Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming. representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people."" This shows how it takes a long time within just them when we just waste our tim with voting since they would have the last word.

In conclusion, I claim on changing to election by popular vote than keeping the Electoral College because it is unfair. You arent really the one choosing the president, you are choosing their electors. At the end of the day its a waste of time for us to vote and to go through all those steps with the Electoral College and wait to see who gets elected. The Electoral College in a way shows how our vote doesnt really have a say and count directly towards the president. It is much better if the election would be by popular vote since it is us electing and we know who we voted and all. This way it let's us speak through our votes.",0
ca99f3b0,0,"The time for the automobile is slowly passing. More and more people prefer carpooling and walking then driving a car. Why is that? It could be due to the unemployment rate skyrocketing or less people wanting a car. There are many benefits to driving a car. Being able to get to point A to point B, faster travel time, and it is more private than a bus. But what are the downsides? Pollution, more antisocial humans, and the cacophony of horns and engines. Giving up the car should be on every countries todo list.

Some nations, such as Paris, France, find out about the downside of cars the hardway. Pollution is a very real problem in todays society. In 2014 the city had a nearrecord high of pollution, rivaling Beijing, China, the most polluted city in the world source 2. After debating, the French ruling party decided to ban driving for odd and even licence plate numbers on opposite days until the smog count went down. It took five days, but they managed to have most of the smog cleared. Decisions like these cause controversy everywhere, but we have a responsibility to our planet not to destroy it with greenhouse gases.

In a suburb in Germany, they have a carfree neighborhood. They are allowed to own cars but it costs 40,000 and they can only park at the edge of the neighborhood. This alone caused 70% of the neighborhood to not own cars source 1. A woman in Vauban,the neighborhood,said that not owning a car makes her less tense and more happy. With this you can conclude that most of her neighbors feel this way also, otherwise they wouldn't have moved there. Having less stressed people, less polluted airways and less car accidents always sounds like a good solution to me.

In a city in Columbia they have a carfree day, where cars are banned from the city source 3. Even though it was rainy it did not stop people from participating at all. In fact, it has even spread across its borders. A businessman said this was a good way to lower stress swell. Without cars, this city has seen more bikeway paths, parks and community centers being built and rush hour traffic being cut down dramtically. This new trend has promoted people to be more healthy and social. Not only has this affected the airs it has affected business. With more people walking, new restaurants and shopping centers have cropped up. Having more and more people spending their money helps their nations economy in great ways.

After all this evidence the only conclusion we can come to is that having less cars would help humans immensly. Not only does it promote physical exercise but but cuts down on polution. Yes, it would have hurt car manufacturers but the businessmen don't exactly just lay down and take it. Bill Ford has already suggested working with the new trend source 4. Without cars the obesity problem, especially in America, would decrease. As well as the number of asthmatic people. Taking this data and doing something with it would not only help the life living on this planet, but it would help the planet too.",0
cab59ae3,0,"Cars have been part of our daily lives for decades and have become somewhat idolized in American culture. But cars are slowly killing our planet and are speeding up the Greenhouse effect taking place within our Earths atmosphere. We've become entirely too dependent on cars to get us where we wish to go, making many people lazy. Cars also emit gasses that can harm our internal body structures, causing problems with lung diseases and just the simple act of breathing. Many cities from all over the world have taken measures to limit the use of cars in daily life, making their homes cleaner and healthier to live in. More cities should start to do this as well to help save our planet and ourselves.

Environmentalists have hated cars for a long time because of the harmful effect it has to air we breathe. When nearrecord levels of smog filled the air of Paris, they enforced a temporary driving an in efforts to reduce the smog and within five days the smog cleared enough to allow citizens to start driving once again. In America, the number of drivers and car owners has been steadily reducing since 2005 and many experts believe it will continue to. A revolution could be started if enough people stop driving personal vehicles and instead walk, bike, or even just use public transportation.

People have adjusted over the years to things being given to them without them doing much to get it. Cars contribute to this and have caused laziness in many car owners. In Bogota, Columbia they have initiated and annual carfree day where everyone has to get to their jobs by means of biking or walking or taking public transportation. Carlos arturo Plaza rides his twoseat bicycle with his wife to work and both like the idea of limiting air pollution caused by cars. Pollution from cars can be dangerous for humans as well as the environment. By breathing in harsh gases we could acquire diseases such as COPD and lung cancer. Cars allow people to live unhealthy lifestyles in comfort while unknowing of the harm its causing. They are an insidious problem.

Cars have been gradually degenerating the planet and harming the people who use them. Thankfully many officials are working hard to limit this but we all have to contribute.",0
cad31d61,0,"Many Americans today use cars to commute from one place to another, like work or going to school. However, in recent times, car usage has significantly decreased due to its beneficial effect on many communities. Based on the information given, there are many advantages of limiting car usage.

One of many advantages of limiting the usage of cars is that it can help the community. With lower car usage, the community's environment can potentially become much better. According to Source 2, France's partial driving ban caused its congestion to go ""down 60 percent... after fivedays of intensifying smog."" This drastic change in France's car traffic prevented further pollution and smog, which hurts the community. additionally, limiting car usage can push more people into exercising more. In Bogota, Colombia, many Colombians ""hiked, biked, skated..."" during their carfree days source 3. Also, many ""parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city"" source 3. With an increase of exercise, the community's people will not only become healthier and fitter, but prevent any more damage to the community.

furthermore, lowering car usage will benefit the community's patrons by providing a cleaner lifestyle. With limiting their car usage, the people of the community will save more money. According to Source 1, although cars aren't recommended, a carowner may ""buy a space, for 40,000, along with a home source 1."" Normally, a decent size house is approximately 100,000 to 150,000 with parking as well. To add onto this, gas prices can become very expensive, especially to those to drive a lot. All this money spent on a pollution causing car can be put towards a child's education, or the community's benefit. Plus, the stress of ensuring a car's wellbeing at all times is eliminated as well, decreasing the amount of stress in citizens. Addionally, people are more happy with limited usage of cars. People like Heidrun Walter have said ""I'm much happier this way source 1,"" because they feel safer and can provide more to the community. Happier people in the community leads a much cleaner, stressfree lifestyle where its inhabitants are able to thrive more.

The advantages of limiting car usage includes assisting the community and providing a cleaner lifestyle for its patrons. With a positive community, the future generation's lifes will be enhanced. The youth of a community with a great outlook on the world will provide futher citizens with another fantasic community with the potential to grow and change. However, without this, the community will not thrive nor grow.",0
cb2a22f1,0,"You and I both know very well that we love to breath fresh air. Going out into the forest and taking a big breath of what is called ""fresh air."" Why cant we get that in an everyday life? I'll tell you why, because of polution. Cars are a ginormous part of polution, so what if we drove less?

In Vauban, Germany they have given up cars almost completely. The streets in Vauban are ""car free."" If you want a car, you have to park it at a local park garage for 40,000 dollars added onto your house. That isnt even worth paying for. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter. She lives in this town so she knows how it is. Giving up a car can reduce stress! Boy do some people need to give up cars.

America's obeisity count is getting higher and higher by the month. What if we gave up cars? people would have to walk everywhere! That's a good way to get exercise. In passage 1 it says ""In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway."" Stores are helping people out so they can walk to get what they need instead of driving.

It will be so much less expensive in everyday life if you dont have a car. You won't have to pay for gas, you won't have to pay for car insurance and you won't have to pay for mantanence! You also will not have to pay something crazy like ""40,000, along with a home."" If I had to pay that much more money to keep up with a car, I would give it up in an instant. I barely have enough money to support the car alone, there is no way i can pay an extra 40,000 dollars!

Not having a car seems easier and healthier to me! You can walk more, so you get you exercise in everyday. You dont have to spend money on the car, no gas, no insurance and no mantanance! That means you can spend it on important stuff, perhaps on schooling! You also dont have as much stress on your hands. You dont have to worry about stopped traffic because you can just walk, ride a bike, or jog to where ever you have a desire to go. I say we get rid of cars all together in the United States of America.",0
cba3c89f,1,"Does the Electoral College work? Are you happy with a group of electors choosing your president? I write this letter to you, our state senator, because, like many other U.S citizens or residents, I have my own opinion. I am in favor of the idea of changing to popular vote. Electoral College does not work, it is unfair to voters because a president with the highest popular vote could not win,and it could be ""disaster factor"". Many are familiar with this term: ""compromise between election of the president by a vote in Congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens""What Is the Electoral College?,1, but how does it benefit us? Does it express our opinions and preferences?

Lets go back in time to the election of 2000, The candidate with the most popular votes was Gore, therefore, everyone was expecting him to win. The majority was happy with the outcome until they counted the electoral votes, Bush had more electors on his side than Gore. Nobody understood why, they gave the country the president less wanted. despite the fact that it was the first time since 1888, because it happened once and for sure it could happen again, Why did all those people voted if they got the president they didn't trust to rule their country? In History class, my teacher told us: ""This country's foundation is for the people to rule the government, in other places like Italia, Argentina, Spain, etc. the government takes care of the people, like it they were our parents."" I believe we stay true to the foundations and let the people choose the president they want.

""The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system alloys for much worse""Plumer,1. This quote is based on 1960,when people who favored separation based on race nearly Democratic electors were replaced with the ones who would oppose Kennedy. Many electors make a last minute change in their decision and they decide to go over to the other side and vote against their original choice, the party's candidate. ""When you vote for a presidential candidate you're actually voting for a slate of electors""Posner,1.

Another reason why this system should be abolished is the winnertakeall system. The candidates do not spend time in the states in which they believe they have no chance of winning. States had not even seen the candidate and in some cases, they even haven't seen a poster. For example, Plumer says in a expert from ""Mother Jones"" that ""During the 2000 campaing , seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and Soth California, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a dingle campaign add."" The Electoral College system is unfair to the voters.

Overall, My beliefs and the beliefs of hundreds is that the electoral college is unfair for the voters because it can be the cause of some major disaster and it can choose the candidate the public is not haoory with. The votes are people who want to express, or show, political preferences, people who are determines to change their country for good, so give them the right to do it. ""It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college!"" Plumer,1.",0
cbc48dd7,0,"Zroom! Cars have been developing for hundreds of years all over the world. They have become very dangerous to the environment and there are many advantages to limiting the use of them.

There is only so much space on earth and lot of it is taken up by parking. No matter where you go there will always be parking spots on the fertile ground that we need to preserve. Garages, street parking, and driveways not only house vehicles but they also take up valuable space! By limiting the use of cars we can cut back on the land wasted to house them.

Another important advantage to limiting car use is that it will save you money! Everyday we hear about a new car that just came on the market but the price only keeps on increasing. No one wants a cheap car that they are embaresseed to be seen in and many pay vigorously for new upgrades. The biggest expense is gas, which you will have to pay for almost everyday as the price keeps rising.

Finally, car usage is extremely bad for the environment. Paris is in days of nearrecord pollution and its become so bad that they had to enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air. Every time you start your car smog comes out of your exhaust polluting the air. After awhile it falls back to the ground and sticks so when it rains the roads become very slick which is a major hazard.

In conclusion, we should all limit the use of cars. Although its ok to use them in moderation they are still space consuming, expensive, and bad for the environment.",0
cc01c188,1,"I believe that we should change the system to ""election by popular vote"". If we were to change the way we elect our president im sure citizens would be more pleased with the over all outcome. People vote on who they think is best fit to represent them and give them the best over all outcome. When using the ""electoral college"" you are not voting for the president but you are voting for a state of electors. It would be easier to simply allow presidents to get the popular vote in order to make the election more fair all around. The ""electoral college"" is unfair to voters because of the winnertakeall system. It is time to change our voting methods because the ""electoral college"" system is outdated, irrational, and unfair to citizens.

When people place their vote they believe they are putting in a vote for the president they choose, not for a slate of electors. The ""electoral college"" is a very nondemocratic way of selecting your president. In a way the government is deceiving their citizens by the way our voting method is set up. When people vote they feel a sense of independence because they are allowed to choose who they would like to represent them in congress. But instead once they place their vote it goes to electors rather than a simple vote towards the one they selected. If you were to change the way people's votes were counted it would be easier and faster to elect a president and get him into office to fix worldwide problems.

In all three articles at least one section has made it clear on their opinion to abolish the electoral college. Figures such as Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have agreed on abolishing the electoral college. When voting for president you are voting for a slate of electors, but do we even know who these supposed electors are! Are votes are being manipulated and we are not even aware of who is doing it. If we can not vote for are president without going through electors we should be able to vote for the electors who are voting for are president. It is only fair that we have some say in everything that is going on. When votes are being placed we should be informed of all that is going on.

If you were to vote for your favorite to show but your vote had to go through twenty different people all with different opinions you would be frustrated. Now imagine that scenario but with something extremely more significant than a television show, the president. You are trusting possibly the next four years of your life with strangers in which you have never heard of before. It would only be fair if we could simply change the system to popular vote rather than electoral college.

If you switch to popular vote more people would be more likely to vote because they could have more confidence about their vote. They would feel free to make their own decision and trust it would not be tampered with by a stranger. People deserve a fair vote and with the popular vote that is what you are giving them. Because every living being deserves equality. Changing the system would not only be helpful for citizens but helpful for the congress. Instead of having random members of congress choose the president they can work on serious issues around the world. They can stop worrying about foolishness and do their jobs.

In conclusion changing the way people vote is easier for everybody. It saves time for electors and it gives people a chance to see who they are really voting for. Presidents would have to go to each state and appeal to them in order to get a vote. I believe that is what we need. They would be required to actually work for a position in office rather than speaking on whjat they are going to do and paying someone else to elect them. We should have faith in our president and know who we are voting for before we cast our vote. This system seems more fair and more modern to the twenty first century. This is a system most Americans would agree with. So to end my argument I simply say think before you act and truly try to do whats right.",0
cc1dca35,0,"It is hard to imagine carfree or car limiting cities, but it could happen in the near future. Many people like owning and driving cars. However, cars are causing major problems in some areas of the world, so we could see less cars in the future.

One of the biggest issues that cars cause is the carbon emissions that they release. In America, the second largest source of emissions are from cars Source 4. This doesn't seem like an issue to Americans, but in places like Beijing, China, which is one of the most polluted cities in the world Source 2, emissions are very harmful. Citizens of Beijing have to wear mask when they walk around the city so that they don't get sick or poisoned from the carbon emissions. Even a 1st world country, like France, had carbon emissions that rivaled BeijingSource 2. So as you can see, the emissions that cars give off could become a more serious issue in America, especially if you live in a place like New York City. If more cities become less congested, they will be much safer.

Speaking of New York City, cars are already a big issue. If you have been to New York City, you should know that the streets are so congested with traffic that it is faster to walk or ride a bike to get around the city. Not only are the streets congested, the air is very polluted from the emissions given off by cars. However, in Vauban, Germany, residents are giving up their cars for streets that are mostly ""carfree"" Source 1. Few residents own cars and that means that the streets are quiet and clear and greenhouse emission have drastically decreased. Residents say that they are happier without cars and everything they need is within walking distance Source 1. This could quite possibly be what happens to many cities and suburbs in the near future.

The last thing that I would like to fill you in on is that car ownership in America has been steadily declining. Research has shown that the number of young people driving has decreased by 23 percent between 2001 and 2009 Source 4. Because of this, many people use Public Transport to get where they need to go. This is likely due to the fact that many Americans don't have the money to buy cars, so they don't make it a priority Source 4. Also, young people feel less inclined to drive because they can connect with their friends through the internet Source 4.

By no means am I saying that you should not own a car, I'm am just explaining to you that a carlimited future is looking more and more possible. In many ways it could be very beneficial, but it still has a long way to go before I can see it becoming reality.",0
cd3b5043,1,"Dear Senator, I am not alone when I say that I'm not in favor of keeping the Electoral College. According to the gallop poll taken in 2000, over 60% of voters prefer a direct election, but Congress does nothing to change that. Keeping the Electoral college is unfair to the people of the United States. We should not keep the electoral College because, when Americans are voting, they are not voting for their president but for a slate of electors the legislature is responsible for picking our electors not the people and the process of a tie in the Electoral College is too unfair to the people.

When Americans are voting for a new president, they want their opinion to count. The popular vote explains what the people wanted for president, but that's not what the people are voting for. When we are voting for president, we are instead voting for a slate of electors they in turn vote for the president. Voters can't control who the electors vote for, and this gives the a small say in voting for the president.

In the 2000 presidential race Al Gore received more individual votes than George W. Bush, but Bush won the election due the amont of electoral votes over powering the popular votes. This completely goes against what the people want. The state legislatures are responsible for picking our slate electors these electors have the right to defy the will of the people. Electors have refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a vote for whomever they please.

During a presidential election, one of the most worrying things to receive from an electoral vote is a tie. When there is a tie, the election is sent to the House of Representatives. Due to the fact that many voters vote one party for the president and another for Congress, the House's selection will barely reflect the will of the people. Their votes can be the complete opposites of the people's vote. You could help us bring an end to the Electoral College.",0
cd53e658,0,"In many ways, driving is a great resource. But with this great resource, comes flaws. When cars burn gas made of fossil fuels, it causes many environmental disadvantages. Limiting the usage of cars could be good for the people who live on this planet everyone in many ways.

To start, one reason why limiting the usage of cars would be an advantage for our society is the reduction of smog. Smog is caused by the smoke and fog of car exhaust and it is very harming to the environment as well as to humans. In Paris, in 2014, driving was banned because of smog. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. On Monday motorist with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro 31 dollar fine. The same would apply to oddnumbered plated the following day."" Source 2: Paris bans driving due to smog This quote from the source shows that because Paris is such a huge and global city, the amount of cars needed to have the city function in the way society has been making it function for the past years has created serious pollution. This crazy amount of pollution created smog in Paris. In fact, according to the article, ""The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" Source 2: Paris bans driving due to smog This type of pollution is know for causing certain kinds of cancer in people, and is what is thought to be the reason for the Ozone hole above antarctica. Not to mention it makes the day gloomy and not as bright because of the trapped smoke and pollution. In Vauban, Germany, the ""streets are completely carfree'"" Source 1: In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars A resident from this suburb said ""'When I had a car I was Always tense. I'm much happier this way.'"" Heidrun Walter says this as an example of how it is less stressful to walk places and hear the sounds of nature rather than feel the responsibility and worry that comes with driving her children place to place.

Another reason why it is more advantageous to limit the usage of cars is that it makes people be forced to start working on healthy habits walking, riding bikes as well as keeps pollution levels down with car pooling and other different means of travel. ""Bogota, Colombia In a program that's set to spears to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took busses to work during a car free day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams"" Source 3: Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota This car free day program in Bogota is a good example of how people choose healthier ways to get around the city. Skating hiking and biking are all great ways to get around the city to work because they cause the person commuting by these methods to exersise. Also, if some peopkle so choose to take the bus, they are still helping to make the city, and world, more healthy by reducing the amount of pollution. There are also trends within the youth of the United States that shows a decrease in wanting to drive. ""Demographic shifts in the driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate. There has been a large drop in the percentage of 1639yearolds getting a license..."" Source 4: The End of Car Culture This shows a distinct drop in the number of new aged drivers getting their license. Most teenagers these days don'r see the big deal in driving as was seen when it was a new phenominon. ""He Mr. Sivak and I have similar observations about our children. Mine 19 and 21 have not bothered to get a driver's license, even though they both live in places where one could come in handy."" This was stated by Elisabeth Rosenthal Source 4: The End of Car Culture Rosenthal isn't the only parent to see a decline in the interest to drive from their kids. Many people have arguments with their children everyday trying to get them to drive, but there is far less of an interest from teenagers anymore. Most young people see a car as ""just a means of getting from A to B when BART doesnt work."" Source 4: The End of Car Culture With this disinterest, there could be a large decrease in the pollution given off by cars, and cause a much healthier future for Earth and the people who inhabit it.

In conclusion, by limiting the usage of cars we would be given several advantages. Of these advantages are a healthier life style, and the reduction of pollution and smog. Both of these would lead to a happier and healthier Earth for humans, and the future of human kind to exist and live on.",0
cdaca6e3,0,"Can you imagine not using a car when you go anywhere, not even up the road to the grocery store? Some people can't imagine living without cars, whereas some people already have made the transition, or are beginning to make the transition. Limiting car usage can cause people to be happier, have less stress, and can cause less pollution in the atmosphere for a healthier environment.

Limiting car usage has been found to eliminate some of the stress people are having everyday. Cars are another liability that put stress on people everyday. What are you going to do if you get into a car accident, your car breaks down, or there is an overwhelming amount amount of traffic that causes you to be late to a big meeting. Without cars, people dont have that burden on their shoulders to carry around. In Vauban, Germany ""70% of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57% sold a car to move here. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two."" Source 1 P3.

Vauban is the beginning of what could be a worldwide transition that could help save the world.

Saving the world may sound ridiculous when it comes to limiting the use of cars, but it's not. Cars are one of the leading causes in pollution and greenhouse gasses and have a large effect on the atmosphere. Cars influence the effect of global warming. In Paris, the smog reached a near record high and the city had to limit the use of cars for a period of time until the smog levels decreased. ""Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in brussels, and 79.7 in London, Reuters found"" source 2 P17.

Without the cars, the smog levels decreased and caused a healthier environment for the time being. With limited use of cars, the air that we breathe everyday will be healthier, and the environment will begin to recover decreasing the levels of global warming, which could eventually severely hurt the planet if it continues.

The need for owning a car has gone down in recent years, according to a study at the University of Michigan. In large cities, people are living without cars just as easily as people that do have cars becuase of public transportation, and just walking places. In both the USA and Colombia, people have shown that the need for cars is miniscule when you have other forms of transportation. In Colombia, the city of Bogota had its third consecutive ""car free day"" which happens once a year. The people of Bogota surprisingly enjoy it. ""Millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work"" source 3 P20.

This is an opportunity to do many things for the people that live there which include taking away stress, causing happiness, and even getting a little exercise in that they might not get everyday. All in all, limiting the use of cars has proven to be effective everywhere it was tested.

Without cars, people may say the world would be a different place, and they're right when they say that. Who's to say it wouldnt be a better place? All over the world, cities are limiting the use of cars and the effect has been surprisingly positive. People are saying they feel less stressed, they feel happier, and the enivornment is happier too with less pollution.",0
cdaeefd2,1,"The Electoral College is a system that must be changed. It is a system that takes away the people's vote in a sense. As it originated from the Founding Fathers, it is as well an outdated system, that could have a drastic overhaul. The Electoral College could be thought of as ruining portions of this democracy, granting the people to vote for a president. There could be great error introduced to such a way of selecting people for such positions. Therefore, I stand vehemently on the side that the Electoral College must change, granting the people and the government a cleaner, more reliable form of election by three contentions: it removes the thought of there being an improper ratio of electoral votes to popular votes it is too easy for fraud to occur in the system and because of how irrational and unfair it is.

The first reason why the Electoral College must be changed in favor of a popular vote system is because of how there is such a margin of error introduced in its existence. The opposition may argue that a popular voting system may have equal, if not a greater chance of error, but that is very inaccurate. In a popular voting scenario, things are about as basic as possible. Election results are taken directly from the people of each state, and the results are then combined and compared, in turn selecting someone into office. In contrast, the Electoral College is far more complicated, resulting in more things to go wrong. For instance, a notable example is the 2000 election between Gore and Bush. In this scenario, Gore received a larger number of popular votes, as Bush won the Electoral College. The whole practice of the Electoral College introduces so many variables to the equation, that it would just be very irrational to use such a system.

Continuing, the next reason why the popular voting system should replace the Electoral College is by the chance of ""fraud"" in such a form of election. The members of the Electoral College could be anyone. Now, this may not be thought of as fraud, however it could as well be thought of as fraud of the system. These members of the College could potentially curve the results of an election. For instance, in the 2000 election, members did not stay true to the one candidate, resulting in the possibility for in improper ratio of votes between the Electoral College and the populous. A counter of this argument may be how often this sort of thing may occur. The 2000 election was the first election since 1888 that had a similar problem. However, this sort of thing should never occur. There should never be an occasion of a problem occuring in something as substantial as a presidential election.

My final contention is regarding how irrational and unfair the entire Electoral College is. In this, there is a type of winnertakeall system set in place. This means that, in most states, if a candidate wins the state, they take the Electoral College for the state. Because of this, candidates mainly focus on campaigning in states that they have a clear chance of winning. This is extremely unfair for many voters in the states that these candidates do not even visit. They would have no evidence of what to vote on in election. This could also change an election, with disastrous results. For example, in the 1976 election, a mere few thousand different votes in both Ohio and Hawaii could have led to a tie in the election. Ties are often fatal in the Electoral College system, as delegations in Congress determine a winner of the election. A counter to this claim may be how the winnertakesall system encourages more campaigning in the tossup states, where close attention is set upon the campaigning individuals. However, this still does not change the fact that other states are not receiving the proper amount of campaigning to prove a fair election.

In summation, the Electoral College must be changed in favor of a popular vote form of election by three previously stated contentions. First, it provides the chance for there to be disastrous results in an election. These results may consist of there being a tie, or an improper ratio of popular votes to electoral votes, as seen in the 2000 election. To continue, my second contention is regarding how there is a chance of corruptness and disagreement in an election. With the Electoral College in place, anybody could technically become part of the College, and there may be a dispute between what member is for what candidate and such. This could be very confusing for the voters. And finally, the entire system of the Electoral College is plainly unfair and irrational. This results in the election being unfair to certain states that did not receive proper campaigning for particular candidates, as it allows candidates to choose which states they would like to take part in campaigning with. In all, the Electoral College is a jumbled, confusing mess of election and governmentation.",0
cdd4cfac,1,"Dear Florida State senator, I am in favor of changing the election by popular vote for the president of the united states. Changing the election by popular vote is more efficient than the electoral college process. inputting this into the political voting system would enhance the voting process making it less difficult to deal with, get rid of the electoral college and its faults, and get the U.S citizens opinion on who the president should be and not just the electors voting for the president.

As you are already of aware of, the electoral college is the process where it consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and the Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by congress. By the explanation of what the electoral college is, you and I and many others can conclude that this process takes too much workmuch more work than really does need to be put into place. Even though most Americans aren't aware of that when they are electing for their choice of the president they compromise with the most, they are really voting for electors to vote who the next president will be. It's not fair and it's not right.

While reading an article about the electoral collegeby Brad Plumer, I noticed that the electoral college system has numerous instances of it that make it wrong. While in place Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, and the U.S. chamber of commerce all agreed on abolishing the electoral college And I compromise with this agreement because it is completely accurate and make sense as to why these political figures wanted to rid of the electoral college. This is called a ""Disaster Factor"" according to paragraph 11 in the article ""The indefensible Electoral College"" meaning that the state legislatures are literally responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people. How wrong is this? Also given that so many voter vote for one party for president and another for congress, the House of Representatives' selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people.

In source 3 of the article, it was very precise on as to why the electoral college should no take place. Our country has both republicans and democrats. Not all democrats have the same opinions as republicans, and not all republicans have the same thoughts as democrats. According to paragraph 15, the Electoral college is widely regarded as anachronism, which is a nondemocratic method of selecting a president that should be overruled by declaring the candidate who recieves the most popular votes is the winner. This is not fair to people who are democrats. The electoral system is obviously based off of mostly and strictly Republican beliefs. The voting process should be based on just republican bias, but also democrat bias. It's as if the democrats thoughts mean nothing. Paragraph 19 made a claim that Republican bias is baed strictly off of the region in which on lives, because majority of Reoublicans live in the southern states of the U.S. This makes other peopleNo party, Democrats, etc. that are inhabited in othe regoins of the U.S. feel disenfranchised and feel as if their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their intrests, and that this person is not really their president.

The article gave me an outlook of what the electoral college really is and how it works. The electoral college is not a fair process at all, and it is way the complicated for the people involved in some political job that is involved with the president, it is hard on the citizens that live in this country that have an idea of what president they want to vote for, and it is hard on us as a nation. The election process should be changed by the process of popular vote of the country's citizens. The electoral college is unfair, outdated and irrational. The electoral college needs to be abolished as soon as possible. Please take this into high consideration.",0
ce58dd81,0,"Cars are like beneficial disadvantages they allow you to arrive at your destination in a short amount of time, but they add to the world's pollution growing issue. Individuals in every single part of the world own cars and millions of cars are on our streets and highways daily. Whether it is to comute to work or visit a friend in the next town over, individuals are constantly on the road. While cars do simplify our lives today, in the near future cars will become a burden, due to the amount of pollution they produce and the stress they cause upon individuals. Limiting car usage in all parts of the world will bring more joy and persistent smiles.

Cars play a dramatic role in the amount of pollution that is in our air today. Which is also essential for our survival. Limiting car usage will decrease the amount of pollution we have today and the disgusting greenhouse gas emissions. ""Up to 50 percent"" of green house gas emissions alone are caused by carintense areas in the United States acknowledged by Elisabeth Rosenthal, in the article "" In German Suburb, Life goes on Without Cars "". Furthermore, in the capital of France due to ""intensifying smog 60 percent"" of the individuals were in a severe traffic jam explained by Robert Duffer, in "" "". The smog was caused by cold nights and warm days and the warmer layer of air imprisoning car emissions and pollution pollution being caused by over usage of cars, meaning car usage should be limited if not halted all at once.

Individuals participating in events like Carfree day and living in towns like Vauban tend to be a lot more joyful and enthusiastic. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" said by an individual named Heidrun Walter, who moved to Vauban for a more jubilating experience. Cars add stress due to having to be stuck in agonising traffic and having to pay for ridiculous gas prices. Also, by limiting car usage you'll witness and hear more individuals enjoying themselves walking the street, and ""the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drowning out the occasional distant motor."" described by Robert Duffer, in "" In German Suburb, Life goes on Without Cars "". Evenmore so, by abandoning your vehicle at home you won't have to deal with enebidable traffic and ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" brought up by Andrew Selsky, in source 3 "" Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota "". Carless stress less.

Before saying cars are benefitial think of all the disadvanteges that they hold. All the disadvanteges out weigh the advantages. Pollution no matter how big or small is a humungous issue that can be prevented little by little by limiting car usage. Also, limited smiles will become persistent smiles if you limit car usage across the nation. More smiles and less cars is the way to go.",0
ce9859aa,0,"""CarFree Cities"" gave the reader a broad perspective on the advantages of limiting car usage. The world would become a more ecofriendly and overall good place if we were to make this change happen all over the world. The passages give great reasoning to why this change should happen.

Limiting our usage on cars would help the environment completely. The amount of pollution would have a massive decrease. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced partial driving ban to clear the air."" This statement comes from the passage, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" and gives an example on how having driving restrictions would make the world more healthy for the economy. Using other ways for transportation could help prevent the enormous amount of pollutants in the air, like bicycles or car pooling. ""They organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends."" This example shows ways we can have transportation instead everyone individually using cars and causing more pollution.

Instead of driving, riding a bike or walking to the places you need to go could be a huge stress reliever. People need to go outside and get fresh air, this can happen if we decrease the use of our cars or vehicles. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" This statement was said in the passage, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" and gives a perfect example on how using different types of transportation can relieve one's stress and lower the pollution on the world and the economy.

When no longer using so many cars, and vehicles the traffic would decrease majorly. Not as many people would be driving if carpooling or using other ways of transportation like bikes. This will also make the number of wrecks or accidents go down since not as many people would be in the situation for this to happen. Having less accidents would also save lots of lives, so many people die or get severly injured from car accidents and this can be a way to keep so many deaths or injuries from happening.

The idea of having a carfree environment is a great plan for the future and would be a positive change for the world and the environment we live in.",0
cecf6e5e,1,"I dont think that the electoral college should decide the president of the united states, i think that the overall vote of the americans should determine the president of the unites states. I have certain reasons, and a good explanation of why the popular vote matters way more than the electoral vote first is why would they even have a popular vote if there not gonna go by it? Also the popular vote has mostly everyone in the united states voting on it, the electoral vote has only a couple people, they are way outnumbered. And lastly its not fair at all to the american people.

Firstly, why would you want the whole united states of america to vote on something if what they vote, and what they say isnt being heard. Whats the point of it? in my opinion what the people say how the president should be determined. If they want it any other way why would they not have changed it by now? no one really likes having to take time out of there day to go vote, if there votes arnt even going to be seen, or heard by people? whats the point of making them do that?

Secondly, the united states has billions of people in it, and the electoral college only has a few people in it. You think thats very fair to anybody ??? everyone votes, results are in, you think you have a winner, then all of a sudden theres no winner, you know why? because of the electoral college!!! these extra people make the final decision and thats not right. If thats the case of it to me it seems like they have the answers, and no one can decide but them, so why even have a vote? its really pointless the author states that most states like the idea that the overall vote wins, theres only a couple that dont like this idea. So by rule they should just make it the popular vote wins the election, and thats who tthe president becomes. Why they havnt done it? I have no idea!

And my final reason of why popular votes should just determine who wins is because they go out and vote and they feel like it doesnt matter. Because the electoral college decides then the united states gets really mad when they vote and the popular vote doesnt win! Of course they get mad, who wouldnt? there votes mean nothing at all. And they need to change this electoral college policy, more people want it gone thaen the people that dont. And thats mostly why america is usually never satisfied with the president of the unites states. Because of the fact that the united states didnt put them and the votes first, they put the electoral college ahead and thats not how it needs to be!!! They should make a vote for the united states saying that who wants to keep the electoral college and who doesnt! i bet that they will say that they want it gone. Because its already been voted out before so why will they keep something that no one is satisfied, or pleased with? Hopefully they will see this soon enough!!!

In conclusion, this electoral college stuff just needs to go, and the people need to be happy with there vote that they want, and they should be! they have been living in the state there whole life, if not most of it. And they want to make sure that someone they like, and know and trust will be there leader and wont let them down, and will change the problems that are in america. So go ahead and keep the electoral college even if barely any one likes it. Cause that doesnt make any sesnse!!!! the people need to vote on there counties leader not a few people for each state, and or place. its not right, and no one really likes it.",0
cef0572a,0,"There is a new age coming,and with that means change. Most people dont like change but this change is a good one. Its using your car less and use other means of transportation around your city or town. This leads to less smog around a major city and a safer inviorment for children.

To begin , changing how we travel around the city and towns of are country's is essential in this time of age. The world is changing how we think and do thing is changing. We are losing some of are ignorance. The world we live on is running out of oil and that means no more gas powered cars. To conserve the resources we have we need to start taking the bus to work or school. Or riding a skateboard to the shop down the street instead of wasting presious resources that is going to dissaper in 20 to 30 years. And not using your car is a go thing ,that means less stress on you mind a body. imagin not having to worry about a car payment and having that extra money have fun with your kids. Useing your car less also means less smog and cleaner air around. For example, in Pairs there was lot of smog so they put a ban on cars for two days and it cleared up the city. Now if started doing this more we would help are interment so much.

second off, Not using your car as much also creates a much safer environment for kids. And they can live a more healthy life. And thats what we want, we want to protect are kids a give them a child hood they can look back on. This means you can let your kid outside and not worrying about a drunk driver coming down the street and hitting your kid and killing them. We want the best futer for are grandchilderns children, and know we set them up for good. We need to start designing are towns and city's like Vauban ,Germany. It will make a better and cleaner world for us.

In conclusion, we need to put down the car keys and pick up the bike , or hop on the bus. Because Time is running out. And we dont want it to be to late to change. This is the only thig we got. So lets do it right the firts time and not screw it up.",0
cf290550,0,"Cars have helped people over the years, but has it helped the environment or your heath. When driving a car, the car releases gases that can effect the air around us. There are advantages of limiting the use of cars, like a heathier environment and a heathier body.

One advantage of limiting the use of cars is a heathier environment. When you are driving a car the gas in the car, is let out into the air. The gas that goes in the air can effect the air and plants around us, as it can turn to toxic. As the source Elisabeth Rosenthal explains, 50 percent of the greenhouse gases are caused by carintensive areas in the United States. The gas from are cars are not just effecting are air, there effecting are greenhouse to. The source Robert Duffer tells us, how paris banded using cars after days of nearrecord pollution to clear the air. After days of no cars the air was clear again. As you can tell, limiting car uses will help the environment lot.

furthermore, Another advantage of limiting the use of cars is a heathier body. Instead of just siting in a car you can ride a bike,walk or roller skate. Also all those gases from the car wont be going in your body, effecting your insides. As the source Andrew Selsky explains, in Colombia on free car day the people hicked,skated and bicked to get where they need to go, instead of using a car. Without a car to take you places you will get exercie, which will give you power and engery for your body. A normal person should also exercise for 30 mintes a day. Also as Carlos Arturo Plaza tells us without a car you have less stress and are able to relax more. Cars can cause people lot of stress, and a lot of stress is not good for your body. Limiting the use of cars has a great effect on your heath.

Conslusion, Limiting the use of cars will have the advantages of a heathier environment and a heathier body. The environment and your body is a big thing in your life, so you would want to do whatever possible to keep it heathy. So instead of talking the car try to walk or ride a bike next time.",0
cf388f90,1,"Dear state senator, Many people do not think that the Electoral College is not fair, or exact. In fact, people wanted to boycott it in 2000. I suggest that we change it to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. It is fair to the candidates and to the people of our country, and we should be able to choose our president, not the electors. Also, if we keep the Electoral College, voting will be unfair and it only makes people want to stop voting. I will explain to you the details of these reasons why we should change it in the rest of my letter.

To begin with, we should change to popular voting because it is fair to everyone. The people want a fair election. Presidents can be chosen wisely by the people, and candidates will be chosen fairly. People want a safe election, so that they can feel safe and protected with the president that we all chose together. It is only unfair to not let us have the advantage of expressing our own opinions. That is a reason why we should change the Electoral College to election by popular voting for the president.

The second reason why we should change to popular voting is because we, as in the people of the United States, should have the advantage of voting for our own president, not the electors. The people know what they want and need to vote for the candidate based on their own opinions. Electors have different opinions, which is not fair at all since we are not really voting. They are only changing our votes and not agreeing with the votes of the people. That is the second reason why the government should change the Electoral College to election by popular voting for the president.

A disadvantage of keeping the Electoral College is that it is unfair and it makes less people want to vote for a president. In 2012, only half of the whole United States voted for a president. They did not think voting was really necessary anymore, since we are not really voting. It also makes the people feel worthless since their votes do not really count anymore. We basically do not have a say in our own country, and that is not fair to us or the government. That is why keeping the Electoral College is a bad idea, and we should change it.

This is why you should reconsider changing to popular vote, for the good of our country. It is honestly a much better process for our country , the citizens, and especially for the candidates that want to make a great difference in the place we live in. Popular voting is fair to candidates and people, we should choose our president, not electors, and the Electoral College is unfair and makes less people want to vote. Thank you for reading and listening to my letter. Have a great day.",0
cf586efc,1,"Dear State Senator, In my experience, I strongly believe that you should get rid of the electoral college to a popular vote. If you do that, the votes would become fair to voters, and more voters would actually pay attention to the campaign. On the other hand, i do see why you would want to keep the Electoral college, but let me explain to you two of the many reasons why you should get rid of it.

First, people do argue that the electoral college does pay attention to some of the regiment in voters. In plumber's article he says,"" thanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election"" To me, the voters who do like the electoral college pretty much just want to see that they can trust them just for the popular votes to succeed. But honestly, I think they still shouldn't be the ones to choose. Even if they may help the popular votes a little, they aren't fair in a lot of ways. Way more voters are against them than with.

So let me explain one of my reasons, I believe you should get rid of the electoral college is because it isn't fair to voters. A lot of the time voters don't trust that the electoral college pays attention to the votes sent out. according to plumber's article, the Indefensible Electoral College:' he states, "" In the same vein, ""faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please."" When voters hear that, chaos starts. They want to have say for who the next President will be not just the electoral college's say. There have been some real incidents where the electoral college has voted based on what they believe and not other voters. For example, in Hawaii in 1960, The vice president, Richard Nixon, validated his opponents votes. Voters worry and get angry when there trust is broken. They want to be the ones to vote because of course they trust themselves. If you do get rid of the electoral college, voters would be more satisified and feel that their vote would be fair.

Lastly, the second reason why I believe that getting rid of the electoral college is that voters would pay more attention and actually put thought in who they vote. If they think that their vote won't matter they won't care who wins. They would most likely jot down a random candidate and send it in. In the article, ' In Defnse of the Electoral College:', Posner states, "" Republicans in California. Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were to be picked by a popular vote..."" With that said, there is support that states people would have beter interest in voting if they had popular vote and no more electoral college. I believe people would actually spend more of their time on debating who should deserve to be President.

To conclude my reasons, please take them in consideration. Voters would be treated much fairly and pay more attention to voting than they do now. I believe you should get rid of the electoral college so there will be less arguing.",0
cf8af518,1,"Dear state senator, I believe that we shouldn't keep the electoral college process because it should be in favor of the popular vote for the president of the Unites States instead of how it is now. I believe this because for example with this system voters don't vote for the president but for the slate of electors even though this system does come with some positives like it allows them to focus on their campaign efforts but can turn into a complete disaster factor.

To begin with,the system of the electoral college does not allow the voters to vote for the president but only for a slate of electors, they are the ones who elect the president. There is always an offchance that those electors that won the statewide election would go to Congress and the opponent receives more electoral votes. The electors are chosen from the state they could be state conventions, or the state party's central committee and even sometimes the presidential candidate themselves. This system then leads to several cons such as the voters can not control whom their electors vote for and also the voters tend to get confused sometimes about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate.

Although, maybe we should be able to keep our despised method of choosing the president because, it comes with several pro's like for example, a dispute over the outcome of an electoral college vote is possible like in 2012's election when Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to 51.3 percent of the votes that came from rodney. In this election the winner is aware with the electoral votes which induces the candidates and allows them to focuses on their campaign efforts. Lead them to the tossup states which basically mean they are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign so the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election.

Last but not least, this system is also known a the disaster factor like for example the 2000 fiasco which was the biggest election crisis in a century because they had to consider that the state legislatures are technically responsible for picking the electors and that they will always define the will of those people. Many of the electors have occasionally refused to vote for their own party candidate and even cast a deciding vote for whomever it is that they want or perfer to please. this method should not be prohibited any more because of the causes it is doing which is affec In conclusion it is official the the system of the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and also it is concluded to be an irrational system. I still believe that the electoral college should be elected by popular vote for the president.",0
d0304441,1,"Dear Senator, I am strongly in favor of keeping the Electoral College because it not only is more efficient than popular vote, it is also smarter. The Electoral College is a foolproof way of not disputing the outcome of who gets to be in it. It avoids problems by the candidates not receiving majority of the votes cast in the election. Everyone who is in the Electoral College was cast there for a reason by the popular vote. You also must know that the system has its faults. There aren't many of them but i believe that they are needed to keep the College going and allowing it to vote the right way instead of the wrong way. All in all, i do hope that you are also in favor of the electoral college and if you aren't, hopefully this letter will let your mind sway towards being in favor of it.

First of these reasons, there are more problems with popular votes than electoral vote and have a foolproof way of keeping disputes in the low. The Electoral College is less susceptible to problems if the poular votes are used to elect the college. In Defense of the Electoral College:Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing a president, in the first reason it says that, ""...The winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote."" Secondly, Having an Electoral College avoids runoff elections, where the problem is cause by each candidate that is running to not get any of the majority of the votes. To put it in more simple terms, In some cases there have been ties by the popular vote, or very close ties. In The same article as mentioned in the above paragraph provided the example of one time that this has happened. "" Nixon and Clinton both had a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority of the Electoral College."" The Electoral college breaks the tie in the poular votes because they reduce the pressure of having runoff elections. The states have a ""winnertakeall"" system, so that when the elections come, the president of those who are voting for him in the electoral college get to be with that president. The larger states recieve more attention from the candidates, so the popular vote getting tied up also does not happen very often.

Last but not least, it is incredibly important to know how the Electoral College works because if you do not, then you will not know how effective of a sytem it is. In What is the Electoral College?

it states that, ""The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president."" The popular vote can get tied up pretty easily, but it is a lot harder for the electoral votes to get tied up because only 270 votes are needed to elect the president. The popuar vote actually elects the College. ""...But each party selects a state of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee.."" and this quote was selected from I defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president. The electoral college is trusted to vote for the president that they believe will make the best decisions for our country.

Even thought this might be a really improved method on picking our president, it still has faults. In what's wrong with the electoral college, is saying that ""The most worrying prosepct is the tie in the electoral college....in that case the elction would be thrown to the H.O.R., where state delegations vote on the president."" If this ever does happen, MAny people in the senate or house of representatives would have to vote and would have to rake on responsibilty of the as many as 500,00 voters.

As you know, it is important to keep the best desicions of your country in mind , while thinking about your citizens that you are representing. The electoral college answers the questions of having disputes and arguments over who becomes preseident. It is an efficient way of keeping a foolproof outcome and avoid runoff elections. You also now have some knowledge of how the electoral college worls, if you didn't have any before.",0
d043ff9f,1,"We should abolish the Electoral College and change the election to popular vote for the president of the United States. The Electoral College is corrupt compared to popular vote. They're more cons than pros about the Electoral College. A lot of people agree that we should change our voting to popular vote. Electoral College voting should not be the way we vote for something so important.

The Electoral College System is wrong. In source two, Bradford Plumer said that ""under the Electoral College system, voters vote not for the president, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the president"". You have no clue who your voting in with the Electoral College system. Plumer also said ""they can be anyone not holding public office"" and ""electors could always defy the will of the people"". Do you really want someone who you dont know and can't trust to be an elector? If you wanted someone like that you might as well let a child do the job. In source one the Office of the Federal Register said ""when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidates electors"". More than one source said that you vote in electors when voting for a your candidate.

The Electoral College system is said to be unfair to voters in source two. The Electoral College system has a ""winnertakeall"" system. Which means if a Democrat candidate wins they will have Democrat electors and if a Republican wins the will have Republican electors. In source one the Office of the Federal Register also said that the ""winnertakeall"" system ""awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate"". This is not fair to the voters or the United States. If a tie happened it would be even more unfair to voters. if a tie did happen the House of Representatives would break it. In source two Plumer said ""the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people. If the voting doesnt even show your will why vote? Plumer also said in source two that ""the Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational"". I agree with plumer, the electoral College needs to go.

Even though the Electoral College has a lot more cons than pros they have some pros. In source three Posner give you the ""five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"". Posner said the first reason was ""certainty of outcome"". The second reason is ""the Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal"". the third and fourth reason is ""swing states"" and ""big states"". the fifth reason is the Electoral College system can ""avoid runoff elections"". These are all pros of keeping the Electroral College, but are they really worth it? Would you rather have these pros compared to having fairness?

We should abolish the Electoral College and change the election to popular vote for the president of the United States. Popular voting is alot better for everyone. The pros of popular voting excedes the pros of the Electoral College. Popular voting gives everyone a fair chance and doesnt just have a ""winnertakeall"" system. it actually gives both political parties a chance. I agree with source two when it said ""Abolish the Electoral College!"".",0
d0760e0d,1,"Dear Senator, If you were to question U.S. citizens about what an electoral college is, what would they say? Most of them don't even know its a process established in the Constitution in which electors ""vote for president and vice president,"" and then are counted by the Congress Source 1, paragraph 1. They don't realize that their votes can be overridden by these votes. And those, if the very few, who do get it, are opposed. They would prefer another system, a more modernized system, and are disgruntled about how unfair the system is, not only about how the electors are chosen but how the larger states have an advantage in votes and in information.

Most voters are opposed to such systems, according to Source Two, ""... over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now,"" paragraph 9. Yet we still have the Electoral Colleges going. As active voters in todays society, we call for a fair system. We want, no, we need, to be treated fairly and not overridden.

We need a system us as people can control ourselves. As in Source Two, I will ask you the question, ""Who picks the electors in the first place?"" Certainly not the citizens as a whole, most of the time its picked by the state government in some shape or form, but sometimes, even the presidential candidates themselves can pick them paragraph 10! As well as in Source Three, where its clearly pointed out that ""... it is the electors who elect the president, not the people,"" paragraph 15. It's outrageous how easily they can pull the wool over our eyes, and even worse how we let them. But no more.

As you probably already know, each state's ""...entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation..."" Source One, paragraph 3. Most representatives spend most of their time campaigning in places like New York and California that the small states such as Rhode Island arent even visited. ""In the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see candidates at all..."" and that campaign was refered to as a ""fiasco"" in which the Electoral College caused a dispute Selection 2, paragraph 13. This leaves the smaller states less informed and more likely to vote to the exact opposite of what they want, and yet they still have as much say in the vote. In Selection Three, it is said that the swing states or larger ones ""... are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average and for the further reason that they will have received the most information and attention from the candidates,"" paragraph 20.

Selection Two points out something very important that should be stressed, ""... each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 5000,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 represantatives from California, who represnt 35 million votes,"" paragraph 12. This shows the citizens aren't really being represented properly.

Altough many downfalls, ""The Electorial College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states... lose"" and ""avoids the problem of elections in which no one recieves a majority of the votes cast,""Source Three, paragragh 21 and 22. Yet still there can be holes poked in that, and all though unlikely, theres an even amount of votes so the vote could be split 5050. Just imagine the chaos we could be thrown into.

Therefor, as a concerned citizen speaking as the voice of others, we demand a better system, for a simplerly system, for an equal system, for a system we can control ourselves. We demand for a direct system! So I ask, please, for you to speak to your friends, and speak out for your people, and put an end to the Electorial Colleges.

Sincerly, A concerned citizen.",0
d08837f7,0,"Cars are great, you can get from one point to another in a short amount of time, but are they really necessary? After all we have public transportation, bicycles, and our own two feet.

The advantages of car usage can be picked up by other forms of transportation, and the environment can be saved at the same time. If car usage was limited the world and its people would be much better off. There would be less pollution, a drop in the number of people diagnosed with diabetes, less accidents, and over all a healthier planet and world population.

There would be less pollution because if car usage was limited then there would be less pollutants from the gas in cars going up into the air. Source 2 provides evidence of this, from ""...days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city.""Duffer 10 to ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" Additionally many people are content with not having a vehicle, or even a licence in some cases, as shown in Source 1, 3, and 4. In Source 1 Heidrun Walter explains her view on not having a car after previously owning one, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Carlos Arturo Plaza in Source 3, shows his support unlimited car usage by saying how it helps the environment and the health of the people in reducing stress, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" In Source 4 Elisabeth Rosenthal speaks of how her own children and Mr. Sivak's son, all avoid using cars and Rosenthal's children don't even have licenses and they are 19 and 21 years old.

The health of the people in our world would improve and there would be less people diagnosed with diabetes because they would likely get more exercise. With limited car usage people would have to find other ways of transportation, which includes bike riding, skating, hiking, or public transportation. While using public transportation would not help to improve the health of the people, biking, skating, and hiking would, as some people do these things just for exercise. So if people were forced to do one of these alternative forms of transportation, they would be exercising and getting from point A to point B all in one shot.

Not only would limited car usage help peoples health by making them be more active, but it would also help by providing cleaner air. Poluted air can cause health problems, especially in the lungs, if car usage was limited, then polution would go down, so people would be breathing fresher air that would cause less lung damage.

There would be less accidents because there would be less cars on the road. The majority of the vehicles on the road would likely be public transportation too, so the drivers may be more cautious than the average driver since they have the lives of many people in their hands.

The world would be a safer and healthier place is car usage was limited.",0
d099a399,1,"Dear, Mr.Mrs. Florida state senator I am writing to you about the Electoral College and i would like to share my opions with you. As we know the Electoral College chooses the president by having 538 electors and the winning president must have at least 270 electoral votes to claim the presidency. States get a number of electoral voters and depending on the size of the state depends how many voters that state gets, bigger states get more electoral voters and smaller states for example Rhode Island get less. The way the Electoral College is set up it seems that the menwomen running for presidency would try to get the minds of the bigger states with more electoral voters to choose them so they can reach the 270 mark. It is clear to me that we have done it this way ever since the founding fathers created it. Its time for a change, the Electoral College is out of date and needs to be replaced with popular vote. Lets not forget the 2000 election when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost because of the Electoral College, Al Gore quite frankly should have won, I mean he did have more votes.

The Electoral College is a system that doesn work, popular vote on the other hand does work. If the United States of America wants a ""fair"" election then we should give them one with the popular vote. It is simple and easy to understand, the madwoman with the most votes wins the presidency. Its time to let the Electoral College go byebye, the 538 electoral voters need to leave and make room for a more efficient election. Most Americans are done with the ""winnertakeall"" style, if we can let the Electoral College go we can have more ""fair"" elections, not ""winnertakeall"" elections. Sometimes though even the electoral voters don't even vote for who won that state they also vote for whom they want to be president. The Electoral College is not efficient, in ""1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election,"" and again in 1976 a tie could have happened if some voters voted the other way, in that case they were only a few votes away from a disaster. If we have the popular vote then candidates would try to get everyone from every state, but with the Electoral College some candidates dont even visit a state or a region they know they won't win over. So that means they will try the bigger states or a region they came from with that said its unfair to the voters.

The Electoral College is a good way for the voters within the college to cheat their way into having the candiate they want to win, win. So if this country wants a more fair vote every four years on a Tuesday after the first Monday then we must have popular vote.

I hope you will take my facts and opions into consideration and give it time to think and discuss what you think, but if everyone wants a more fair election I say we give them one.

Thank you for your time, from: a student from a high school.",0
d1256f6a,0,"What is a normal day to you? Waking up, brushing your teeth, eating, then getting into car to go to work, right? That last object in that list, getting into your car, puts a strain on the environment, commonly known as pollution. Although the amount of strain that an individual may put on the environment is miniscule, the combined output of all cars in a city may be enough to damage your lungs! In Beijing, China, people wear masks outside to prevent inhalation of the dense smog surrounding the city. This has led to the development of the ""smart planning"" movement, in which city planners build dense suburbs in which cars are unneeded. Shops are a walk away, and your neighbor lives five minutes from your home. You may be asking ""Why do I care about this? I don't have heavy smog in my city."" Well when car use starts to increase in your city, that will affect both your health, and your happiness.

First off, limiting car usage will make you happier. ""How will this make me happy?"" Think about this, you go through your usual morning routine, and you only have five minutes to get to work. That's perfectly fine because, good news, your job is a three minute walk from your house! This drastically reduces stress as said in this quote from ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars."" by Elisabeth Rosenthal. ""when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."" Secondly, the smog from cities with high car usage is becoming unbearable. ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals...Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared to 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London, Reuters found."" In Paris, after a few days of ""nearrecord pollution,"" enforced a partial, temporary driving ban. ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following da y."" The congestion levels of Paris were down by an astonishing sixty percent after five days of the smog. Imagine that, in five days smog levels reduced by sixty percent. Imagine what the whole world could do if everyone pitched in to this trend. ""Automobiles, experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emmisions from tailpipes....Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emmisions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Lastly, a reduction of car use can vastly improve the economy. In Bogota, Colombia, the local government have begun to enforce a ""Day Without Cars"" in an effort to curb rising pollution levels. This has been happening for three years, and has increased profits for small shops and eateries in the area. Because of the large number of walkers and bikers, shops were able to make a larger profit with walkins that just happened to pass by the store. This is what caused more stores to open up, thus boosting the local economy. Even businessmen are enjoying these days as stated by Carlos Arturo Plaza. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" To end this off, cars use can be greatly reduced. It is a matter of willpower, which everyone has, but some are too lazy to tap into it. The reduction of car use will have long term effects on both you and the globe. By minimizing the time you spend in a car, you are increasing your happiness, decreasing pollution, and helping boost the economy! If you think cars are a necessity in today's shrinking world, think again. New York is a perfect example in which rush hour traffic makes it impossible to get to work on time by car. Even in new small suburbs, cars are becoming a thing of the past. Tomorrow, instead of driving to work or to the store, try walking. You just might enjoy it.",0
d168e4bc,0,"Cars, they're one of the most important means of transportation, varying from busses down to smart cars. The more cars being bought and used, the more pollution it makes. Researchers are saying that cars, their dense amount of smog being created, are damaging the Earth. Logically, it would be easier to say that limiting the amount of vehicles being used would allow for a cleaner city or town.

Limiting car usage in the past and present already shows a positive feed back upon the community. There has been cities dedicated to create a carfree city. An example would be in Vauban, Germany. There the city runs purely on no car usage and showed to be much cleaner, safer, and easier to navigate around in. It says in the first passage how the city is ""...better for walking..."" and that it is ""...more compact and more accessible to public transportation..."" In other areas, where car usage is an everyday expense, they have started to enforce driving bans to reduce pollution in the area. In Paris, they almost reached nearrecord pollution which reduced greatly ever since the ban. They limited the use of cars has cleaned the air and their ""congestion"" was down 60 percent allowing getting around easier. Although having car free cities and bans, others thing differently.

Others, whom oppose the idea of limiting cars use, has done research to show that it isn't necessary to limit car usage. They state that in America ""Americans are buying fewer and fewer cars"" They claim that the drop of purchasing and that the usage of cars is dropping to the point where pollution won't raise up anymore. In source 4, it states ""If the patterns persists it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment"" It also states that people will ""find less reason to resume the habit"" Although some advantages are seen in the opposing ideas, it still would not be enough. The passage focuses to much in one area instead of looking around. Limiting car usage would assist around the world proving to be much efficient. There are programs that are created to reduce the usage of cars for one day, which showed to be a success. In source 3 it shows how 118 miles of bicycle paths has been created since the day. Also shows how the day cut traffic and allowed for constructions of new buildings to be much easier to do. People started to go outside to the point where ""The rain hasn't stopped people from participating,"" said Bogota.

The advantages of car limitations has shown to be much more efficient and benificial towards cities and towns which participated in it. The advantages are that it made the town more productive, cleaner, efficient, and better to walk around in. Car limitations has proven to be an outstanding practice to be used around the world.",0
d1737074,0,"In America, cars have been an integral part of our culture from the Model T. Ford to the Mustang cars have cemented themselves into our mindset. But currently cars are starting to cause a lot of problems to people such as: car accidents, pollution, and just leaving areas to crowdy. One of the main problems that cars globally cause is smog emission which is caused by the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions and can cause difficulty in breathing, lung cancer and rampant air pollution. However, in other parts of the world people are limiting car usage to almost banning them all out completly in certain areas in order to be more environmentally friendly and reducing air pollution. By limiting car usage in America people can benefit from less pollution, a more positive community impact and alternative vehicles in place of cars.

In North America, pollution has been a major problem for citizens in many ways. Besides power plants, the second main source of pollution are cars, as they release harmful chemicals and gases like smog which can cause congestion and when too much and inhaled on a daily basis, can lead to lung cancer. By limiting car usage people can benefit more to the people for example in Paris,France a partial driving ban was enforced in order to clear the air of smog after days of nearrecord pollution. By doing this congestion was brought down by 60 percent helping to majorly clear the air and make breathing better for people.

In Vauban, Germany residents of the area have been called suburban pioneers due to giving up their cars. By doing this people were able to be more happy and enjoy life more. For example, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" this aids the argument that by banning or limiting car usage people are able to be much calmer and benefit more. In Bogota, Colombia during ""Carfree day"" for the first time two colombian cities joined Bogota in this unique event. there more parks and sports centers for people were placed, the sidewalk were smoothe and more business and commercial areas were opened up for people. This further shows that people can benfit greatly without having cars.

Throughout the world wherever cars have been limited or banned there has always been one constant, new alternative transportation. In China in order to help reduce the absurd amount of smog and air pollution, chinese citizens resorted to using bikes leading to a drop in smog levels. By limiting cars and replacing them with alternative transportation people can be much safer from more dangerous situations, such as car acsidents hurting people, keeping dunk drivers away from the steering wheel, and being able to save more money from not buying a car. Though some alternate vehicles are not fast enoguh for example bikes, this has been remedied in some areas by allowing free public transit from buses and taxi services.

Throughout all of these benfits people can benfit more greatly but that's not enough. In 2012 during the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford proposed a business plan in where partnering with the telecommunication industry to create cities where ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation trafic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety.""""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal. Through bright ideas like the advantages of limiting cars can be fully realized and brought to life in order to help and save more people from negative aftereffects. In America if people were to cut down on car use people could benefit from less pollution, a more positive community impact and alternative vehicles in place of cars.",0
d1b16de9,1,"Voting for a President is an extremely big deal and needs to be decided properly. People argue the subject that the Electoral College is unfair opposed to an election that is held by popular vote. However, I disagree. The Electoral College is a process in which the most popular vote gets decided on and goes to Congress for the approval. Voting for a president is a big deal, especially when the decision is sealed for four years. The Electoral College has had people question it due to its inncodent in 2000 but overall, it is the best voting option.

Many citizens believe that when they vote that is the final process, no other decisions need to be made, but they are wrong. When qualified citizens vote for a president they also help choose their state's electors. The Electoral College process includes the selection of electors, the vote between who should be President or Vice President and then sent to Congress. Many people argue that the process of the Electoral College is unfair because the electors decide, not the citizens. What people dont understand is the Electoral College are actually deciding for us and thats what makes voters ""iffy."" Under the Electoral College system, voters vote for the electors that actually decide who the president will be. Plumer, 10 The issue that gets faced to the voting citizens is they cant control whom their electors vote for. This can be an issue because of whats known as the disaster factor. Plumer, 11. The most known disaster factor was the big election crisis of 2000. The 2000 campaign was not held very properly, infact seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all. People say that the Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational but in all actuality it is the best way to vote for who will become president. Bob Dole made the comment ""Abolish the Electoral College!"" but if we had just a popular vote, without Congress having a say in the decision, the process wouldnt be as organized.

In the year 2000 the Electoral College faced a big issue with the ""fairness"" of the voting process. At the time Al Gore and George W. Bush were running for president but Bush won receiving 271 electoral votes and Gore 266. Plumer, 1 This made citizens furious because they saw the Electoral College being unfair to voters. Despite that particular campaign, the Electoral College has not shown much faults. All in all the Electoral College process gets the decisons made faster and more efficenty opposed to if it was just by the overall most popular vote.

The argument of the Electoral College method of choosing their president and loosing voters is very popular. Voters knowning their vote will not have any effect, the less voters choose to participate and listen to the campaign. But in all actuality one voters vote will not swich or make the election any different, that is why we have the Electoral College. The Electors make the decison for us, taking the most popular votes and looking them over putting in their extra votes. ""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election"" Posner, 23. Despite the negative views on the Electoral College, it is actually the most organized ""fair"" voting process.",0
d1b21f5d,1,"The electoral college has many inherent flaws that make it less desirable than a simple election by popular vote. It's only rebuttal to said flaws are weak, and provide little to no reason why the college is beneficial. So there is no real reason to have it in the first place. Popular vote stands to not only correct the errors of the electoral college, but also to refine our voting system. It would accomplish this by closer to a real democracy, and forcing the candidates to win over more people.

A democracy has long been revered as one of the best forms of government. It is more liberating than a dictatorship or monarchy in which people are governed by a higher class, which is more often than not decided by someone other than themselves. In a democracy however, people are given the ability to put who they desire in office. They have the ability to be governed by the person of their choice. This, however, is impeded upon by the electoral college. Because what it does is simply insert a middle man into an otherwise democratic society. We are forced to rely on people we elect to vote for us. Which is irrational as it is completely unnecessary. The extra step only sets us up for deception and betrayal. I mean why would you trust a man on the street to cast a vote for you when doing so yourself is much more reliable?

Though why does it even matter if the candidate you want to vote for won't even come to your state? There's obviously no reason to vote democrat if your say will simply be overshadowed by the wave of republicans in your area. With popular vote though, candidates should be more inclined to visit as many states as possible and get their message out there. Because a 51% vote in a state no longer means a 100% victory. With the new influx of political campaigns, perhaps more people are swayed from their usual path of voting. While yes, there are neutral states that need a push either way, you're not going to increase your votes tenfold by pushing past that 50% barrier. You actually have to earn every vote you get.

There is no real reason to keep the electoral college. It serves as a pointless middle man to an otherwise great government. Popular vote requires more out of the candidates, and puts more say into the individual vote.",0
d1db77f2,1,"The electoral college was a great attempt to give a reliable system of selecting the president, but it just does not work the way our founding fathers wanted it to. Many people throughout the country have brought this up as a major issue because they also agree. The other option that people would prefer to have would be selecting the president by the popular vote, which is the smarter path. This method is more democratic, it has a smaller chance of producing unreliable results, and it encourages voters to still vote in states where there is already a predominant political party.

The electoral college is not democratic. The method of selecting people for it is generally controlled by each candidate's political party, and their responsibilities vary based on the party's wants. The people who select the candidates for the electoral college are not part of the popular population they are part of a political party. Next, when people go to vote for the president, they are not voting for the president, but actually voting for a slate of electors that in their turn vote for the president. And to take this to the next step, as shown in ""What Is the Electoral College?"", ""Most states have a winnertakesall system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate."" If voters vote for the candidate that ends up losing, poof, all their votes are given to the other team. To atleast make this a little more fair, instead of voting for the president, voters should cast votes for the electoral college members that are choosing their president. That way, you can at least do research on the people whom you are really voting for and make the best decision possible.

The popular vote is the most reliable way to get results from the people. It is the most raw, unbreakable way of selecting the highest political figure of the country. On the other hand, the electoral college's slight stretches have the possibility of unreliable results. In ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"", it becomes known that ""...thanks to the quirks of the electoral college Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency"". It is still argued that the electoral members chosen are extremely trustworthy :""each party selects a state of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed"" from ""In defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"". However, even in the continuation of the fragment above, even Richard A. Posner ,the author, admits ""however, it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national vote."" The electoral college members are trusted to vote for whom they were voted for, but their job is to be a highly knowledgeable political expert and if they see the other president as a better choice, then it can become very unfair.

The electoral college discourages people to vote in countries where there is already a dominating party. For example, California is mostly a democratic country that usually casts a highly populated vote for the democratic party's electoral candidates. So why should republicans consider voting in this area? The government has always tried to push out that ""every vote counts"", but is this really the case? Another good point of this is explained by Bradford Plumer again in ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best laid defenses of the system are wrong"" : ""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races of 'swing' states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina..."" Swing states, as the're called, are the places where presidential candidates always hang around. They barely bother with the other states because they know they have already got or lost the vote in them...

Some laws were brilliantly passed, but had to eventually be deconstructed due to present implications. The electoral college is not democratic, doesn't produce reliale results, and discourages voters. It is time that we abolish this college just at we overturned the eighteenth amendment before.",0
d1e52301,0,"The modern car is a major travel source in which millions of people rely on daily. The issue with this is the struggle of being stopped at lights or being in a traffic jam. The quintessential point here is that greenhouse gases will be lowered in mass amounts if we limit our car usage. Varying countries are supportive of having car free environmentsareas. Some being Germany, France, Columbia, and the U.S.

Elisabeth Rosenthal describes a community in Germany. Each owner of a house in the neighborhood is allowed to own a car but has to pay a fee of 40,000 to receive a spot. In this neighborhood of Vauban, there is no need for a car because stores are located next to the neighborhood which is ""Placed a walk away"" and is very efficient. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse emissions in Europe..."" Vauban is in an attempt to lower these numbers because the thought of owning a car here is ""frowned upon"" because all essential stores are in walking distance.

The city of Paris was suffering from a smog epidemic and had to enforce a no driving ban. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog..."" The French people that were usually driving were not here, so roads and major highways freed up which allows for more free room. The smog also was depleting due to a decrease of car usage.

Columbia is using a yearly plan for a carfree day which brings open streets to the city of Bogota. The advantage of this limited car usage is the promotion of alternate transportation and reduction of smog. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza in Source three. When it comes to mind, driving can make a day more stressful which hinders work performance. The outstanding responses from this event brought ""Two other Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar..."" into the event. ""Parks and sport centers also have bloomed throughout the city..."" The community of Bogota took a chance to bring their lives closer by incorporating new businesses into a walkable distance from neighborhoods.

According to research, ""Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licences as each year goes by..."" this also provides less Greenhouse gas effects on the environment. A main factor in reducing traffic jamsgreenhouse gases is the new plans that bring hope to those who are skeptical about switching over to carfree. ""New york's new bikesharing program and its skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls..."" Biking is an excellent alternative to driving because it is fast and efficient. Another plan was provided by the Moblie World Congress, ""Barcelona, Spain, Bill Ford, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, laid out a business plan for a world in which personal vehicle ownership is impractical..."" As stated, big motor vehicle companies are trying to reduce the practicality of owning a car as soociety turns its head towards a carfree environment.

Cars are a very fast port of transportation but carry a burden of bad factors. Pollution has increased over the times in which cars have been overused and is the leading cause for an increase in Greenhouse gases. If we limit our car usage, we can create an almost free pollution zone and free up much needed space for other activites than miles upon miles of driving roads.",0
d2011c49,0,"Today, many people all around the world rely too heavily on their cars. There are many great reasons that car usage should be limited. Car usage should be decreased because owning a car can be stressful, dangerous, and cars give off unwanted gas and pollution. Although cars have been used for many years, it is not too late to take action on this problem.

Many people today would agree that buying and maintaining a car is very stressful. It is very expensive to own a car, and it takes a lot of hard work to keep the car in good shape. ""I am much happier this way,"" states Heidrun Walter Rosenthal, 3. Walter states that she is much happier without a car due to all the stress that comes with owning a car. Walter also states that while she had a car, she was ""always tense,"" Rosenthal, 3. This is probably because of the expenses and time she had to sacrifice while trying to take good care of her vehicle. This includes buying the car, paying for gas and insurance, repairs, and washing it. People will save themselves a lot of time and money if the amount of car usage is limited.

Not only are cars are stressful to maintain, but they are also very dangerous to operate. People run the risk of severe accidents every day when they drive their car. In Source 4, the author states that new forms of public transportation will ""improve safety,"" Rosenthal, 43. The most occurring accidents are car accidents, which happen everyday. Families will have to worry less about losing people they are close to. There will be less unnecessary accidents, such as drunk driving, and using phones while behind the wheel. By reducing the amount of drivers on the road, the risk of these accidents will become much lower.

One last reason that car usage should be limited is that cars give off lots of unwanted gas and pollution into the air. Recently, Paris faced ""nearrecord pollution,"" Duffer, 10. This was caused by the extreme amount of emissions from their cars. The main cause for people wanting to reduce the use of cars is because of this unhealthy gas. Cities all over the world are making efforts to help reduce and prevent the emissions. The only way to do this is limit the usage of cars. ""Transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions,"" Rosenthal, 34. If the change can be made, then it should, in order to keep the environment safe. There isn't much time before the pollution gets out of hand.

Although so many people rely on cars so much, they do not see the advantages of not using them. Most people don't put into consideration how harmful these vehicles are to the environment. On top of that, they cause uneeded stress and danger. Because of these reasons, the usage of cars should be limited.",0
d30cce81,0,"Starting with the end of World War II, cars have been a cultural hub all around the world, with businesses and even entire economies relying on the production and sale of cars and car products. However, after over sixty years of a car based global economy, the use of cars is beginning to slowly decline. With the decline of car usage, we see decreases in greenhouse gas pollution, a more relaxed living style, and the dawn of a new era of culture and economy around the globe.

Several major cities around the world have attempted to lower caruse through laws or even annual days devoted to reduced caruse. In Vauban, Germany, seventy percent of the population does not own a car, and fifty three percent of that population sold a car to move to Vauban. Vauban has condensed its suburban layout so that everything is within practical walking range for the most part. They have also discouraged caruse by making parking only available in two places, ""Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to parklarge garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home"" Rosenthal, paragraph 2. Vauban has reported drastic reductions in greenhouse gases. Passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up to fifty percent in the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States is promoting ""carreduced"" communites in order to cut down greenhouse gas emissions, and legislators are acting on the issue. Experts claim that public transportation is beginning to play a larger role in suburbs, and a larger budget is now being given to public transportation instead of highways. Paris also has reduced driving to reduce smog, but they did it through laws. After suffering recordbreaking pollution, Paris enforced a partial ban on driving. On Monday, evennumbered license plates could not drive, or they would be fined twenty two euros, or about thirty one dollars. On Tuesday, the same thing applied to odds. From this driving ban, congestion was lowered up to sixty percent in the French capital. Throughout multiple global cities, these reductions of caruse have had a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and more cities are beginning to join in.

Along with the benifit of reduced greenhouse gases, carreduced societies also have a more relaxed living style. In Vauban Germany, citizens have claimed that they are enjoying a more relaxed life with much less stress. Heidrun Walter was quoted in Elisabeth Rosenthal's article ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" Rosenthal, paragraph 3. Andrew Selsky's article on carfree days in Bogota, Colombia also states that people enjoy the relief of less stress when they don't use their cars. ""'It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution' said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife"" Selsky, paragraph 24. If a drop in caruse leads to a happier, healthier life style, this will most likely set off a cyclicle action of caruse reduction to relief of stress and back to caruse reduction. As more people realize this potential benifit of reducing caruse, more people will beginning to join the population of reduced caruse.

The vast empire of cars that began with the end of World War II has reached its peak and is beginning a steady decline. For nearly seventy years, cars and car products have been a cultural and economical stimulant in both developed and developing countries. From the ModelT to the Buggatti, cars have been percieved as the thing to have over radios, television, and other mass media. Now that they are becoming less used, culture will slowly begin to shift to a different source to hype about. The production of new models of cars and new types of cars will slow and eventually halt all together. As well as culture evolving to a new phase, economy will also undergo major changes. Economy all around the world has been stimulated by auto industries, and international trade has been influenced heavily by it. For example, foreign cars are driven in America more often than domesticallymanufactured cars. Now that caruse is declining, the economy will suffer a major crash in stocks in the auto industry. Although this crash will harm the economy, the everchanging population of Earth will quickly find some new innovation to obssess over and the market will quickly recover and improve on this new product. With a new culture and economy, the world will be in a new era, a new age of living.

With the decline of car usage, we see decreases in greenhouse gas pollution, a more relaxed living style, and a possibilty of a new era of culture and economy around the globe. As the problems with cars are found, people have and will continue to resolve the problem by reducing caruse. The Earth will become healthier with a nicer atmosphere, the population will lead happier lives, and culture itself will transform with the end of major caruse.",0
d33eca96,0,"Cars are a basic need for people today we use them to go from point A to point B in the fastest way posible. But one must ask themselves ""do i really need the car?"", ""would i be better off without one?"", how do you tell people that what they have depended on for movement could be hurting them. I believe that cars should have a limited usage in cities because cars affect our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas, they cause smog to form around cities, and cause us to move through life at the fastest pace posible. A limited car usage would change the way we see the world its beauty, its adventersm, and we would be able to save the world from our destruction.

There is a community in Germany called Vauban where people have given up their cars. 70% of vaughn's families do not own cars, 57% sold their cars just to move to Vauban, ""When I had a car I was always tense, I'm much happier this way,"" media trainer and mother of two Heidrun Walter says in the artical ""In German suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"". Also the artical states that passenger cars are responsible for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and responsible for up to 50% in the United States. Vauban houses up to 5,500 resident within a rectangular square mile, which makes it posibly the most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life, stores are placed just a short walk away so that no car is needed.

Smog a thick layer of black fog that hurts your lungs and can even kill you. Paris had to ban driving due to smog , cars with even numbered license plates would not be allowed to drive one day and the following day cars with odd numbered license plates would not be allowed to drive. 4,000 drivers were fined according to Reuters and 27 people had their cars impounded due to their reaction to the fine. This statement from the artical ""Paris bans driving due to smog,"" show that cars are responsible for a gas that can kill people, and that people dont respond well to being told what to do. In one week the ban was lifted because the smog had cleared enough but not all the way, just a week of limited car usage cleared the skys imagin what a year of it would do.

Cars have us going the fastest we can and people have started to live that way through life. In Bogota they have a day free of cars every years like its a holiday. People left their keys on the counter and insted hiked, biked, skated and took the bus. Even in the rain people didnt use their cars, "" The rain hasnt stopped people from participating,"" says Bogata Mayor Antanas Mockus. Businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza says "" Its a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"". The quotes from the artical "" Car free day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota,"" show that with out cars people feel realeved of stress and are able to have a good time.

In conclusion limited car usage would help us presurve the world and create a enviroment that could help people aswell. Cars are one of the most used products in the world people might not want to give up their cars but eventually might have to. Smog and greenhouse gas are caused by car overuseage and hurt the enviroment and people. Limited car usage is posably the only answer to helping the world live longer aside from buying a hybrid car.",0
d3c0d00b,0,"Many people believe that owning and using a car or other motorized vehicles is an advantage. But is it really? Citizens might be able to get somewhere faster or not have to exert the energy to get there. But is it worth polluting the air, taking up all that space and creating traffic and frustrated citizens, and creating the mindset of a lazy, human being? Maybe instead of spending money on a car, citizens wouldn't be in as much debt, some kids might have college already paid for, and some citizens have their housing paid for. Therefor, this is making happier, stressfree, citizens.

The pollution of the air is a major argument for people who support the nonusage of cars or other motorized vehicles. In Source 1: In Germany Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars, Elisabeth Rosenthal claims that motorized vehicles play a major part in the pollution of the air. Rosenthal says that Europe is responsible 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and the United States is responsible for up to 50 percent.

Most of the time, traffic causes a driver to be frustrated. What causes traffic? Vehicles. So why does everybody drive them? In small, wellpopulated suburbs, traffic is a major issue. With the dense population and the majority of those citizens driving vehicles, traffic is very easily created. Thus, making more citizens frustrated and creating road rage. Road rage also causes more accidents which causes more deaths. Making driving, a dangerous thing. Although, citizens still drive motorized vehicles. Most of the time it is to get to a certain place in a short amount of time, but if a destination is closer than one mile, there is no excuse to use a vehicle to get there. But most citizens do. This creates a lazy mind set.

The average cost of a brand new car is roughly 30,000. If citizens avoid buying a car, it would be a great benefit for them. 30,000 can payoff college, or help with bills or debt, or payoff housing. With more money, this creates happier, and less stressed citizens.

The creation of ""car dues"", and ""carfree days"" could make a huge difference in the environment, economy, safety, traffic, and even the health and stress of a citizen. Although most people still believe that having a car is an advantage, it can be. But not having a car or not using a car as much is a much greater advantage. Not just to an individual, but to society as a whole.",0
d3c1862d,1,"Votes for the president of the United States are counted each election in two ways, the popular vote and the Electoral College. The popular vote is the people's vote, which allows our democratic nation to vote for their leader themselves, and the Electoral College is dependent upon the popular vote, and casts electoral votes based on the number of Representatives and Senators each state has in Congress Source One. People have consistently debated over whether or not this was a fair election process, due to the fact that the people's votes do not directly go to the president. Because of this, many people want the Electoral College to be gone, and people have attempted to abolish it in the past. The Electoral College should be abolished and the US should adopt the popular vote system as their only system because we live in a democratic nation, the current electoral voting process may not represent the popular vote, and it's a more fair system.

As citizens of the United States of America, we depend on the fact that we live in a free nation that values our justice, liberty, and voice. Included within our voice, we also depend on our democracy, that allows us to have say in who runs our country and how. It's important that we take advantage of this voice we have in the government, and it's also important we are represented fairly within it. When we depend on electors from the Electoral College to vote for who our states popular votes went to, they may not be doing that. They ultimately can decide who they are voting for, and if they decide to vote for the opponent, no one can stop them. It's very easy for them to betray our trust without our awareness Source Two. Source Three also states that ""that trust is rarely betrayed,"" which makes it clear that although uncommon, there have been incidents in the past where the citizens have been represented unfairly. In a democratic nation, we should have true sovereignty and be able to cast our popular vote, and know that it is being counted and included in the final say of our leader.

Overall, the Electoral Vote may not represent the Popular vote. As mentioned, there have been incidents in the past that have indicated the truthfulness of this statement. For example, in 1960 John F. Kennedy was almost opposed by unfair elections due to our country's people being misrepresented Source Two. Even if the popular vote of our state goes one way, the ""faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please..."" Source Two. The electors are unreliable and may go one way just because they please to do so while leaving the faithful citizens in the dust with their decisions and votes meaning nothing. The popular vote system would better represent the people than the unreliable Electoral College system we have now.

The popular vote system is a more fair system, one of many reasons being that it would eliminate the advantage large and ""swing"" states have over others. Currently, ""swing"" states are being given more attention to be the candidates because the candidates realize that the fate of their presidency may be dependent upon these states Sources Two and Three. Since the Swing states are the ones who's votes can go either way, the candidates spend more time with these states in order to insure their likelihood to achieve the states electoral votes. This is not a fair process because the other states are not getting to know the candidates like these states do. The same thing goes for large states. Since the number of electoral votes you have is dependent upon population, the larger states have more electorsrepresentatives. Therefore, the presidential candidates want to achieve as many electoral votes as possible and will make sure to appeal to the larger states, leaving the smaller states at a disadvantage due to misrepresentation. The popular vote system would take everyone into account evenly, and therefore represent everyone fairly, and make for a better voting system.

All in all, the current Electoral College system is unfair, misrepresented, and unappealing to a democratic nation. The system should be abolished for all of these reasons, and allow the popular voting system to come in to play. The popular vote system would allow each citizen to be represented equally, and create a more level and fair environment. It's important that a democratic nation feels like one, and that we are all represented fairly, and there's no better way to do so than by being our own representatives.",0
d3e4cb70,0,"A life without cars sure sounds like a great idea for saving up less pollution and have less traffic jams, right? Well, that's a true fact, facing the reality that over the past few years we've had times and times again where we've polluted our own air over the repetitive over use of cars, specially because nowadays there's way more cars being sold from car dealerships like Ford, Mercedes, chevrolet, and etc. On the contrary, there's now been a few areas and cities in a few countries where there's been a shortage of using cars or none used at all. A life without cars can indeed help out so much more in many various occasions and issues like pollution, smog, and traffic.

Carfree cities are the best ways to improve in somewhat of a way for easier transportation and reduced air pollution. For example, as said from source 1, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, on the first paragraph, ""VAUBAN, GermanyResidents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up on cars."" explains how this residence from the few in Germany have made it possible to be carfree. To add more, the author, Rosenthal, from this passage also explains that Vauban contains 5,500 residents making it the most advanced experiment in lowcar suburban life, in lines 47, paragraph 6. The main idea of this is that it's best to keeps cities, or even better whole countries carfree or low ratings of cars being used to help stop such as pollution and traffic jams.

Just like Vauban, Germany is carfree some other countries do their best as well to keep their cities and border safe from the damages and difficulties cars cause. As an example of this, source 2, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, explains in paragraph 10, ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" As this clearly states, Paris has as well moved towards a much closer carfree city itself. Reason for this partial driving ban is because of smog caused by the pollution of cars, this explained on paragraph 17 on source 2 as the author, Duffer, says, ""Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals... last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London, Reuters found."" In comparison, soruce 3, ""CarFree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky, explains how Bogota, Colombia in has a carfree day for devoiding traffic jams. As a few perks that were gained from this carfree day, in paragraph 28, said are: ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up.",0
d40306da,0,"In the United States, people are very busy. With school, work, and extracurricular activities in the mix of ""everything else,"" Americans rely on an efficient and preferably fast mode of transportation, and typically, their first resort is car. However, while cars are extremely convenient, they are also very dangerous to the environment. Car usage should be limited because there are many advantages, including less smog, less traffic, healthier people, and reduced air pollution.

To start off, when car usage is limited, smog and air pollution are drastically limited too. According to the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up to 50 percent in the United States. This is a major problem in many different parts of the world, yet people still continue to always resort to cars, though they have many other options. Transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind powerplants, and the pollution that comes from it is most detrimental to the environment and ourselves. If we limit car usage, we will drastically reduce air pollution.

Furthermore, when car use is limited, it is better for humans. When people do not drive cars, they will sometimes walk, skate, or bike to where they need to be. This is exercise, so it is better for you than just sitting in a car. When people use other methods of transportation like walking, biking, or skating, they do not have to worry about being stuck in traffic for hours. Limiting car usage also saves money. When you do not drive as much, you do not have to pay as much for gas, or paying for parking. These are huge advantages.

In conclusion, there are many different benefits and reasons that we should limit car usage. We can walk, bike, skate, or even take a bus or carpool with other people. It will reduce air pollution, make people healthier, save money, and people can feel good knowing they are doing something good for the environment and themselves.",0
d4b3d8d2,0,"Many places such as Vauban, Germany have given up the usage of cars. Vauban is a goring trend in europe and the United states because of the positive effects of not using cars. One of the biggest examples is polution, also the removal of cars would ultimately lead to a financial increase in our economy, lastly making this change positively effects our future.

First I would like to talk about a huge problem we face as a society today and that is green house gasses. You may not think that these are a big deal put if left unchecked they can become a huge problem. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in europe, and up to 50 percent in carintensive areas. This can become a huge problem ranging from acid rain to climate change. An example of what polution can do to a city is in paris they are putting a partial ban on cars because of how how bad there polution is. There was a huge smog problem because green house gasses were being trapped because of hot days and cold nights.

Also this change can have amazing effects on that areas economy. Because there will be no cars people will take the bus witch is less than paying for gas or they can walk to closer places. Also gas prices would decrease for other forms of transportation because there wouldnt be cars demanding the fuel. family could sell there cars and spend the money they were using to fund there car other thing witch will lead to the people being happier. Also the removal of cars will lead to the creation of jobs because they will need people to operate public transportation.

Lastly the removal of cars will have a positive effect on the future of our world. With the track were on now the world is estimated to heat up and have negative consequences on our society. these climate changes may seem small but they can have drastic effects. in china there is a lake that is so polluted you set the top of it on fire because there is so much pollutants on it. also this chang has coralation with peoples happiness. Were already started down the path of less cars, recent studies suggest that americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by.

For the following benefits is why we should stop using cars and continue with the idea of using public tranportation and walking. Cars creat polution, its better for our economy to stop the use of cars and this will poitivley effect out furute.",0
d4c08431,0,"Car, bikes, walking and such are many forms of transportation. Cars are the main favorite overall. But as time continues we see that the drastic need for cars is growing smaller and smaller because we are now seeing the bigger picture limiting car usage is a bigger plus than a negative.

In Vauban,German the suburb is going ""carfree"". Rosenthal speaks about how Vauban allows cars but there are only two locations where they may park these cars. If you want to park your car you must buy a space for 40,000, and a home along with your parking space. Due to these facts 70% of Vauban families do not own a car. An advantage of this limited car usage is that people like Heidrum Walter speak about how she is much happier and less tense without her car.

Vauban is in an area that is more accessible to public transportation and closer to stores. The closeness allows people easier accessablity to buses, or walking and biking places. With everything close its easier to get to point A to B. Also reduces pollution and greenhouse gases due to the fact they aren't using cars to get to there locations.

In Source 2 Duffer, speaks about how in Paris bans are being placed against the usage against cars, due to the fact Paris has a high level of smog. Paris had motorists with evennumbered license plates on Mondays leave there cars home or suffer a fine. On Tuesday motorists with oddnumbered license plates were to leave cars home or suffer a fine. The advantage of this ban is that having so many people leave there cars home on Monday allowed the smog to clear enough that the ban for Tuesday was rescind. If Paris were to do this ban for a couple of years there smog issue would be completely gone. This would be a major advantage for them, it would give them less pollution, not as many people getting sick due to the smog, and a less car dependent city.

An event was created in Bogota, Colombia called A Day Without Cars. Which was to have people go carfree for a day. Colombians used many other transportations such as biking, buses, and hiking. This event allowed smog to be reduced due to the fact Colombians could not use a car this day or be fined. Also this event helped spark other areas want to pertake in this event. This was a huge advantage having many other places join A Day Without Cars this meant more areas helping reduce smog and helping many more areas become aware of the fact cars dont have to be the only form of transportation people use.

All in all if areas become less car dependent, there shall be less smog, pollutions and lastly people wont have to travel as far due to the fact everything will be closer. The smaller amount of cars we have, the more positive outcomes.",0
d5519d77,1,"Dear State Senator, I think that our president's should be chosen by popular vote because they have better chances of winning and they will know how many people agree with what they are trying to do in the United States.

The president's have better chances of winning because they can have the most votes and wouldn't have to wait on the Electoral College. Such as paragraph 9 says, ""Thanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" I think that was unfair because Al Gore could of been the president but instead he was not, after all the campaigning he did to get those voters to vote for him it ended up as a waste because the voting didn't get him anywhere. If I was a president I would be highly upset because I knew I could have a big chance of losing just because of the Electoral College. What doesn't make any sense to me is that the voters are not voting for the president but are voting for a slate of electors. What's the whole point of voting then? People are out here voting for electors that they don't even know and most of the electors are people who not holding public office. In paragraph 13 it says, ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" To me they are cheating people out of their votes, people vote for the one that they think could make a change not just voting just to be voting.

The president would know how many people agree with what they are trying to do in the United States. The electoral college votes won't help them know who is really for them and who's not because if someone win over electoral votes there are going to be people out there mad about the fact that they had won. This will make people not want to vote at all because 9 times out of 10 the person they are voting for gone lose. The electoral college just makes it difficult for the people that are running for president. I'm not saying that it should be easy to just become something big, but if you worked hard enough I think that you should be honored enough to become president through popular votes. This will make the incoming president feel appreciated for all the hard work they did to recieve all these votes. They will know that what they are trying to set forward is good for some people and not just for them. Such as paragraph 12 says, ""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote."" What would happen then? That's why you should just give it to the person with the most votes because they deserve it.

I hope what I have really proved my argument that we should change the way a president is chosen so it can be fair to everyone. I think this will make the incoming president feel confident in himself to make this happen.",0
d55ac878,1,"Dear, We dont need another voting crisis over the small states, the representatives voting how they want to vote to suit their needs. Our voting system needs to be perfected, so we dont have any more tie elections of complications. The Electoral College system is very easy to get unbalanced and played around with to get the outcome that they so desire. As a country we should abolish the Electoral College system and vote baised of off popular vote.

When the whole country votes for the president, in reality we are really voting for a group of electors to do this job for us. In article 2"" Under the electoral college system,voters vote not for the president, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the president."" This is saying that the people really dont directly vote for the president and in that time anything can happen to the voting data. Another clame to help that point is article 2 ""conciter that state legislature are technically responsible for picking electors, and those electors could always defy the will of the people."" The excerpt from article 2 is saying again that anything can happen to the data and it can be easily tampered with. In article 3 "" its the electors who elect the president, not the people. When you vote for a presidential candidate you are actually voting for a stats of electors."" Again this still says that we are not directly voting and the people want that.

The ""winner takes all"" voting method is not really effective because if a little less than half of claforna votes democrat and a little more than half vote republican, should all 55 votes go to the republican candidate or should that percent go to the candidate? In article 1 ""Most states have a ""winnertake all"" system that awards all electors to the wining presidential candidate."" This system is qutie unjustice and not equal to the rest of the states expesilly for the ""swing"" states.

This system of electorial college is not the most balenced of the systems that our nation can come up with. In article 2 "" The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe."" This so called ""amazing"" system has manny defaults and those defaults will cause huge problems tor the rest of the nation. In article 3 "" A tie in the nation wide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes 538 is an even number."" So ties in the national voting for the president can have a tie and is not that efficent in the way that we find who wins.

There are some bright sides to this style of voting. In article 1"" The founding fathers established it in the Constution as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in congress and election."" A compromise is good for our country and it was created a long time ago might be older than dirt. Also in article 1"" The electors are generally chosen by the candidates politicle party."" So atleast the people in whom the people are trusting to put their votes in is by someone that the head of the politicle party trusts.

To conclude the electoral colege system needs to be retired and the country needs to vote off of popular voting. The people need to represent them selves and not by some random person who could mess with the voting data to get who they want to win the election. Each state has to give up all of its votes to one side of the 2 parties.",0
d5b141f7,1,"Politicians and the public have argued for years over one burning question: Should the Electoral College be discontinued? I believe the Electoral College should not be used in the United States anymore. To understand the faults within this system, one must understand the system at its basic level. The Electoral College is a system that consists of 538 electors. Each state has a different amount of electors, granted on the size of that state's population. When the election is held, the voter votes for the electors, not the candidate directly.

The first fault one can find while examining this system is the ""winner takes all"" policy that most states have. In paragraph seven of the first source, the article states, ""Most states have a ""winnertakesall"" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate."" This system seems unfair, especially in states where the vote for electors is won by a small margin. The votes cast for the candidate who lot the electoral votes in their state are not counted in choosing the president, which hinders the ideals of democracy in this country. In paragraph nine of the second source, the article reads,"" according to a gallop poll in 200, taken shortly after Al Gore, thanks to the quirks of the Electoral College, won the popular vote but lost the presidency."" This crisis in 2000, when George W. Bush won the electoral college, but Al Gore won the popular vote, displays the lack of clarity with this system. This election was a prime example that the president is not chosen by the popular voice, but rather by the Electoral College, which does not accurately represent everyone.

The second fault with Electoral College stems from the first issue: people are not voting because they feel as if their voice is not being heard. Stated as a counterargument in paragraph 23 of source three, the article states, ""It can be argued that the Electoral College method...may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope for carrying their state Democrats in Texas, for example, or Republicans in California."" People are choosing not to vote because they feel as if their voice is being shadowed by the major political thinking in their state, and this mindset corrupts the institution of democracy in the United States.

An argument made by those in favor of the Electoral College can found in paragraph 20 of source three, ""Voters in toss up states are more likely to pay attention to the campaign...They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average and the most thoughtful voters shoule be the ones to decide the election."" This argument is opinionated and has no substantial evidence behind it. According to source 2 in paragraph 13, ""During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all."" This was due to the candidates spending their time, money, and efforts to win over ""swing states"", the states that could go either Republican or Democrat depending on the candidates that year.

The Electoral College is a system that should not be used anymore because it does not properly consider the opinions of all voters, turns away voters who believe they will not have their voices heard, and leave states without seeing ads or candidates during the election because these candidates are trying to win over other states.",0
d5d24a91,0,"Cars are used everyday to get from one place to another. In some places, people depend on cars more than others that live in different parts of the world. However, the reduction of car usage has many advantages the planet would greatly benefit from less pollution, traffic jams would not be as frequent, and people become more healthy as a result.

Limiting the use of cars would greatly help the problem of pollution in the world today. In the article written by Elisabeth Rosenthal, In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars, she describes what affects cars have on pollution, ""Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middleclass families from Chicago to Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe....Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United states"" Rosenthal. One can clearly see that cars are a major factor in the pollution dilemma that so many people are trying to resolve. Everyone can take a part in the resolution of reducing pollution by depending less on cars and using other modes of transport such as public transportation, biking, or even walking. Some cities are placing enforcements to ban the usage of cars. Paris is an example of one of these locations. The result of the enforcement was that congestion or smog went down 60 percent. This is a great improvement for the city, which is known for having nearrecord pollution. Multiplying these enforcements to other cities would definitely bring down a large percent of the pollution found on Earth. This is benefiting not only the planet, but also the population that lives on the planet by enabling them to breathe healthier air.

The cause of traffic jams is the abundant amount of cars on the road, which could be avoided if less cars were used. Andrew Selsky wrote in his article, Carefree Day is Spinning Into a Big Hit in Bogota , ""In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carefree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams"" Selsky. With no cars to clog the streets, a relaxed sentiment took the place of a usually anxious and hurried feeling. Rushhour restrictions were put in act, and have drastically cut traffic. Less honking takes place, and more time is saved in order to get to one's destination. Cars are not always needed to get someone where they want to go, and the enviornment is less stressul without all of the congestion of cars on the road.

People become more healthy when car usage is limited. Instead of taking a car to get from point A to point B, some people are walking or biking instead. This is a huge benefit to the people that are exercising. Also, in Carefree Day is Spinning Into a Big Hit in Bogota, it says that parks and sports centers have bloomed throuhout the city of Bogota because of the decreased usage of automobiles. The parks and sport centers help people stay active and healthy.

Although cars are useful in order to get to one's destination, there are many advantages to cutting back the usage of them. A huge advantage is that pollution would drastically go down. Another is the time and stress saved from less traffic jams. Lastly, people would benefit from the way they are making their lives more healthy.",0
d6164eb0,0,"Ever wondered how the streets of a very populated city would look like? For example, Miami. At night Miami is full buildings that stand out in color, and on the highways you can see a whole road full of lights, the thing with these lights is that they are cars, even though they are helpful by getting us from point A to point B, they are the second highest source of pollution in the United States, that is after power plants. The only thing a city like Miami is missing at night is a sky full of bright stars, which that can be done by people not driving to everywhere they go, even if it is one or two blocks away. This whole ""carfree"" thing is become more and more popular all over the world.

In Vauban, Germany a small town, home to 5,500 people have decided to go carfree. ""As a result, 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here"" Source 1. 70 percent of the the people is a lot, these streets are completly carfree except in the main thoroughfare and on the edge of the community, if this were to happen to a larger city the nights would be beautiful, and so will the days because you have all the car noise out and instead you have people talking and kids running all around the streets. ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"" source 1. Miami is a carintensive area, I know this from personal experience, there is always traffic during the day. I've been to other places in Florida, not that far from Miami, in Palm Beach at night the amount of starts you see at nights is beautiful and it's something new to see other than in Miami you see 2 to 3 stars. My point here isn't stars, it's how much better the world can be if we all do what this small town in Germany is doing.

Paris, France. The city of lights home to millions of residents and a landmark for millions of tourists, one would think this city couldn't run without cars, but they made it happen. Paris wanted to clean all the air polution in their city, ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31"" Source 2. Even though some didn't listen and about 4,000 drivers were fined, that is still very little compared to the entire population of Paris. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog"" Source 2. Can you believe that? Traffic was down by 60 perfect in the city of lights, if it can happen there it can happen all around the world, little by little bu we'll get it. Public transportation was free of charge in the city while this carfree thing was going on. One week later the smog had cleared out enough for the ruiling French party to rescind the ban.

""BOGOTA, Colombia In a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams"" Source 3. Yes, the city of Bogota in Colombia had its one carfree day, in Bogota called ""Day Without Cars"", this was the third year actually, on this ""carfree"" day cars are banned and only buses and taxis are permitted for the day. Bogota was not the only Colombian city to participate in this event, other Colombian cities like Cali and Valledupr, participated in this event for the first time. I find it funny and ironic because my sister has a friend who is Colombian and she owns a bicycle and she goes everywhere in that bicycle, and she refuses to get a car. Bogota is a very known city and just like I said before, if they can do it then the whole world can it. This day should be world wide and should be done at leats twice a year. Events like this will also get people motivated to start walking morre often. ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restuarants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"" Source 3. If you've ever been to Miami, you know the huge amount of building there are here and I think there are about 3 or 4 being built at I type, how about we stop there and make Miami and healthier and more environmentally friendly place.

In the United States, research shows ""A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009"" Source 4. This meaning that adolescents aren't as intresting and driving as they were before, yeah I see how driving can be better but most kids here take the bus, they aren't even driven by their parents anymore. I find that this is a good thing because, one can ask themselves, I can't make a difference, but if thousands of people ask themselves that, then yes a difference can be made. In 2005 the miles driven by Americans peaked, and then steadily went dropping, in April, 2013 they found out that the miles in car was the same as it was in 1995. Not driving everywhere you go and actually walking there is a good thing because you can make new friends, and health wise it is also good because, instead of walking around your block for an hour, you can walk to someones house or to the store. There are several carpooling apps on the internet nowadays, if your friends can't pick you up, for just a push of a button you can have someone come pick you up to where ever you are and drop you off where you need to go to, for a low price. ""Recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by"" Source 4. This means that people aren't as interest in driving anymore, which means we are slowly getting near the time where we'll see more stars in the sky in carintensive areas.",0
d664b503,1,"The electoral college has been a part of the united states for many years. The founding fathers were the ones who established it in the constitution. The electoral college seems to have worked for all these years , but my opinion on this is that we should change it to electing a president with popular vote. There are many pros and cons to both the electoral college and the popular vote but the positives of the popular vote outweigh the negatives more then the electoral does. If you are reading this senator of state I hope this letter will support your opinion on this or make you consider popular vote.

The united states is a democracy so the citizens living here should have the right to vote for the president of the united states. With the electoral college the citizens are'nt the ones voting for the president the electors are. In the electoral college the voters are voting for a slate of electors, who then vote for the president. In most cases the elector votes for the candidate that their party wants, in some cases the elector has chosen the opposing candidate to what his party wants according to the second source. Since the elector is allowed to do this that is one reason why the electoral college is unfair. Popular vote is when the people vote for the candidate they want this is truly what a democracy is when the people choose their representatives.

The electoral college is unfair to voters because of the winnertakeall system in all the states, because candidates don't spent time in the states they know they will lose in. They only focus on the states that they know they will win in or of a close chance to the other candidate, because of this there has been times when people would not see the candidates at all or they did'nt get to see a single campaign ad. If there was popular vote then this would not be the case and it would be eliminated, because candidates would have no choice but to put up advertisements all over the country.

Even though the popular vote is a good way to go I think that this system of electing president is still not perfect or will never be perfect. The electoral college allowed some of are greatest presidents to win beacuse if they got more electoral votes then popular vote it would'nt matter they will still win. The electoral college also avoids the problem of one candidate not recieving the majority of the votes cast. The electoral college has been in are country for so long and has worked for us well but I still believe that the popular vote can be and should be used in future elections. If you have read this senator I hope this might have changed or supported your opinion on this topic.",0
d6a0c52d,1,"Dear State Senator, It has recently come to my attention as I study our states voting system, that we as Americans do not have enough word in who we have as our leader. In a plethora amount of documents from the United States, and our constitution it states all men are created equal, when in all reality we are allowing the Electoral College have more say in who our president rather than we do. Not only does the Electoral College have more say in our President, but it allows the President to only go to states that they feel is nessisary to go to get the vote. It also gives less say to the smaller states making the people there feel there vote doesnt count, allowing them to vote for any party. If we change our voting system we can vote for our leader rather than us voting for the slate of electors, and have the most popular leader of our country be our president.

The first reason i feel we should overthrow the Electoral College is because it is discriminating states votes based on there sizes. In the article,""Does the Electoral College Work"", it states that because of the different sizes of our states some people feel they do not get a fair say in who makes decisions for our country. They feel that because they dont live in a big state like Texas they do not have equal say in the decisions our country makes. In the article Plumer wrote, "" In the same vein, faithless electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whoever they please..."". The Electoral College is changing peoples mind set on how to vote because they feel why should we care if the government does not, can you blame them? If we just took out the simple problem of the Electoral College more voters will vote honestly rather then go with everyone elses vote.

Another reason i feel we should favor the popular voting system is because this would show that the soon to be presidents should vist all of there voters rather then the ones they know they will probably win. ""Because of the winnertakesall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight race in the ""swing"" states."" What the author is saying here is the candidates dont give equal chances to the states to here what they,the candidates, have to say. For example if a democrate is going to states he would most likley avoid the ones full of republicans because he feels he has no chance and does not spend the money. But, if we get majority votes this will allow every indvividual to vote rather a group of republicans. Not only does this allow a better chance of winning for that democrate it allows the voters to feel like they can change there minds because they have a say. This will contribute to the conidates because they can now get there point across to more, rather then to select little groups.

The final reason we should get rid of this system is because at this point in time we are not even voting for our presidents we are voting for people who vote for us. What i mean is ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but the slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" Americans have always wanted to be in power and have a say in what we do but in the case of voting we do not. By doing this we are allowing the government to make all of the decisions for us, as if we were children. When you turn to the legal age for voting your vote should count. With this majority does not rule, for instance say our votes of 46 percent and 54 percent were to come in. The man of the 46 percent still has a chance of winning when the people had already voted. The problem with that is at that point the peoples word goes out the window, and the government once again jumps in demanding that they choose.

As we learn more about this topic we realize how rediculious this situation is. Obviously, going with popular vote is the best solution because we will finally be what everyone has been trying to do for decades, be equal. Sir, i hope you understand my rgument and really take into concideration what i have said.",0
d6b239a0,0,"The invention of the automobile revolutionized the way humans traveled from place to place in the 20th century, but now since we have entered the last century, people are beginning to question why we implement the automobile so much into our lives. The automobile should not be so interconnected within our lives, in fact, limiting it's usage would have many advantages. These advantages include cutting down on our carbon footprint, and reducing the amount of stress and congestion within our streets.

Restricting the usage of the automobile can benefit the environment immensely. After all, transportation is the second largest source of pollution in the US, so restricting automobiles can severely reduce the impact of carbon emissions on our environment Rosenthal. If we don't take action now, and start cracking down on pollution from carbon emissions, our cities will develop smog problems similar to what Beijing experiences, which is one of the most polluted cities in the world Duffer. fortunately for Paris, a week of partial driving bans helped clear the five days of nearrecord pollution it was experiencing, and it helped it return to normal Duffer. If five days of reducing the number of drivers by half manages to clear the smog from Paris, it's possible to delay or even halt the risng of global warming across the planet if the globe decides to enact restrictions on car usage. Therefore, restricting car usage could have innumerable benefits for our environment.

Another advantage of restricting car usage would be a reduction in the amount of stress and congestion crowding our city streets. For instance, when Paris enacted the weeklong half ban on automobile usage, congestion was down 60% in the city's streets Duffer. Another instance of a city banning automobiles is Bogota, Columbia, which bans cars one day a year. The goal is intended to promote alternative transportation in the city, and this leaves the ""streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic Jams"" Selsky. Many citizens enjoy this day, and resident Carlos Arturo Plaza described the day as ""a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" selsky. A city called Vauban in Germany are pioneering a new type community where no cars are permitted within the city, and the only area they are permitted are the outskirts of the city. This orientation benefits the residents by elimating most of the noise and stress of car engines running, and instead replacing them with the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children Rosenthal. A resident of the pioneer city, Heidrun Walter, said ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" Rosenthal. Therefore, limiting car usage collosally reduces the pandomonium and congestion we experience everyday in our lives due to automobiles.

All in all, restricting car usage poses numerous advantages for everyone. The advantages include reducing our impact on the environment by cutting down carbon emissions, as well as decreasing the amount of stress and congestion found in our city streets.",0
d6ec0481,1,"Ai one poini, I believed ihe elecioral college was a bad idea. Alihough, afier reading ihis, my view on ihe maiier as changed dramaiically. The elecioral college keeps a balance in a couniry, a balance very much needed. I agree wiih ii one hundred perceni.

The elecioral college was esiablished as a compromise beiween eleciion of ihe Presideni by congress, and eleciion of ihe Presideni by popular ciiizen voie. The founding faihers feli ii would given congress ioo much power if ii elecied ihe Presideni all by iiself. They also feli if ciiizens chose ihe seai by ihemselves ihere wouod be chaos. They decided on a nice in beiween ihey boih choose, well sori of. Whai many ciiizens do noi know is ihai when ihey casi iheir voie, ihey are noi voiing for ihe presideni, bui for a slaie of eleciors who in iurn eleci ihe Presideni.

I myself feel ihis meihod is greai. Ii leaves room for very few misiakes. The problem wiih ciiizens voiing direcily for ihe presideni can be broken inio iwo caiegories: unceriainiy and underqualificaiion. If ihe voie were solely based on ciiizen voies, ihe siaiisiical ouicome of ihe eveni would be crazy. Wiih ihe majoriiy of ihe elecioral college applying ihe winner iake all approach, ii cuis ihose numbers down incredibly. Ii is alloi easier io confirm a winner oui of 538 voies ihen ii is io confirm one oui of hundreds of millions of voies now isn,i ii?

Anoiher ihing ihai makes ii hard for ciiizens io direcilly voie for iheir presideni is being underqualified. Many people ihink for ihemselves and only ihemselves. They are noi qualified io make choices for ihe sake of ihe whole couniry, ihai is where ihe eleciors come in. These are people chosen by siaie conveniions, siaie pariy commiiiees, and someiimes candidaies ihemselves. They hear ihe ideas of ihe people and manage ihem so ihai ihey are able io help everyone. They are pro poliiicians whose job in life is io preserve our couniry The elecioral college is noi of a democracy, bui of a diciaiorship. The U.S governmeni leis people choose ihese eleciors so ihey feel imporiani in ihe choices our couniry makes. We iake iime io siudy our favoriie candidaies, and if ihe elecioral college does noi agree wiih ihem, ihey are pushed io ihe side. Whai happens io ihe people who did noi voie for ihe, ""righi"" candidaie? They are forever unheard. Senienced io live in a communiiy where ihey are silenced. I do noi agree wiih ihe elecioral college because agree wiih our fore faiher Abraham Lincoln. He said ihis was supposed io be a couniry of ihe people, by ihe people, and for ihe people.

You are wrong in so many levels sir. ihe elecioral college does noi exclude democracy, ii promoies ii! Every ciiizen of legal age uses iheir god given righi io express iheir poliiical preference in ihe hopes of improving our couniry. The elecioral college prevenis regional rulership over areas ihai prefer one poliiical side. Ii reelecis every four years io lei everyone know, ihough your ihoughis may noi have been used in ihese pasi iimes, know ihai ihey have surely been heard. Things like ihe elecioral college make me proud io live in ihe Uniied Siaies of America, ihe greaiesi couniry in ihe world.",0
d75614ca,0,"Cars are very important to the life of a modern person. The car gets you where you need to go in the time that you want to go in. There are ways to limit car usage and still get your transportation to where you need to go. There are some advantages to not using cars all the time. One advantage is that if we stop using cars, then pollution will drop drastically. Another advantage to us not using cars is that we get plenty of exercise while we do other things than just sit in our cars.

Paris, France. Known for being the city of love, but doesn't have a certain love for cars. They banned car usage after days of nearrecord pollutionsource 2 paragraph 10. In order to make sure that the residents don't use their cars still the placed a 22euro fine 31 for anyone still drivingsource 2 paragraph 11. After only just a few days, congestion was down almost 60 percent in the capital of France source 2 paragraph 14. In the United States, most kids these days aren't driving as much as they used to. They are buying fewer cars, driving less, and getting fewer licenses each year source 4 paragraph 29. If this keeps up, then lot of sociologist think that this will have a huge effect on the environment, which will lead to the end of pollution problemssource 4 paragraph 34. This advantage of having less car usage will not only help the earth, but it also will help the things on the earth including us humans and animals.

The final advantage that limiting car usage is that we will have plenty of exercise. A mother of two that had a car but the sold it in Germany said "" When i had a car I was always tense, I'm much happier this way""source 1 paragraph 3. She usually walks down the street to and from wherever she goes. exercising is great for your health and you can just start by walking, biking, skating, roller blading and many more ways to get to where you need to go. In Bogota, Columbia millions of people hiked , biked, skated, or took buses to work source 3 paragraph 20. ""It's good opportunity to take away stress..."" source 3 paragraph 24 said businessman Carlos arturo Plaze when he was asked about the banning of cars for the third straight year in Germany source 3 paragraph 24. Stress isn't good for your health and excercising is great on removing that stress from your body. Excersisng is a great advantage to limited car usage because you reduce stress, work out, and feel better all while you get to where you need to go at the same time.

The advantages that everyone gets from limited car usage is that the pollution will go down, and you get better exercise. If pollution goes down then you will have a better earth for everyone to enjoy, but you can't enjoy the earth if it's congested with polutted air. You also get great exercise when you walk, bike, skate to wherever you need to go instead of sitting in a car to go to your destination. These are only some of the advantages that you get when you choose to limit your car usage, but there are plenty more that you will experience as soon as you limit the usage of cars.",0
d7767e99,0,"The advantages of limiting car usage result in a healthier environment for you and your children, exercise by walking or riding a bike, and saving money on parking and gas.

Limiting car usage would be beneficial for the environment because the gas wouldn't polute the air. Green house gas emissions from tailpipe polute the air that everyone is breathing. If the car usage was limited, then the air would start to become fresh again. Stated in the passage, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" This exerpt from the passage ""CarFree Cities"" explains that Europe's percentage is too high and they need to drop it fast or the percentage will grow and the greenhouse gas emissions will increase.

Limiting car usage isn't a big move like most people are making it out to be. Walking to pick up your child from school isn't such a bad thing! It gives you bonding time to spend with them outdoors. You can walk or ride a bike to the park to play. Especially if it is less than 1 mile! Walking is a great way to exercise and its free! FREE! This component of ""smart planning"" could work if eveyone helped by reducing car use.

Having a car is expensive! You have to pay for gas, which is expensive, and you have to pay to park your car! If you live in the area where you want to go, walk! But if you're going to the grocery store, obviously you would take your car if you're getting a lot at the store. You have to pay to park in the parking garage and that is 40,000 with a house. The passage ""CarFree Cities,"" states that ""70% of Vauban's families do not own cars, and 57% sold a car to move here."" In that town, everything is pretty close to each other so you don't have to drive anywhere. If you needed to go visit a family member in a different city, the the train! It's fun, free, and calming.

As you can see, you don't need to drive a car. Yes, you can drive a car, but why would you? You have buses, and trains, and other ways of transportation. This way, you don't have to pay for gas to go to the park. Not using your car is healthy for the environment and it's great exercise. It's a good way to get outdoors and have a nice walk. So please, just try using your car a little bit less everyday and soon enough, you will rarely use it, the air will be fresh, and you'll be taking some nice strolls in the park with your family.",0
d7cd4e28,0,"Ah, the great smell of pollution hitting your face as you walk out the door the way the polluted air puts a haze over your eyes. There is nothing better than that when you begin to start your day every morning. Most people do not seem to enjoy the slap in your face you get when you just cannot seem to get enough air into your lungs. The use of cars has be steadily decreasing over the years, and public transportation are beginning to be used more, and more. Along with this, cities are even beginning to ban the usage of cars. This has become an idea that has spread globally and everyone is beginning to take an interest to have the pollution level lowered, and to make the air much cleaner.

It is time to inform you, that places around the world big, and small are beginning to ban the usage of cars. Cities as big as Paris, France have banned car usage to bring down the pollution levels found in their great cities. Vauban, Germany, a suburban community, has completely given up their cars, in which car owners must purchase a spot for their car in a garage that can cost up to fortythousand dollars. According to Elisabeth Rosenthal in, In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars , seventy percent of vaughn's families do not even own cars, and fiftyseven percent of the people living there chose to sold their cars before they moved there. vaughn's ideas has been spread throughout the world and now other suburbs are beginning to want to make places denser and make everything a walking distance away. Cities as great as Paris, France enforced a partial ban on driving cars to clear the air of the city, which was said by Robert Duffer in, Paris bans driving due to smog.

Paris had made it easier to get public transportation while the ban was being enforced by making public transportation free of charge Friday to Monday. With pollution levels higher than ever with the amount of factories and cars, in congested cities it is a good idea for car usage to go down to allow the air to clear from pollution. Limiting the amount of car usage will clear the air we breathe, and allow us to inhale deeper breaths.

In addition, there are many different forms of transportation that can be used instead of just the average car, you may use bikes, rollerskates, skateboards longboards, and penny boards, or even just a simple walk to get to places. Attempting to minimize the usage of everyone using a single car to get to a place a carpool, taxi, bus, train, or subway can be another means of transportation that may be used. This will limit the amount of traffic on the streets, and minimize the amount of pollution that is going into the air. Some will say that not driving to your destination yourself will take more time whether it be because you have to wait for your specific train to arrive, or waiting for the taxi to show up to your doorstep, you have to wait a few extra minutes to leave for your destination. In reality, that few extra minutes you have waiting for the taxi can be stopped you can do this by, calling the taxi a few minutes before you want to leave so that it will arrive precisely when you want it too. With the use of bikes, walking, or skating everywhere you go, you will also begin to get into better shape, as you are moving towards your destination. The usage of cars for only trips that will take hours will also help to save you money on gas, and your car millage.

Furthermore, by beginning to add neat sidewalks, parks, and everything in a walking distance people will be encouraged to walk more and will not have reason not to use their car. Elisabeth Rosenthal states in, The End of Car Culture , that even in America the usage of car is beginning to dtop down steadily. The amount of young people getting their driver's license is starting to decrease and has gone down twentythree percent between 2001 and 2009. She also state at the Mobile World Congress the proposed the idea that they should partner with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emission and improve safety."" With people beginning to take interest in other means of transportation cities, and towns alike will begin to make things a walking distance to meet the obscure demand from the people.

In conclusion, people around the world are beginning to take interest in lessening the usage of cars in their cities, and towns. Cars have began going down in sales and less people are buying them. Other means of transportation have come up that will begin to benefit us health wise. Making us healthier by excercising and clearing our air of toxins found in pollution. If cities around the world begin to decrease the amount of car usage our air will become much clearier and satisfying to live in. It will make getting to destinations much safer with the less chance of accidents and injuries from motor vechicles. Reducing car usage will begin to change the world by making it a much cleaner, healthier place to live.",0
d7ea0f02,0,"Imagine being stuck in traffic again for the fifth time this week. You glance at the time and you see that you're running late for work again. Cars can cause lot of problems like for example, people get into many car crashes that kill many innocent children or bystanders, the traffic jams always take hours to clear up, and the exhaust in the tail pipe is polluting the air. There are many advantages to limiting car usage. The advantages are there will be more people on bikes and walking to place to place, less traffic, and less pollution in the air.

Although cars may come in handy they can be a real pain to have. Like for instance paying car insurance every month, paying for gas, and paying for your car if anything breaks and needs a new part If the car usage was limited there will be more people on bikes and walking. This is good for the residents because they are spending less money and they are getting excersise from this. In Vauban, Germany the residents there have given up their cars. 70% of vaughn's families do not own cars Rosenthal, 3. There only transportation there is a tram that runs though Freiburg Rosenthal, 2. This helps residents there get to place to place easier.

Also with the car limitations there will be a whole lot less traffic on the roads. For example in Paris, France they made even numbered license plates residents leave their cars at home, then the next day odd numbered license plate residents Duffer, 11. Even though they tried to ban the cars there were 40,000 drivers fined due to driving their cars Duffer, 12. Also when this rule was put into place there was less traffic in the capital of France. The traffic went down by 60% Duffer, 14.

Most importantly there will be less pollution in the air. Residents in cars dont really know how much pollution is put into the air when they drive. The exhaust from the tail pipe of a car is causing a huge defect in this earth's greenhouse effect. In france the pollution was so bad there was smog in the air from all the cars Duffer, 14. The smog in France was as bad as the world's most polluted cities in the world, Beijing, China Duffer, 14. Also in Bogota, Colombia there was really bad smog, but after the car limitation there was a huge decrease in the smog Selsky, 21.

In conclusion, there are many advantages in car limitation. The advantages are there will be more people on bikes and walking to place to place, less traffic, and less pollution in the air. With less cars this will help our earth big time because the greenhouse effect will stop getting car exhaust pumped through there. Also we may fine alternate ways to replace gas and oil to make this world healthier.",0
d7f8824d,1,"The presidential election is an enormous event that almost all Americans over the age of eighteen participate in. But there is one problem, the system we use for it is outdated, unfair, and just terrible! The electoral college needs to be removed because voters need more power, and there are tons of problems that come with the electoral college.

There are some pretty solid defenses for the United States to keep the electoral college. For example, as stated in in the article by Posner, even though some candidates can dominate regions, ""no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president."" But the thing is, even though it might not be enough to win the election, it extremely benefits the candidates race. Another defense states in poster's article is that the trust of the slate of electors that you are actually voting for is ""rarely betrayed."" This is a flawed defense because it shouldn't be rarely betrayed, instead, it shouldn't be betrayed at all!

Since the trust of voters in the slate of electors can't be betrayed, why not put the power in the voters hands instead of people most of the voters have never even met? The voters aren't even voting for the president in the electoral college system, they are voting for a slate of electors. And in the text written by Plumer, that the voters can't even control who they're voting for! Another claim in plumber's article to back the last sentence up is: ""The House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people."" That is just ludicrous! Also, voters quite frequently ""get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidates."" That just goes to show one of the extreme amount of problems that the electoral college system has. As stated in plumber's passage, one of the biggest problems the electoral college system has is that ""over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct electioin to the kind we have now."" But, no one can expect them to listen because, you can clearly tell from their system that they don't care about the common voters opinion, but the direct election system does. In plumber's article, he loosely states that another thing that can go wrong with the system we have now is the state can possibly cheat and send two slates of electors to Congress. It has happened before so who says it can't happen again? ""Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote.""John Plumer Having a tie is just another terrible flaw in the awful electoral college system that the United States runs today.

Most voters can't even have a say in the election if we don't stop running the electoral college system. But, if the U.S. finally smartens up and changes, the presidential election would have much fewer problems and it would put more power in the hands of the people like a democracy should be.",0
d804d5a7,1,"Dear State Senator, ""The Electoral college is a process not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" I do not thing think this is the best method of voting on the next President for our Country. I feel this way because the people of America do not really make the decision of who becomes President their vote just goes to a slate of electors. People may say that the Electoral College is fair but some of the biggest states only vote on democratic or republican candidates and thats not fair at all.

The first reason I think the Electoral college should be abolished is because the deciding factor of who becomes Americas President doesn't come from the people it comes from the Electoral college. Under the Electoral college system, voters vote not for the President but for a slate of electors. The election process should be changed to ""election by popular vote."" Another reason I think we shouldn't use the electoral college is because some states are biased towards certain political groups so say California wanted a democrat to be President that person would receive 55 electoral votes from just one state! Many states that don't have as many electoral votes may not even get to see the candidates because they only care about the larger states. For instance, during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad.

The third reason I think we should let the outcome be decided by the American people and not electoral colleges is because the Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational. Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California.",0
d828e6e6,1,"Dear Senator Don Gates, There has been many arguments about whether or not to keep the electoral college or to change the election process by popular vote. The best way to go would be to use popular vote. The Electoral College is ""unfair, outdated, and irrational."" Plumer, paragraph 14. There are so many reasons as to why you should change to popular vote, When you vote for your candidate, you're actually voting for your candidates electors, sometimes the state legislatures pick the electors, and also its an unfair process to voters. The Electoral College needs to be booted out!

When you go to vote, you think that you are directly voting for your candidates, that is no the case. You are actually voting for your candidates electors. You cannot control who your electors vote for either. They do not always vote for the same person you want them to. Voters may sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate. This has happened. If the process were done by popular vote then their wouldnt be these problems taking place.

Who picks the electors? Sometimes it is the State legislatures. They are responsible. In the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" , it states that in 1960, segregationists almost succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new ones that would then oppose John F. Kennedy. This was so a popular vote would not go to Kennedy. Also it was stated that ""faithless"" electors have refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a vote for whomever they please. This doesn seem fair to the people.

The whole process of the Electoral College is ""unfair to voters"". There is a reason behind this accusation. The winnertakeall system to be more precise. Candidates dont spend time in states that they know they have not a slight chance of winning, they tend to focus more on the ""swing"" states. During a campaign in 2000, seventeen states didnt get to see candidates at all. Voters in 25 of the largest media markets didnt get to see a single campaign ad. As it was stated in the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"", ""If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio, they have yet to make it..."".

The Electoral College is not the best way to decide who runs our military, or nation. We need a way to have a fair and equal vote. Popular vote is the way. Though the electoral college is a quick and easier way to get votes in, it isnt very efficient. The process isnt fair to the people at all, you're not directly voting for the candidate of your choice, and state legislatures, who have opinions, pick the elctors.",0
d839e553,0,"Cars come in different colors, and are what we use to transport anything. Whether it a family going on vacation, going to work or going to school. With all of these possible benefits and more is what we gain from cars. We don't realize how cars really have an effect in our everyday changing world. That the moment we put the car key in to turn on the car we are creating are more hazardous world for the present time and the future to come. By,limiting car usage in the world we can do many positive and beneficial things like in our atmosphere, becoming a independent person without the need of a car, and to be relive as oneself.

To begin with, pollution can be reduced like never ever before in are world named history. Pollution now in days is just terrible to have. It not just make it difficult for us to breathe but, as well it destroy the atmosphere that we need protect us from the harmful rays of the sun. The greenhouse effect can be lowered if we limit the use of cars. This can be actually proven with the following exert of the passage,"" And that experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Source 1 The point that I'm really trying to convey, is that we can do this all together if we limit the car usage. There should be a well and profounded effort to do so. Another example would be that if we dont limit the usage of cars we can not have a fresh and clear atmosphere. Can you imagine a day that you wake up to find, that all that was around you be nothing but a smog and prevent you to see and do anything? The car we have produce dangerous toxic that can up in are air and can be very hard for us later on. But if limit car usage, we can prevent this from happening. Not, just us but to other place in the world. This was what happen in France ,to prevent the usage for cars producing that smog they created an renforce day to prevent the use of car. Which lead to a shocking over turn of news. Like so in the following,""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France"" Source 2 What I'm trying to inform once again is that we limit we can create a better fit living world to be in. This is one advantages that we can do as fellow citizens in our country Which lead to me to my othe point, there is more that we have in advantage of limiting the usage of cars. It is a way of ""smart planing"" ourself as a community. We can live a more free caring world without the need of a car. Technology can play a part in the limit of of car usage. As stated in the folllowing ""The Internet makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends."" Source 4See this occur and happen this a will fitted advantage to us all. Another, advantage that we have in hand is the ability to relieve our stress level to a much stable level. which lead to me to my other insight of information, ""When I had a car I was alwaystense. I'm much happier this way"" said Heidrun Walter"" Source 1 Being in the car makes it complicated and diifficult. This is another way for us take advantage to limit the use of cars.

In conclusion, there are many advantegous for that we can benifit from that if we limit the use of care by lower pollution in are atmospher, creating a more benficial way for ouself without the need of a car, the relive of oneself.",0
d851fa71,1,"The Electoral College is full of debates, but the biggest debate is if they should still have power. They should not stay in power because The United States of America is a democracy. Its is easier and more democratic if the candidate won by popular demand. What is a democracy good for if the Electoral college can change their choice of who becomes president. Many of the representatives in the Electoral College are unfair to voters and sometimes cheat the voting system. Would you want that running your countries choices? I dont think so.

The voters choose a candidate in the electoral college but they can always change their votes. For example, ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy."" stated in source two. Basically, If you want a republican president to win you would vote for a republican representative of the electoral college, but thats not always the truth. Voters can not control the mind of a representative, in a few seconds they become of member of the opposing sides and thus they have your vote. This is known as unfair use of your vote that can obviously not be taken back.

2000 was the the year many people realized the lies of the electoral college. Bradford Plumer, author of The Indefensible Electoral College states that ""Al Gore... won the popular vote but lost the presidency."" This means that the electoral college is cheating the voting system and lying to their voters. So, do your votes even matter? No, not really. ""Over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now"" said by Plumer. This system we have for voting is basically useless to us and just gives the electoral college more power to run us.

The Electoral College does have some good reasons its still in power. In source three written by Richard A. Posner, he states that ""... the pressure of the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner."" In other words, when there is a runoff election or tie, the electoral college brings down this pressure making the choice so its quicker to make a choice on who becomes president. Sadly, very few people find the Electoral College useful but they do do a lot of things that help make the elections easier on the voters and putting less pressure on the candidates.

In the past few years people have realized what the Electoral College actually does. Its is true to believe that they grab our vote and change it last minute. They also can help in the process of the presidential election, but they make the voters confused and get called unfair adn cheaters, which is true. If this country was truely a democracy then the people would have complete ownership on who becomes president not the Electoral College.",0
d892cac6,0,"Fresh clean air, spotless streets and no car accidents. Welcome to Vauban, Germany. The 5,500 people of this town are a part of something that this day and age has never seen. The residents here have given up their cars, and are a part of an experiment where their streets are completely ""carfree""!

After this experiment started in Germany, it's population would agree that the tenseness they were feeling with their cars is now gone. This new way of living was started in 2006 and other countries would agree that it is a smart move and an affordable way of living. The residents of Vauban have more money to spend on other necessities such as clothing and food, or maybe some entertainment, even. All of their monthly car payments and gasoline bills have ceased to exist because they simply have no reason to pay the prices anymore without a car. Citizens of this little town don't have to walk or ride their bikes far because the city has thought this movement out very well. All of the stores are placed just a walk away rather than their malls being placed on a distant highway. Public transportation has become more accessible and there is more space for sidewalks rather than roads. For some, this is a dream town for them and their children. There isn't much of a worry about air pollution or accidents.

If you were to compare vaughn's air pollution to being's the difference would be astounding. Just last night, NBC Nightly News showed the city of Bejing where the smog was so dense that visibility was reduced to almost none. The majority of the population won't go outside with out wearing a mask to protect them selves. All of the air pollutants could be harming us even with a potential risk of lung cancer. The mayor of Bejing has even made a statement talking about his city's air, and the risk and threat it poses to his residents. Even the common person will recognize that the gas emissions from a car's tail pipe equals pollution. Paris officials knew this too, and understood that their city had an air cleanliness issue. So, in an effort to make the City of Love more pleaseable they limited what cars could drive on what days. They enforced a partial driving ban to clear the smog in the city. For a short amount of time only evennumbered cars, for example, could drive on a Monday. If odd numbered cars were on the street then there would be a 22 Euro fine that equals 31 USD's. After 5 days, car traffic and conjestion was down around 60% on the streets, and the air pollution started clearing.

Fatal crashes are among the one of the third highest risks for all American's. Some states have even made it a law to not text and drive, and in some states there probably is a ""no talking on the cell phone law"" too! If the number of cars are reduced or taken away all together I feel that the lives of the American people are less at risk. Every day, and not just in this country, hundreds of people are injuring them selves or getting killed by distracted driving, hitandruns, and driving under the influence. It could be beneficial to cut down the car usage and up the number of public transportation avaible to the public.

In any major city you go to in the United States, all around you, you can notice the large amounts of people walking to where they need to go. In Washington D.C. bike rentals are EVERYWHERE. And if you don't want to take a bike then take the D.C. Metro. The same will go for New York City or anywhere with a large population of people. You will also notice that city folk tend to be slimmer than others. That is most likley due to the fact that they walk everywhere. Just like I mentioned before, like Vauban, eveything in a major city is usually within walking distance. As we all know, walking is a form of excersize and it is recomemnded by health officials that each person should get at least 1 hour every day and it is very believeable that a city goer gets plenty more than the recomended. The first lady has started a program for children in an effort to get them moving, fit and healthy as well. Some children in New York City won't even drive a single day in their lives or worry about what could happen if they do. Also, the Capital of ColombiaBogota has organized a day for it's residence to avoid taking their car. It is called the Day Without Cars and the major goal is to reduce smog and promote walking.

All in all.. Cars, the most dangerous driving force in our daily lives, should be cut back on. Even with study after study coming out and proving just how danger and nonbeneficial to our health they are, they are slowly losing populatiry. If this pattern stays consistant then sociologists say that it will have great effects on the atmosphere, and our healthy lives that we all live.",0
d8c47874,1,"Dear State Senator, It has come to my attention the many problems that the Electoral College has. I would like to ask that we change to election by popular vote for the President of the United States. You see, not only is the Electoral College unfair, but it also creates a lie that tricks everyone into believing that our President was the one that the majority of America voted for, when that is not always the case.

First off, the fact that the number of electors for each state relies on the number of members in it's Congressional delegation is just illogical...lets say Florida has twenty because of its size, and California has fifty. if both states want to vote for someone different, then California is going to win only because of the size and population difference. So really, you aren't voting for the president...you're voting for the electors who will choose the president. An argument can be made against this...that the electors that you give your vote to will be trustworthy and vote for the person that your party wants. How does that give us a say though? For example, as it says in the article, Al Gore was the president that the majority of America voted for in 2000...he was the one that everyone wanted. Yet he lost the presidency because of this form of voting. This is a free country, or so we're told, so we need to be given the right of popular vote.

Furthermore, the Electoral College system is flawed...there are millions of people in America and yet only 538 votes are counted. There is no way to be assured that the person you voted for, or anyone else, was selected. We need to ask ourselves what the best thing is for our country... letting everybody be dissapointed in who was voted for, or seeing that they got what they spent time on going and voting on. This isn't just a captain for a football team, or a manager at work. This is the president of the United States, and he or she will be running our country for 4 years or even longer, so we need to question this method of voting. We are a unified country, and our unity shows what we want as a country..we shouldn't have one thing chosen and get something completely different in return. The election by popular voting would be a better overall choice for our country.

All in all, arguments can be made both ways...for the Electoral College process or against it. The citizens of America deserve the very best person to lead them, and that's exactly who we should get...the one that America votes for. I know that there are more efficient and fair ways to do this, all we need to do is use them. At the end of the day though, using the election by popular vote would ensure that everyone would be 100% sure that their vote went for who they wanted, and that's what counts.",0
d90606d4,1,"Dear Senator, I strongly suggest that you keep the Electoral college because of the different benefits it has to offer. It creates more of a certain outcome. Also, it is a way to avoid runoff elections. Even though there may be some negative outcomes to this way of voting, I feel that the advantages overlook them.

The Electoral college is a good method of our voting system in the United States because it helps to develop a more certain outcome. According to the passage titled In Defense of the Electoral College:Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President by Richard A. Posner, it states that ""Because almost all states award electoral votes ona winnertakeall basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state."" This tell that vote is plenty more certain using this method rather than to go by popular vote. With having a more precise and organized plan of voting it guarantees a more certain outcome and will prepare for problems that may occur such as ties in the election. The Electoral College is most definitely a an great voting method when used for certainty.

Another reason why The Electoral College is a great method of voting is because it is a way to avoid runoff elections. According to the same article titled In Defense of the Electoral College:Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President by Richard A. Posner it tells that ""There is pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which in variable produces a clear winner."" An example of this stated in the article is ""Nixon in 19680and clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College"". Avoiding these types of things is very important. If we didnt have this method we would still have to come up with some sort of method so that thing like runoffs don't happen. However, some people disagree with the electoral college because they feel that they aren't really voting for the candidate, it still needs to be used because to many thing can happen such as ties and runoffs that we would need to figure out in the long run.

In conclusion, the Electoral College is very important and needs to continue to be our voting method for the United States. Certainty of the votes outcome and avoiding runoff election are twp ways Electoral votes have helped us. Without this method we would have to be dealing with these issues in some other kind of way.",0
d91f9026,1,"Dear State Senator, This letter of argument is to emphasize why we should not keep the Electoral College and change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. There are very reasonable arguments for both claims as to if we should keep or abolish the Electoral College. Primarily, the Electoral College is the selection of electorss by popular vote to represent their supported party in the official presidential election. There is a total of 538 Electoral College electorss and it only takes the majority, 270 votes, to elect the president. It is not fair that the general population does not get an independent vote.

It is not the ordinary people who get to choose the president they want it is dependent upon which party the electors chooses. Voters don't have control over who their electorss vote for. As said in the second article, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 against Bush however, Gore lost the electorsal vote resulting in the loss of the presidential election. In the past, there have been voters who refused to vote for their party's candidate and voted for whomever. There is also the concern of a tie in the electorsal vote.

If that were to happen then there would certainly be no chance that the popular vote would have an impact on the selection of the president because it would now be in the hands of the House of Representatives. The Electoral College is unfair to voters they do not get the final choice as to where their vote goes. They are not voting for the presidential candidate they want. The voters are voting for a slate of electorss. However, there are some benefits to having an Electoral College such as larger states getting more attention from presidential candidates than smaller states and it also avoids RunOff elections which is when no candidate recieves a majority of the votes.

State Senator, please realize that this is not fair or justifiable. There may be an upside to the Electoral College, however, it is in my strongest opinion based on factual content that this is not a fair method and it should be abolished. Being empathetic for the ordinary voters of the United States would provide clarity for your opinion on the situation. Imagine if you were a general voter who did not get an official vote in the presidential election you would feel cheated also. This is why I ask you to strongly consider these legitimate words.",0
d92d0eec,0,"Today's society is not worried about who has the nicest or fastest car, they just want to be able to get from point A to point B. That's why the amount of driving has decreased by 9 percent since 2005. This has helped the environment by reducing the amount of pollution and has made people happier and not as stressed.

As the pollution rate has continued to increase throughout the years, different countries have encouraged less driving for less pollution. For example, In Bogota, Columbia, their ""goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog."" Other places, like Paris, banned driving to ""clear the air of the global city."" This is due to ""days of nearrecord pollution."" The smog cleared after two days of no driving. Having alternative ways of transportation is a way to reduce air pollution.

Another advantage less driving is it makes people happier. Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, says, ""When I had a car I was always tense, I'm much happier this way."" Also, businessman, Carlos A. Plaza, said, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress."" as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife. When you don't drive, you don't have to worry about being late for work because of traffic jams, you won't be mad because someone just cut you off, or that the teenage girl in front of you isn't paying attention because she is talking on the phone and doing her mascara. Once you get out and ride a bike or walk down the street, you will realize how stressful driving can be.

In conclusion, driving only causes air pollution and more stressful days. Walking, riding a bike, or riding the bus not only saves money, but it also helps the environment and makes you a happy person.",0
d93a75cd,0,"Limiting car usage has so many benefits to give us. It can even lead to saving the world. We've lived without them before so it's not the end of the world if they are gone for even just a day.

First of all, cars are responsible for pollutionnot all in the atmosphere such as the greenhouse gas emissions. According to Source 1, experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipe....Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States. That is basically saying that having cars as often as we use them is harming the earth through their gas emissions. That cars are responsible for a certain percentage in the pollution.

Additionally, let us see about the few polluted cities or capitals such as Paris. They almost achieved a new record for pollution! But the way they are handling it is quite successful. ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day."" Source 2This gives them a chance to reduce significantly the pollution by half if the license plates ratio were balanced. They are taking turns in car usage and lowering pollution and it's a great bill or law to help reduce the pollution. They needed that because according to Source 2, last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London, Reuters found. That's a lot of pollution they have been carrying. But "" The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" Furthermore, there's more benefits of reducing or limiting car usage. In BOGATA, Colombia, they have a Day Without Cars and it's starting to spread to other communities as well. They want to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog and those that violates will face 25 fines. This sounds like a very great and effective idea. Many people are participating in it and not only that ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up.""Source 3 In conclusion, limiting car usage will give us a greater advantage not only in our businesses but also our air. Reducing pollution is just the start of it, imagine many more benefits are there to come if we keep up with these conservative efforts.",0
d97e8ec5,0,"Times are changing, and changing fast. While the car may once have been the ideal accessory to a rapidly changing world, people have now found that the opposite is now true. Limiting car usage is cheaper, better for the environment, and is quickly becoming the ""cool"" thing to do. America's fascination with the 1950's fords are over, and a new era is upon us.

Cutting down on car usage is much cheaper. Between the expensive vehicle itself and enormous gas bill, It's more fiscally responsible to carpool, use public transportation, or even walk. Places like Vauban in Germany are just the start of a quickly growing social trend to make cars more expensive. As stated in Source 1, ""There are only two places to parkLarge garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home"". Places like Paris have even been known to enact partial driving bans at times, with 22euro fines enacted for those who failed to follow the ban. Driving, an already expensive task, is increasingly becoming a task only the rich can afford.

Removing some of our outrageous motor vehicle usage is also good for the environment. As mentioned in Source 2, Smog that was already prevalent in places like Beijing, China has found it's way into modern European cities like Paris, with more to follow if we do't cut back, and soon. Paris has known to have over 147 Micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter, with other cities like Brussels and London having 114 and 79.7 respectively. If that didn't seem bad enough, it's worse in other areas. In some areas of the United States, passenger cars are responsible for up to 50% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Having a lower dependence on cars isn't just good for the environment, it's now become ""cool"". The amount of driving done by young people has decresased by 23 percent between 2001 and 2009, and even big companies are starting to notice. As stated in Source 3, Bill Ford, the executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, acknowleged the growing change, and even offered suggestions to help. He proposed a better system to save time and resources while improving gas emissions and public safety. Meanwhile in Bogota Colombia, Millions of citizens in participated""Day Without Cars,"" A yearly program set up in the city.

While 10 years ago might have painted a different picture, the writing on the wall is clear. There's a global trend for decreasing dependency on cars, and it's not looking to stop anytime soon. A once needed tool is quickly becoming less and less relevent, due to cheaper costs, less strain on the environment, and the always prevalent ""cool factor."" It's not the golden age of cars anymore, and about time changes were made to match modern day thinking.",0
d981ee62,0,"Car's. relied on by many people. Used to go anywhere and everywhere. They are comfortable and cool to look at, but are they really as great as everyone think's they are? They pollute, they cause accident's, they destroy the environment and they cost a lot of money and sometimes it's more then people have. Yes, car's make everything easier for you but what happens when there is a bad traffic day and you are already late to work. sometimes car's arent always a great thing.

Gas. The first thing I think of when I hear about car's. They put so many toxin's in to the air that can kill everything around them. In the article it talk's about Paris banning car driving due to the fact that the smog or gas coming from the car's was becoming unbareable. Congestion was down 60% due to the fact that the smog had intensified. Beijing, China happens to be the one of the most polluted cities in the world due to car's. The fuel in car's is pushed out the exhaust pipe when the car is driving which then pollute's the air which make's it hard for thing's that need air such as the surrounding animal's, plant's and human's such as our self's.

Another thing that cause's problem's with car's is the fact that traffic jam's and accident's that are just waiting to happen at any moment. Someone who doesn't know how to drive very well hit's someone else and it cause's an accident leaving people hurt. Not to mention the stress and the road rage that driving put's on people. Going outside and walking to work or going to the park with out all the problem's of being stuck in a car and enjoying the fresh air is a great way to start any day. On the day that Bogota, Colombia decided to have a carfree day people had hiked, biked,skated,and walked. These are thing's that I'm sure people wouldn't have done if they were still allowed to still drive their car.

How would car's drive if they didn't have the road's that we build? How do the road's get there? They get put down where there used to be tree's and land. People destroy and take apart the earth and the put down road's and building's. What do people plan to do when they have taken down all the tree's and used all the space that the earth has to offer? There will be nothing left. Car's are great and all, I understand that they are fast and they make life simplier but people are getting lazy and they are starting to not care about their surrounding's and it's sad.

Car's are not cheap. They take time and money. When a car has a problem or break's down you have to pay to get it fixed. You have to pay to put gas in your car and depending on how much gas your car need's, it can put a hole in your wallet. Car's. We use them, rely on them to take us where we want to go, use them for entertainment such as Nascar and Monster Truck's. One day all the car's will be gone and then what will the world do.",0
da14ac70,1,"Dear Senator, As you may know, there is a huge dilemma with the voting system we have as of right now. I am writing to you because it is in our best interest to abolish the Electoral College and change election to popular vote for the next presidential election. The reasons we should make this change is because the Electoral College is unfair for voters, also a disaster waiting to happen and the popular voting system bring so many more benefits and opportunities for the people.

The Electoral system simply takes away the people's say on who they think the best candidate is. It is simply unfair for the voters. In this system, according to the second source, popular vote, which is what the majority people select, most of the time loses the election due to the Electoral System. An Example used in this source was the 2000 election with Al Gore, he had won the popular vote, but had lost the election thanks to the Electoral College. With this system in play, voters cannot control who they want to vote for and that is not how it should be. In source one, it clearly states most states have a ""winnertakeall"" type of system that awards all electors of that state to the specific candidate, which is the complete opposite of benefiting the people, because not everyone in that state wants to vote for that specific candidate. Source 3 says big states that a larger state gets more attention than a smaller state does because of the amount of votes, however some states claim they never even got to see a presidential campaign had because of how small the states was. Its is Unfair to these states which include Rhode Island, South Carolina. It takes away opportunities from these smaller states.

In source two, Bradford Plumer mentions the single best argument against the Electoral College, which he calls the ""disaster factor"". Voters vote not for the president but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. This means that voters dont really have control on who they vote for, as mentioned before. The Electors can defy the will of the people, the only reason people vote, in this system, is to ""sway the opinion"". This is known as the ""disaster factor"", the electors defying the will of the people. Another problem with this system is that if there is a tie, it is definately out of the peoples choice. The decision is left to the House Of Representatives. The Electoral College is a disaster waiting to happen, like a bomb ticking, at some point in time, it will explode.

The benefits of switching to popular vote really pays off. With popular vote, these issues adressed would not be a problem at all, such as the unfairness to voters, the disasters awaiting to happen with the Electoral College. The only downside to this is that it will take a little longer to count the votes and finalize the election, but it is worth it. All voters would be at peace of mind knowing that their vote actually counted for something. In my opinion, this is the best choice and option out there. We need to get rid of the Electoral College because it brings us no good at all. We could finally stop worrying about the timer!

I hope you take this into consideration.",0
da2f84c5,0,"Fellow citizens their are many advantage to limiting your car usage. With a wide range from not getting a ticket to helping the environment, and it's a social trend, driving cars are now a thing of the past.

In Vauban, Germany a community where only thirty percent of its entire population owns vehicle. The advantages for not owning a car are displayed in this upscale community by the ability to walk, and ride a bicycles to stores, shops, and restaurants. The secret to this the innovative take on this community, is by not placing these all of stores, shops, and restaurants in some crowed mall, but accessible from a mere walking distant. Also a great way to burn off calories and in time put an end to obesity.

By reducing car usage smog and other pollutants in big cities can be drastically reduced. In Paris congestion of smog was down sixty percent, the way they got people to stop using cars was by putting a fine driving your car for the day almost 4,000 drivers were fined thirty one dollars that day. Another example of this is in Bogota, Colombia here most the millions of people were willing to give up car usage, a program that was started in the mid 1990s called the Day Without Cars with it's goal is to promote an alternative transportation. As a result of this added 118 miles of bicycle track, parks, and sports center to this city. Lower emissions of green house gases are also helping the environment with the help of Day Without Cars program.

People are slowly drifting away from their cars. The miles driven per person in the U.S. has dropped nearly nine percent since it's original peak in 1995. Many things have been suggested to reduced the car usage in the U.S. The number of car ownership per household and per person has come down three years before the downturn of car usage that started in the 2005. People in the U.S. are also more likely to retain a drivers license at an older age as to opposes to the younger age groups between 16to39yearolds.

In conclusion, the age of cars are slowly coming to an end. People are planing for the cleaner and healther future that lies ahead of us, where pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation are woven together into a connected network. The revolution is upond us.",0
da4bc18a,1,"The Electoral College. The system that our founding fathers had set for us to choose a leader of this country. It has been used forever and some poeple may agree that we should keep it. But others understand that we should change the voting system so that the election is more fair. I believe that the United States should no longer use the Electoral College to elect our president because I feel that we should have a more direct vote so that the person that most people actually want in office will be elected and so that all of the states can hear each candidates campaign so they feel like their vote actually takes part in the election.

To begin with, I believe that the United States should start to use a direct vote to choose our leader so that the winner of the popular vote actually gets to win and so that the peoples votes actually matter. It seems only fair that if you win the popular vote from everyone one in the country that you should win the race but with using the Electoral College the decision will always vary. For example, during Al Gore vs Bush, Gore had over 60% of the nations vote. Most of the people wanted him as our acting president. But due to the Electoral College Bush ended up winning the election. If the people actually did have a say then Gore wouldve been elected because of the popular vote. When using the Electoral College your vote wouldnt be apart of the actual election. Your supposed to elect an elector to vote for you. So truly your elector has all the power because in the end they are the one choosing who your state has voted for.

Furthermore, the Electoral College shouldn be used to elect our president because it makes it unfair to voters. With the winnertakeall system in each state the candidates dont spend time to try and campaign in all of the states because they think they have no chance of winning in that state. Every state should be able to see the campaigns for each of the candidates so they can have an actual choice. If campaigners spend most of their time focused on the swing states how would they know if they had a chance of winning over any other state that they thought wouldnt vote for them. For example, back in 2000 seventeen states didnt see any of the candidates or a single campaign ad. That is basically telling that state that their vote doesnt matter.

In conclusion, The Electoral College has major flaws in it that are easily exploited. The people dont get to vote for themselves, instead they put their vote in the hands of an elector who, in the end, has the final say on who the state votes for. Also the Electoral College, which has a winnertakeall system, excludes some of the states from actually seeing a candidate which makes it seem like their vote is irrelevant to the whole election.",0
da7e0507,1,"Many people argue over the fact that the Electoral College is beneficial or not. I'm writing this letter to you Mr. Senator to explain the good and bad effects the Electoral College has. The Electoral College is a process, it is a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College keeps the elections balanced, it keeps the elections organized. It may have some bad effects. For example, many argue that the people's votes aren't what choose the president.

The Electoral College maintains the elections balanced, ""It avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of vote cast."" as stated in the article by Richard Posner. It balances the votes by a larger state compared to a smaller state. In article ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"", the author states that a larger state has more popular votes rather than a small state. The author says this, ""The popular vote was very close in Florida in 2012 nevertheless Obama, who won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the winner only 3 electoral votes."" As that being said, the author is explaining how larger states get more attention from a presidential candidates in a campaign than a small state does. This is when the Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the malapportionment.

Another beneficial effect the Electoral College presents is the organization of the election for President. As said in the article, ""What Is The Electoral College?"", ""The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress."" That is a huge amount of work but that is what keeps the elections well organized. Each candidate running for President in a state has their own group of electors. After each election, the governor of your state prepares a certificate presenting all of the candidates that ran for your state. As stated in the article by the Office of the Federal Register, ""The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year."" The Electoral College is what maintains everything professional.

The Electoral College may have some effect that aren't positive. For example, many people believe their vote goes to waste. As stated in the article by Richard Posner, ""Democrats in Texas, for example, or Republicans in California. Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign they would have if the president were picked by popular vote."" Voters want to feel involved and have interest in the political system. People also fear the tie in an electoral vote. They feel like the government will choose whoever will benefit them the best and they won't take the people into consideration. In article, ""The Indensible Electoral College: Why even the best laid defenses of the system are wrong"", the author says the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. He believes it's anachronism.

People may have different opinions about Electoral College. People have different opinions about everything. I wanted to explain how the Electoral College benefits our society and how it doesn't. It keeps the elections balanced, organized, but it makes others feel like their vote isn't worthy or valuable. I hope this letter helps you with your opinion and how you feel about the Electoral College.",0
dae50a19,1,"Dear state senator, The electoral college is an unfair and irrational, and should be abolished immediately. The fact that the race for president can end in a tie is completely absurd. Also the fact that popular vote can mean basically nothing is dumbfoundidng. In a country of democracy popular vote seems like a it would be standard. popular vote seems like the best idea when it comes to a country for the people.

The electoral college is highly unfair to voters. Presidential candidates dont even have to visit all of the states to win the elections. The representation that the smaller states get is unfair. Presidential candidates will only visit states with a high number electoral college representatives because the states are known as ""swing states"". Swing states greatly influence the outcome of the election because they can hold the most power. If a state such as texas with 34 electoral votes was to have the same amount of power as a state with a much smaller population than the electoral college would seem much more viable.

The electoral college state representatives do not have to vote with that states popular vote. Al Gore, in the 2000 presidential election, won the popular vote but still lost the electionPlumer 9. The fact that a candidate can win the vote of the people but still lose the election is horrifying. How can you trust a system that works against what the United States of America is about. It completely takes away the right of people to decide what goes on in there government. The fact that the electoral college state representatives do not have to vote with people is highly unfair.

There is one crucial flaw in the electoral college, the election can end in a tie. In 1976 a tie would have occurred if just 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in hawaii had voted the other wayPlumer 12. If we were to switch to a system were all states including the District of Columbia get one vote then the election could never end in a tie. Although this still seems highly unfair to the voters because the representative could go either with or against the popular vote the election could still never end in a tie solving the amjor flaw. What was to happen if we did have a tie? It has not yet been desided because it never has happened and that is a major problem.

The electoral college is highly unfair and should be disposed of immediately. The electoral college is biased towards the larger states,has major flaws that can only be fixed by getting rid of the system and does not give a fair view of what the people want. The system was poorly thought out and needs to be replaced.

sincerely, Jordan P.",0
daf3cd80,0,"The debate on the pros and cons of car usage has been an ongoing one. Slowly, the advantages are beginning to outweigh the disadvantages. Around the world, projects and programs have been started to test the effects of limited car use. Data has proved that limiting car usage will cause less pollution, less stress, and less traffic.

To begin with, gas released from our cars has slowly started to hurt us. ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city.""source 2. This shows that the gas in our cars is one of the factors responsible for the growing pollution in our air. Reducing the usage of cars will not only benefit us, but also the world we live in.

In addition, almost everyone knows what it is like to be stuck in traffic. The stress inducing event must not be healthy either. By declining the use of cars, congestion will slowly diminish. Promoting other ways of transportation will improve health, mood, and traffic. ""rushhour restrictions have drastically cut traffic""source 3.

Furthermore, a large portion of our population are constantly stressed. Car usage is accountable for a good amount of it. ""When i had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" source 1 says a citizen of a ""carfree"" community. By limiting car usage, healthier ways of transportation are encouraged. For example, hiking, biking, skating, and walking. All of these are extremely healthy compared to sitting in a car. Due to the fact that the United States is the country with the fattest people, these methods should be enforced. Healthy people then start to become happier. Therefore, reducing car usage will benefit our people's lives.

Hence, limiting car usage will create a better environment for people all around the world.",0
db0db52b,1,"Dear Florida Senator, I understand that every 4 years on the first Tuesday of November, the United States undergoes a change in Presidency. This change should be decided in a properly manner by the people and citizens of the country. This explains the purpose of this letter, to abolish the Electoral College. I have this opinion because it is unfair to the people. Sometimes, the electors tend to provoke the system too. However, if there is a way to keep it, we can use it if there is a tie between the Presidency voting.

The best argument that I have towards this action is plain and simple: it's unfair! Voting is all about going to the poll and having the excitement of knowing that your vote can change the next 4 years of your life, including America's life. This should not include the other electors in the house or the people in office. This is a democracy country, therefore, we the people should decide who the President is. With the Electoral College in process, the citizens votes are not a 100% necessity. The Winner Take all voting should be established. It's just floating around because it's the first step in voting. The next step is the Electoral College where Congress makes the next decision. This is wrong because the people need to have the final say on the voting because we are effected the most.

Another important reason why the Electoral College needs to be voted out is because the electors in Congress tend to provoke the voting. According to What is the electoral College, you are actually choosing your candidate's electors, not the actual president. Now your trust is in the candidates hands. At this point in time, you probably think its safe right? That those people know what there doing, but chances are that they dont. There goes many other things to stress about! At one point, the candidates did not even vote for the ""correct"" President which is a stab in the back to the voters. This is why there are trust issues with the voting.

Besides all the negativity that you've been hearing throughout this letter, there is a possibility that we can compromise. First, all the people that want to vote will vote, but the Electoral College will only be needed if there is a tie between the people to Presidency vote. If not, then the people decide. Without the electoral College present, the smaller states have the same equality and strength as the larger states as Source 3: In Defense of the electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president says. That source clearly implies that voters tend to pay too much attention to the campaign but everyone including the people in Congress see it, so what really makes the difference in voting? Without the electoral College, voting would not be so indecisive.

To sum it all up, the Electoral college is just an unnecassary back up plan when there is not one needed. It is unfair to the citizens and the candidate's electors are unreliable. If there was a way to keep the Electoral College, it would only be for ties. It wouldnt be needed if the vote was a clean win. When the President Election comes in the next 3 years, I hope that you consider my thoughts, because there are plenty people out there with the same perspective.",0
db3a2405,0,"Limiting car usage is a tremendous advantage. Haven't you ever thought why? limiting car usage has its reason why its an advantage. One of the huge reasons is pollution, cars tend to create pollution, congestion, smog and many other harmful things. Source 14 mentions useful information of the disadvantage of owning or driving a car. Source number two mentions how cars tends to create lot of pollution, for this reason in Paris they decided to enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. Nobody would like to live in a place where you have to be breathing dirty, contaminated air and knowing you produced it by your own car when Paris enforced to ban cars for a few days to clear out the global air not many fellow citizens participated about 4,000 citizen were charged with a fine for not following the rule. why would you try to be disobedient when what they are trying to do is help you clear out the global sir so the citizens living in that area dont get sick with any disease and dont harm our earth where we live. The advantage of limiting car usage will be creating less pollution to have a better global air. Cars aren't the only way to get to place to place there is other way to transport for example public transport like buses, train or even if its not that far walking and itll be a create exercise.

Yes, driving a car could sound great because you get to drive anywhere you want and get to places quicker instead of catching or waiting for a public transport when you need to get somewhere and your in a rush. Cars are a huge hand like a big help because it helps people get from place to place. Also remember that cars arent cheap at all an example is that source number one mentions "" Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two placesto parklarge garages at the edge of the development, where a car owner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home."" What this quote is pointing out is that to be able to park a car if you own one it has to be in a specific place and which you have to own and live by there which costs lot of money. Limiting yourself for car usage would make you save up a whole lot of money. Instead of wasting like 40,000 dollars in a parking place for a car and have to be living there you can easily just get on public transport and be able to live where you want. source 1 also mentions "" As a result 70 percent of Vauban's families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a to move here. when i had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" this also points out the not many people in Germany dont own cars and not owning a car really doesnt bother them because they found better way to get a transport and also believing that Saving up money is a really important thing because when you become independ you have to start paying bills, food, and many other things that wyour parents wont give you anymore so why waste it on gas and car washing instead of just getting somewhere in a easy transport and the money you wouldve been wasting in nonsense now will be saved up for something more useful. thinking about it car limiting is a useful thing finacialy and global reaosns too.

Lastly another advantage of limiting car usage is less congestion the less driving there is the less traffic there will be. Traffic is a big headche to people who try to get to their jobs or certain events on time. Public transportion might ttake long to get there also but its becauise there isnt as much buses because not many people get on public transportion and the less buses there is and more cars who cause traffic the more time it'll take off our time. Source 3 states "" in a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of colobians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily deviod of traffic jams."" Bogota, colombia has a great point doing this event once a year will demonstrate citizen that the less car usage the less traffic jams there with be and it will be more relaxing and calming area to live instead of hearing screaming, beeping and other annoying sounds caused by unpatient people. This event that colombia has done has cause other states to realize that thats a great idea and some tried experminting it in their country.

In conclusion limiting car usage has its great advantages which benefits the citizens living in that area so if it benefits you why not try limiting car usage. Limiting car usage creates less pollution, less traffic jams, and your able to save up your money for something thats actually important. Cars aren't the only way you could get from place to place theres many other options like walking, or riding a public transport theres always an answer to everything. By limiting car usage we create less pollution in the air we breathe and there wil be less harm done to the earth and to the citizens. Always try new things and let limmiting car usage be one of them.",0
db9ed340,0,"Limiting car usage is a great idea. If this ever does happen it will be a new Revolution for us all. Some might say that its outrageous and unthinkable but it will benefit us in many ways. If we limit car usage there will be less pollution, less stress, less traffic, more outside activities which means being healthier and last but not least it will be safer.

To begin with, with limited car usage there will be less pollution and less stress. Most of our pollution comes from cars, the smoke that the engine of the car lets out causes it. For example, Paris suffered a ""nearrecord pollution"" source 2 due to the diesel. But after they enforced a fine of 22 euro ""congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France""source 2. Don't you think that this is a positive outcome and this is benefiting us? Polution is a very important issue in the United States and we need to fix it or at least try. Now lets talk about stress, everybody has stress even if its from school, work, family etc. And everybody wants to have the least amount of stress as possible or no stress at all. If we limit the car use that will be taking a stress away from oneself, ""when i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way,""source 1. Because that way parents dont have to worry whether their kids will get home safely. They wont have to worry about if they got into an accident, if after the party they drived home intoxicated. Car accidents are very common in the United States and has caused many deaths so why not reduce that number,of deaths, and reduce car usage in the process? And not only for parents ,but elderly as well because some senior citizens still drive with or without license and that could cause a mayor incident.

Furthermore, by redusing car usage there will be more outdoor activities which means that it will be a lot more healthier. Think about it, by driving a car you dont exercise but if a person walks to a place, they are exersicing. For example, in German Suburb people have a limited car usage and you can hear the ""swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occassional distant motor""source 1. The person could hear the outside activity and not the sound of cars passing by which means there was interaction between folks. Also, ""parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city...""source 3 and isnt the government,especially Michelle Obama, trying to always give out messages of not only eating helathy but playing outside and interact with the community? well this is one way we can support that. Plus in this 21st century kids are always on their phones, tablets, computer and when they go out its to hang out with friends at the movies a party but they use cars. If the car usage is limited they wont have that many options and they could interact outside of their little ""bubble"". What ever way you look at this its gonna be a positive outcome even if its small.

Moreover, by reducing car usage there will be definetely less traffic and it will be a new beginning. To prove this points, in Bogota, Colombia ""million of Colombians hiked, biked, skated ot took buses to work during a car free day yesterday, leaving the street of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams"" source 3. People hate traffic, it has not been known a person that doesnt. So, reducing car usage is equal to reducing traffic jams, why not do it then? Now it was never said that there will be absolutely no cars just the decrease with it. There will be public transportations like taxis and buses but even if those where still be able to be used there wont be as much traffic. It is understandable that people sometimes need to get to places where you cant really walk to get there so the public transportation will be permitted. Also this will mean a ""new beginning"", Enrique Riera, mayor of Praguay said ""These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing boreders,"" source 3. This statement says it all a ""revolutionary change"" its what we need. People are depending in cars so much and thats not good.

To end this thoughts, it is a great idea to limit the usage of cars. People will have one less thing to worry about and who woulnt like that huh? Also it will be healthy for the environment and the citizens and lets not forget, there will be less of a traffic jam. Plus it will be a big change but at the same time it wouldnt because statistics have shown that "" Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by"" source 4. So it already started little by little we just have to accelerated the process a bit more.""As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995"" source 4,just think about all the positive outcomes of this change.",0
dbf85434,0,"Travel, exploration, and new destinations are all things that have lead to mankind creating new ways to get from where they were to where they wanted to be. We have made some fantastic technologies in our desire to move more quickly and extensively. Not many could have dreamt of a day when mankind could ship large cargo from Mexico to Greece, fly large planes full of people across the atlantic, or even what seems so common today, drive in comfort from state to state in short amounts of time. We enjoy the ability to drive so easily from place to place that almost every single American family owns at least one car, but there in lies a problem.

since the big boom of industrial car manufacturing in the early twentieth century America's use of the vehicle has spread from transportation of the high class, to a tool of public transportation, construction, delivery, and overall everyday use. This relationship between man and machine has been a part of our society for so long it is practically a part of our lives, but this relationship has taken a toll on the world it was brought into in the form of pollution. The basic way an automobile functions is by putting fuel into the system to run the engine and then emmiting that fuel as a gas byproduct, and with such the wide spread use we have of these machines, the amount of gas byproduct has really built up. Harmful chemicals in these gas emissions from our automobiles have provided the second largest source of our emissions with only power plants contributing more to the pollution of the environment.

There are however some easy ways we could help fix this problem. In other parts of the world this effect is being felt, such as Beijing, China, which is facing a huge problem with pollution smog, and certian places have decided to make a change by limiting car use. This limitation of car use can be done in many different ways, and has helped curb a smog problem that arose in Paris. Other places have done this by means of carfree neighborhoods in Germany, or a carfree day in Columbia, and the reaction has been most positive.

These ideas of change for a clean future are helping communities in different parts of the world, so whose to say we can't do it too? We should contribute to the healing of our environment before its too late for the choise. This oppurtunity for change is not one we should let slip by, and it could be a refreshing, enjoyable change. Lets not sit down and watch as our environment becomes a smogridden disaster, lets get up, walk around, and help heal the world.",0
dc29cc30,1,"Dear state senator, I wish to inform you about my opinion and another 60 percent of voters opinions about the Electoral college. We suggest that instead of voting for a state of electors we should vote directly to the president that we wish would lead our country. People wan't to vote straight cowardly to the exact person they perfer and not to electors whom the people can't control who they decide to vote for. Some electors have refused to vote for their party's candidate and vote for whoever they wanted to instead. Many people often get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate. We also cannot choose who the electors are.

We know that the state legislatures are responsible for picking electors and that the electors that they choose always defy the will of the people. Many things can go wrong when we use electors. They could cheat into getting who they want to win. Just like how in 1960, the segregationists the the Louisiana legislature almost succeeded in their dirty plan to replace the democratic electors with new electors that would oppose John F. Kennedy meaning that they tried to get the popular vote that was for him to actually not get to Kennedy. Also, a state might send two slates of electors to congress. It's happened in Hawaii in 1960, what makes you think it won't happen again?

The electoral college is unfair to voters because of all the ways electors cheat to make sure who they wan't wins. candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all. Also 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see any campaign adds and its because of the winnertakeall system in each state.

We suggest to changing to the election by popular vote for the president of the Unites States. The citizens of the United states should be able to vote for the president that they perfer and not for an elector that could ditch the original idea and vote for only their personal opinion. There would be less flaws in the presidential electing process if we accept the popular vote method.",0
dc4a3c05,0,"Now, for some people, cars are a way of life. Nothing pleases them more than the feeling of a steering wheel on their hands, or the growl of a healthy engine. Those people probably could never live without their cars, but you probably can. Well, maybe not living without cars entirely, but at least reducing your use of them. It'll be a lot safer for the environment, and it'll cause a lot less traffic jams. So let's see why you can go a few more days without your prized Hoda Civic.

Now, you've probably had this fact jammed down your throat more times than you care to count, but, cars produce a lot of gas, which isn't really easy on the environment. According to the New York Times article, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" And according to the Chicago Tribune article, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, ""Last week Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter."" So, less car usage means less greenhouse emissions. Yes, there are cars out there that are more ""fuelefficient,"" but they still require lots of energy from the environment. Not only that, but using your car less often will mean that you won't have to deal with one of the biggest evils in the world.........traffic.

Now, think, when have you ever been stuck in traffic and actually enjoyed it? Now, if you were to ride a bicycle or take a subway, you wouldn't have to deal with that! Already, some cities around the world are finding alternative ways to avoid those jams. ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota,"" by Andrew Selsky, tells of how the capital of Colombia is doing so. ""It has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths...Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaraunts and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" This means you'll be able to get to work or to that first date a lot quicker! Sure, people using less cars would strike a big blow in the automobile industry, but you don't neccesarily have to never drive a car again! What about on those long road trips, or when you have to carry a lot of passengers with you? A car would come in handy in such scenarios, but not neccesarily every scenario.

In summary, driving less would be more efficient because it means cleaner air and less highway congestion. So, after reading all of this information, do you think that you have what it takes to get from point A to point B without having to get into a driver's seat? can you take your hand off of the steering wheel long enough to open yourself up to other transportation options? Go ahead, try.",0
dc6f7cfd,0,"Cars have been a necessity to us for as long as I can remember. Billions of people around the world use cars everyday. Without cars in our lives many people would be lost and not know what to do. Thinking of a world without cars isunreasonable to thepeople oftoday, but if theythought of all the good not driving everyday does for the world then it would probably be a different story.

Many places are enforcingpeopleto go without there cars transporting themeveryday, which could be a good thing. Heidrun Walter a man in source 1 states, ""Seventy percent of vaughn's families do not own cars, and fiftyseven percent sold a car to move here."" By saying this he is showing how many people like living their lives without all the troubles cars can cause. People of this community dont have to worry about being ran over by cars or being stuck in traffic everyday. David Goldberg, another man in source 1 also states, ""All of our development since World War two has been centered on the car, and that will have to change."" In saying this he portraying thatwe need to focuson more important things andstopworryingabout cars, which hurt us more in the long run than they do helping us.

Vauban isn't the only place that has enforced the rule of not using cars. Many other places have done so also.Robert Duffer states, ""After days of nearrecord pollution, paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" By saying this the author is explaininghow the use of cars have dramatically polluted a city. Just think, if there were no cars, then there would be less pollution to worry about hurting all the city's. It is not hard to ride a bike to the places you need or want to go. Instead of using cars everyday and hurting our environment, people should think of how much good they would be doing and money they would be saving by taking another type of transportation than just cars.

Bogota, Colombia has also taken the no car use into affect. They have used many other types of transportion such as hiking, biking, and even skating to there destination. Businessman Carlos Arturo from source 3 says, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" He and many other citizens of this place agree with saving our environment and not using cars. Not using cars is less stressful because your not consistently worring about gas, the car breaking, or getting into an accident with another driver.

Just imagine your life without using a car everday. Not usinga car isn't thatbad and doesnt hurt you or the people around you as much as it does having one. Using a car everyday puts your life at risk, takes your money, and hurts the environment.Life without cars would be simpler and less stressful in our world today.",0
dc8abe3c,1,"Dear Senator, The Electoral College should not be the deciding vote for the president of the United States of America. Every popular vote of the people should be counted towards deciding the next president. If America is a democracy and in a democracy people pick the leader then every citizen's vote should count, not just the majority.

First things first, only a few states have taken action towards my claim. Those being Maine and Nebraska. These states have made a ""proportional representation"", which is unlike the ""winner take all"" that the other 48 states have adopted. The text states ""Most states have a winner take all method system that awards all electorss to the winning presidential candidate"" What Is the Electoral College?7.This portrays that with the ""winner take all"" method various amounts of U.S. citizen votes have gone unaccounted for.

Multiple occasions have dimmed the surface of our elections where their voices aren't heard. The author says ""faithless electorss have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please"" Plumer 11. Going into this further, that means that one person can disagree with hundreds of people's votes for his own vote of the opposite party. Also, if a tie was to occur int the total electorsal votes then the outcome would be put into the hands of the House of representatives. If the people were to vote in the first place this occurance would have never came close.

On the other hand, it is much harder to calculate the total number of the popular vote being that there are millions of people voting. It is much easier to count and not dispute over a hundred or so votes than a million. But, having people know that their vote doesn't make it to actually voting for the president makes them not as enthusiastic about voting. The text says ""no voter's vote swings an election""Posner 23. This explains why only about one half of eligible American voters voted.

In conclusion, America is a democracy, which means people elect the president, not a electors but the people. The author states ""The electorsal college is unfair, outdated, and irrational."" Plumer 14. This further explains that electorss cannot make decisions without being biased toward their party. Also portraying well, the feelings of many Americans who feel the same way.",0
dd05e305,1,"Dear Senator, Keeping the electoral college would be a disaster just waiting to happen. It is old, outdated and irrational. Are we really going to keep using the same, old method that our founding fathers used hundreds of years ago? The method itself is unfair to many American voters. It is also unjust to the candidates who won the popularity vote, but not the electoral vote.

The candidates running for presidency usually focus on the bigger states with more electoral votes or ""swing"" states. This makes the voters in smaller states such as Rhode Island and South Carolina feel like their opinions and voices do not matter, that the president will not care for their interests. Having the electoral college gone, means that the winnertakeall system will also be gone, and will insure voters that the candidates will spend more time in their states trying to win their votes as an individual and not as a whole.

In the 2000 U.S. presidential race, Al Gone received more individual votes than George W. Bush, but lost the presidency, because he did not receive the majority of the electoral votes. This is unfair to the candidate, knowing that you won majority of the populations votes, but lost the presidency. In an article called "" The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong"" Mother Jones stated that after the 2000 presidential race, a poll was taken, over sixty percent of voters would prefer a more direct election than the one we have now.

In another article ""In Defense of the Electoral College:Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"", they argue as to why we should keep the electoral college. The author of the article, Richard A. Posner, said that there is a certainty of outcome, that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. That being said, it shows that the voters' vote do not really matter, because it all comes down to the electoral votes.

Despite the numerous amount of people who disagree with the Electoral College and all the agruements against it, we still keep it. Why? What is so bad about getting rid of the Electoral College? It gives a sense to the voters, that they matter and what they say can determine the fate of who is president.",0
dd307e45,1,"Dear senator , I know befor you were senator you voted just like us and you know how frustrating it can be somethings. The Electoral Collage would be discarded and Presidents of the united states should be elected by popular vote. If we do the popular vote it will be more efficient and be easier to keep track of. We have to do it because The Electoral collage it's failed to elect a President , the masses the people don't get to pick the president, and its outdated.

Firstly, we need to abolish the electoral collage because it has failed to elect a President in the past. In the case of a tie in electoral votes it would be the task of the house of representatives the elect a president and the way they elect the president is worse then the electoral collage. even thought and exact tie in the presidential elections has not occored so the catostrify of the house of representatives electing the president has not happen yet ,but it is entirely possible.

Secondly, we need to abolish the Electoral collage because the masses the people don't get to the president. In the electoral collage usage of the system results in the People electing the electors ,to elect the president. And in this system the electors can pull a switcheroo and vote for the other canadent if they so please, to betray the people by doing so. allthought its system has worked scince the founding of our country ,it is still quirky and disfunctionable at times. the electoral collage allows the electors to do as they please if a elector for florida promises to pick one president and gets all the votes to got to the electoral collage he can choose the Other canadent because his friend wanted him to. how stupid is that!

Thirdly, we need to abolish the electoral collage because it is outdated. in our day and time we have smart phones and androids that we can use to vote for the president in the peoples choice. there could be a web site that you can go on to submit your election and at the end of the election the computer can tally us the number of votes to the exact amount so it would be the peoples choice. its also outdated because we dont need one or a few guys to be sent somewhere to cast the vote of the people , we have so mmusch advanced technology that we can have any legal person who wants to vote can and actually have there vote matter insted of what the elector pick so it matters to those few poeple instead of every single person in america.

In conclusion, we need to abolish the electoral collage because it can fail to elect a presidentwhich is almost did in 1960, the masses the people can't elect the presidentthey have to elect the electors to elect the president, and also is is very outdated. in my opion, we should also consider tweking the electoral callage instead of just getting rid of it.",0
dd80bd6f,0,"In Miami, sitting in traffic is simply a part of everyday life, be it during lunch hour or rush hour or be it because of unpredictable accidents or planned road closures. The city is so large that it is oftentimes impossible to walk from point A to point B in a timely manner, and the climate is so unpredictable that is is oftentimes impossible to make such a trek anyways. Could Miami ever be made a carfree community? Considering that these types of communities lower municipal carbon emissions, require better city planning, and encourage people to take advantage of public transportation, Miami, and other cities and suburbs around the United States, should make efforts to reduce private car ownership and use.

Carfree communities are not a theoretical concept. In fact, cities and smaller suburbs have made the move to carfree lifestyles and even been designed with limited car usage in mind all over the world, and even in some parts of the United States. Places like Vauban, Germany and Bogota, Colombia are using this trend to make citizens happier, healthier, and more efficient Rosenthal, Selsky. Alternative transportation, be it walking, bicycling, or taking a bus, is just as viable a way to get around as cars are, and it leads to smarter city planning that accounts for a higher volume of pedestrians walking from their homes to run errands and go shopping and a lessened impact on the environment through fewer greenhouse gas emissions. These things also work together to make for happier citizens. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"" says businessman Carlos Arturo about Bogota's citywide carfree day, a program instituted by city officials to encourage limited car usage in 1999 Selsky. A mother of two and media trainer in Vaudan, Germany, where 70 percent of families do not own cars, agrees with Mr. Arturo, saying that life with cars was ""always tense"" Rosenthal.

It is very understandable that cars would make people nervous. ""Cars are responsible for... up to 50 percent"" of greenhouse gas emissions in some areas of the United States Rosenthal. Greenhouse gas is notoriously harmful for the environment because it speeds up the process of global warming which can result in higher mean temperatures and things like smog that can bring up very serious health risks. Record high levels of smog in Paris, France last year forced city officials to institute a temporary ban on driving while the city's air was allowed to clear Duffer. Paris typically has a higher amount of pollution in the air than other more ecoconscious European cities, sometimes even a full 67.3 micrograms higher than the level of pollution in London according to Reuters, an international news agency Duffer.

Carfree communities lower carbon emissions tremendously, making smog and other consequences of greenhouse gases much less pressing issues to deal with. In order to reduce the number of cars on the roads, public transportation must be readily accessible and as effictient as possible. This helps city governments manage the amount of carbon they are pumping into the atmosphere by giving them the opportunity to regulate things such as buses, subways, and other forms of metro transit. Public transportation does not only mean actual modes of transportation, though carfree communities must make allowances for the creation and maintainment of things like better sidewalks and bicicyle paths for citizens who elect to use them Rosenthal, Selsky. Congestion would then also be lowered because fewer cars on roadways usually do not result in citytypical, and definitely Miamitypical, traffic jams Duffer.

While it is impossible to assume that Americans will stop using their cars from one day to the next, there are many ways to gradually increase the appeal of carfree lifestyles in commuter cities and suburbs and therefore to reap some of the benefits of diminished popular car usage. In fact, milennials in America have already started this move towards carfree communities Rosenthal. Younger generations are waiting longer to apply for their licenses and buy cars, instead choosing to utilize public transportation, walk, or carpool with friends. Sociologists have also noticed that America has surpassed peak car usage, meaning that Americans no longer drive as much as they once did. The ""car culture"" that prevails in suburbs and cities through the nation may be on its way into obscurity if the trend continues Rosenthal.",0
dda8b46c,0,"Limiting car usage has lots of important advantages. By limiting car usage, we can, lower harmful greenhouse gas levels, reduce smog, and improve our environment and society. It wont happen immediately, but i do believe that if we start to limit car usage, that it will greatly benefit the world.

To begin with, cars cause a lot of the problems we are having with harmful greenhouse gas. ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Paragraph 5, Source 1 Greenhouse gas emissions are extremely harmful to the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases harm the earth's atmosphere and we as humans, need the atmosphere to protect us from harmful radiation. By limiting car use, you are technically saving the planet and everyone on it.

Second of all, cars cause smog. Smog is extremely harmful to breathe in and is also bad for the environment. For example, in Paris, France, the government enforced a driving ban to alleviate the thick smog. After a few days of less cars on the road, the smog cleared up! Source 2 This proves that if we didn't have cars in the cities that have smog such as Beijing and Paris, then smog would be much less of a problem and cities would be a much more healthy and safe place to live. Therefore, limiting cars results in less smog.

The last reason that limiting car usage is beneficial is that it will improve the environment and society. ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth, sidewalks rushhour restrictions have drastically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" Source 3 This shows that by reducing car usage, it has helped the city's economy and created a better place to live for its citizens. Bill Ford, executive chairman of Ford Motor Company, envisioned a world where personal vehicle ownership is impractical or undesirable. He saw a world that would ""save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety,"" Source 4 This shows that by reducing car usage, the environment and society can be improved drastically.

All in all, I strongly believe that by reducing car usage, we can make the world a better place. By doing so, we can limit harmful green house gas, reduce smog, and change society for the better. These are only a few of the advantages of limiting car usage but you can already see why it is such a good idea. I hope you can take this information and make the world a better place.",0
de9eb4c2,0,"Since the rise of suburbs nationally and globally, car culture has been an important component of our history and of the typical human experience. Every teenager anticipates the excitement and freedom of a driver's license, our country is ""the birthplace of the Model T"" and ""the home of Detroit,"" and mothers across the globe rely on SUVs and station wagons to haul their children to and from school, soccer practice, Sunday mass, and the like Source 4. In recent years, however, there is a growing trend of limited car usage around the world as countries promote vehiclefree neighborhoods and as in nations like the USA, ""there has been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39year olds getting a license,"" Source 4. This trend, while seemingly alarming in our technologydependent universe, offers several advantages, from a better environment to healthier citizens and communities, and encouraging and promoting this pattern may just be as revolutionary for the planet as the introduction of the first car over a century ago.

From France to Colombia, first of all, governments have been encouraging limited car usage as a means to better the environment through the reduction of toxic emissions into our atmosphere after all, ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States,"" source 1. As debates have run rampant around the world about global warming and air pollution, several nations have taken initiative and experimented with the effects of this idea. In the district of Vauban, Germany, for instance, ""street parking, driveways and home garges are generally forbidden,"" and as a result of expensive parking spots for those who do choose to operate their vehicles upwards of 40,000 a pop ""70% of vaughn's families do not own cars,"" Source 1. Limited car usage and public transportation is alternatively being promoted in Germany and elsewhere as an attempt to live our daytoday lives in a way that is healthier for ourselves and the planet. France is one such example in Paris, for instance, ""one of the most polluted cities in the world,"" ""nearrecord pollution"" led officials to impose a driving ban to help clear the air, and almost 4,000 were ticketed with a 31 fine as a result of not following orders Source 2. Free public transit was offered, and a result of the actions of the ruling party, ""congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog,"" Source 2. Likewise, Bogota, Colombia annually hosts a program known as the Day Without Cars that has attracted interest from neighboring countries and cities and provides an opportunity to ""take away stress and lower air pollution,"" according to businessman Carlos Arturo, who spent the day bicycling with his wife source 3. Globally, limiting car usage has resulted in exciting changes for not only the environment, but, surprisingly, public health as well.

The obesity crisis and lack of healthy social interactions, secondly, both are looming global issues due the rise of supersized fast food and innovations in social media and the Internet, and this trend of limited car usage serves as an unseen, advantageous remedy by promoting healthier people and communities. Without cars, people must find alternative forms of transportation, and in Bogota, for example, during the Day Without Cars, ""millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated...to work,"" and since this campaign began in the mid1990s, it has seen ""the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths"" and has resulted in parks, sports centers, and broad sidewalks considerably less traffic and the emergence of ""new restaurants and upscale shopping districts,"" Source 3. A mother of two in Vauban, Germany, Heidrun, Walter, claims that, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" Source 1. Alternative forms of transportation also allow for increased social interaction walking with your neighbor on the way to work, your kids interacting while en route to school, or striking up a conversation with a stranger on a public bus or tram are all examples of making connections with others that do wonders for our mental and social health.",0
dea147b0,0,"""All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change."", stated David Goldberg, according to author Elisabeth Rosenthal. Fellow citizens, the time has come to address the complications of our over usage of cars. There are many advantages to limiting car usage that you need to take into consideration. Less stress, reduced air pollution, and less money spent on such a worthless form of transportation. Sounds like an intriguing advantage, right?!

First off, stress can be caused greatly by cars. Although, this may sound absurd, just put some thought into it. With a limit on car usage, you hardly have to worry about your kid crossing the street by themselves. Say bye bye, to car hijackers! They are no longer a problem, neither is getting in an accident. Stop worrying, because do to the limit on car usage, your chances of caos are finite, they are no longer limitless.

Furthermore, air pollution is a big economic problem today. Limiting car usage means a great deal of air pollution reduction. In article, "" Paris Bans Driving Due To Smog"", we see congestion was down 60 percent, after five days, five days alone! Can you imagine how much better our health would be? We see many cases of lung cancer, due to smoke in the lungs, putting a limit on many lives. Also, air pollution is as well bed for mother nature herself, killing trees, our vital resource we not only rely on to put a roof over our heads, but also our whole source of living. Air pollution, is a definite economic problem that we can get rid of simply with the reduction of car usage.

Is your money being well spent? Not really, and you can thank the monster sitting in your driving, hiding in plain site. Cars need lots of attention. We're talking about more attention than an infant! You have to provide it with insurance, monthly bills and so much more. For instance, if you were to get a flat tire, you have to replace it with a spare, tand then that flat has to also get fixed. Money, money, and more money just being stolen right from under your nose, while gas prises are piling higher!

To conclude, if you were to limit your car usage you shall find many advantages, not only for you but for the economy. Stress, is a never ending cycle with the hunk of parts you may call your, ""friend"". A reduction in air pollution has a great amount of benefits. Next time, you decide to take a ride out with your buddies in your car, take a nice good thought about all the exhaust possibly filling up your lungs, and if not yours then someone else's. Lastly, you no longer will have to worry about your money jumping out your pocket.",0
deb50259,0,"Cars make it exceptionally easy to travel and move around. Auto use permits an individual to go to places they have not been before. In Europe, the countries that share the shingen space allow Europeans to move freely. To avoid pricy plane and train tickets, a lot of Europeans use their cars to go to an entirely different country and experience a variety of different cultures in a matter of hours. It is most certainly a privilege. Despite the many pros of having a car, the cons outweight them. Throughout this essay I will explain the advantages of limiting car usage.

In many countries and cities car usage has dropped. Some countries,it is purely accidental or due to economic reasons and in some cities and countries, this decline is intended. In a city called Vauban in Germany, citizens have given up their cars. In this city,street parking,driveways and garages are more often than not forbidden. This may seem strange to not have the privilege to own a car or a garage. But most of the residents have moved out from the city to live here. Heidrun Walter claims that she is much happier this way and before she was always tense.70% of the vaughn's family do not own a car, and 57% sold their cars to live in Vauban. This particular city is a mere example of a growing trend in Europe,the United States and various other country. The plan is to separate suburban life from auto usethis movement is called ""smart planning"".

In opposition, to these efforts, automobiles are usually an important factor to the suburbs where usually middleclass people live. This causes a huge impediment to current efforts to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars. In Europe,passenger cars are the reason for the 12 percent of greenhousee gas emissions in the United states that number almost quadruples in size in some carintensive areas. The approach is to make suburbs more compact rather than having malls on the border on distant highways.

Due to smog and pollution to this global city's air, Paris enforced a driving ban to put an end to polution. 4,000 drivers were rightfully so fined that day. This issue had to be taken seriously for a greater cause. For example, for the smog levels to decrease and to purify the air in the cities and suburbs and to prevent pollution. Public transit was free for those five days that the ban was enforced. Congestion dropped 60% in Paris, ever since the driving ban. The smog rivaled Beijing, which is often known for being one of the most polluted cities in the world. Diesel fuel was blamed because of a tax policy in favor of diesel fuel in France. More than half of vehicles run on diesel fuel in France.

In the Colombia's capital, Bogota, many colombians hiked,skated or took buses to work in spirit of their car free day. Personally I think this was an extravagent idea. It teaches people to not be so dependent on cars. This day significantly reduced traffic jams,smog and promoted transportation. This was a wonderful oppurtunity to lower stress and air pollution at the same time! Parks and sports bloomed that day, sidewalks that were unfinished and in poor conditions were replaced,the traffic decreased and restaurants blossemed. This car free day had an amazing impact on this community and the world.

Due to recents studies, Americans are driving less and buying few cars as the years go by. The miles driven have peaked in 2005 , but as of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person dropped 9% , and was equal to the percentage in Janurary 1995. Scientist state that this decline is beneficial for carbon emissions and the enviroment. Although this might affect dearly the car industries. The rise of cellphones,internet and apps this permits a more flexible way of making commuting arangements,and the evolution of vans services.

A lot of people have been using public transportation and biking to get around. There has been a drop from 1639 year olds in getting their license. Getting license is not as big as of priority for those people. They revolve their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take busses and trains or carpool with friends.

To conclude, I strongly believe that limiting car use would benefit different aspects in peoples lives. But for people to give up using cars,the recontruction of suburban cities is a very important. I live in the suburbs and despite the houses around, you would need a car to go to the grocery store,restaurant and to have fun with your friends. Highways usually circle around suburban cities and that may cause congestion. To make car usage less of a priority for citizens, we would have to think of the greater cause and to restablish cities to not prohibit people from moving around. The decline in car use will improve the world for the generations to come.",0
df0ceb07,0,"Is there any advantages of limiting car usage? Whether it's for the environment or even your health, there are some advantages that overall can help you. Lets be honest, cars aren't cheap and i don't really see them getting any cheaper but walking from point A to point B is free. It's kind of like killing two birds with one stone, by walking you save the environment from the gas you would be burning and you're saving money at the same time.

Limiting or even completly getting rid of driving can help you become a happier or even tense free person. Driving a vehicle, especially on a congested highway or road can create road rage causing you to become more stressful and aggravated. In a suburb in Germany, residents there are giving up their cars, something they have never done before. They seem to be working efficiently without their cars, still being able to go to the store and work. It seems that they like this way of life better, stress free and no worry of getting stuck in traffic. Like what Heidrun Walter explained in source one, she said ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" People are so infatuated with the thought of driving and cars but they don't realize that driving all the time is effecting your health. Personally, I think it's some of the reason as to why there is so much obesity in this world.

Not only is driving all the time bad for your health but it's also bad for the environment. Paris had a problem with there being so much smog, that they actually had to enforce a partial ban from driving. The partial ban was working, it was said in source 2 that after five days of intensifying smog, congestion went down 60 percent in the capitol of France. The partial ban worked with trying to clear out the smog to help the environment so well that the French party rescind the ban for odd numbered plates on tuesday's. Source 3 explained that in Columbia they were going on there third year of cars being banned except for buses and taxis. Just like in Germany people seemed to being adjusting and liking the idea of no cars on the roadway. A business man named Carlos Arturo Plaza, said that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" referring to Columbias third year of banning cars.

Even if you just have to go right down the street, people hop in there cars and go, when in fact you can just walk. An official of Transportation for America,David Goldberg, expressed about how depended we are on vehicles. He said ""All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change."" And change is what seems to be exactly happening. In source 4 it was said that there seemed to be a decline in America's love affair with their vehicles. According to Doug Short, who is apart of an investment research comapany said that ""When adjusted for population growth, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily thereafter."" Maybe people are starting to realize that you don't necessarily need to drive and that it's more of previlge then a must.",0
df295c36,0,"A growing trend in day to day life that is occurring around the world is ""carfree"" day. Carfree day has spread in cities and towns around Europe and the Americas to separate suburban life from automobile use. This is beneficial in many ways to the growth, forward movement, and health of towns. So far Europe, Asia, and the Americas have given up car usage for a day, and even given up car usage entirely.

Different cities practice carfree day differently. In Paris, the nearrecord pollution was at its height. The city participated in carfree day by enforcing a partial driving ban and making people with even numbered license plates leave their cars at home. The following day, the odd numbered license plates were confined to home. Any person who didn't follow guidelines and conduct was fined. The congestion of smog in the capital of France decreased by sixty percent. Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals, like Brussels and London. By participating in the carfree day, Paris was able to contribute to cutting down the greenhouse gas emissions and temporarily fix a few environmental concerns in Paris. Even though they had some effective results, Paris wasn't the only city that participated in the trend.

Across the Atlantic ocean in Bogota, the program allowed Colombians of Bogota to hike, bike, skate, or take public transportation to work. The carfree day left the normally busy, full and loud streets devoid of traffic jams. The goal to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog was enforced by minor fines. Despite the fact that rain showers were common, it did not stop the people from participating. The people of he town viewed it as a day of taking away stress and lowering ar pollution. The day without cars has been part of an improvement campaign since the mid 1990s, and has since been practiced at least one day out of the year. Authorities from countries all around the world have gone to the event and were impressed and some were inspired. Even other cities that are in colombia have joined the event like Cali and Valledupar.

Back in Europe, the city of Vauban, Germany, has taken place in a permanent carband. Street parking, driveways, and home garages are nearly forbidden in the experimental and new district of Freiburg. While car ownership is allowed, there are only two places to park. People that live there generally like the way of life in Vauban. Many of them sold their cars just to move there in the first place. The overall feeling of living in a city free of cars seems to lift stress of the people that live there. Therefore, the people are happier and more productive. Vauban is known as the most advanced experiment in attmepts to make suburbs more compact and have a minut number of vehicles. Supermarkets and stores as a result have been moved to a closer distance so that they could be walking distance away. Our development as people over the past century hads been based on the car, and Vauban goes completely against the idea that progress is based off of the car.

Even in America, Obama is ambitious to change the amount of the United States pollution. While although cities have yet to participate in carfree day, Citizens are buying fewer cars, driving less, and getting fewer licenses across America each year. This gives researchers the idea that America is passed the peak driving level. American life has been integrated with cars from the time that the Model T was born. As the amount of jobs decrease, people just can not afford to buy cars. People in America have lost the general idea of a car and it's uses. Young adults in college have learned to use other ways of transport like carpooling with a friend, public transportation, or walking to the destination. The amount of people has dropped more than twenty percent and still continues to drop. This incipient stage of American life has implied the idea of alternatives to multiple motored vehicles.

Cities all around the world are deciding to practice their own car free day and are decreasing the use of cars altogether. The practice of carfree day has caused parks to initiate, sidewalks to be prepared repaired, cut traffic, give joy to the people, and overall diminish air pollution.",0
df50e792,1,"Dear Senator of Florida, Being a man of your caliber and stature you may already know about the Electoral College. This is the process that consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of electoral votes by Congress. I'm writing this letter to you today because I believe that the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational.

The process of electoral college has been around for years. I mean think about it our founding fathers created it. Which means its four score and a thousand years too old and irrelevant to today economy. Sure it helped thousands of years ago but this the dawn of a new era. Why would it still be effective today? Its outdated! You and I both have heard the expression of ""If it aint broke dont fix it."" Well this the check engine light going off in your car, which means its time for a change.

Additionally, its unfair to the citizens of our nation. For instance, because each state casts only one vote, the single representatives from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Sure it helps with Wyoming and the proportionality of their representatives. But,its completely unfair to all those citizens of California who pay their taxes, work hard for their money to better their state. Take the time out in their day to vote. You're telling me that their vote doesn't have a valid say in the choosing of the President?, non sense.

Lastly, the electoral college is completely irrational. Its was created to prevent any regional favorite in voting and for a long time it has been successful in doing so. It totally contradicted itself in 2000, when the Gore had more popular votes than Bush but yet fewer electoral votes. Bush went on to win the election and manage to destroy the country along the way as well. They thought that it would never happen? I mean the amount of electoral votes is an even number538. Its unlikely I mean but its not impossible.

In closing, I just wanted to express my thoughts about the electoral vote process with you today. I believe its very unfair, outdated, and irrational. With all the infractions that can occur and risks that are involved, I believe it needs to be changed. And I believe now is time for that change! Thank you.",0
df53de90,0,"From saving money to having less pollution, limiting car usage has its advantages. Many believe that having a car is needed to operate in today's society. While others think it is a last resort when all other transportation opportunities are unavailable. While they both have good points, it is said that less car usage has its benefits.

A good benefit is less pollution. In source one of "" In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosental discusses of a Vauban, a tighted fitted community suburb that is a growing trend in Europe. Despite having to be restricted to using your vehicle, passenger cars are only responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe while the United States experiences 50 percent in some carintensive areas. Then in source two of ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer tells about a ban that France enforced to help clear the air from the world known city of Paris. With cold nights and warm days it caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emission and that was when it was enough for France. Due to such a ban, enough smog cleared from some passengers could drive again.

Another is more community interaction. In source three of "" Carfree day is spinning a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky tells of Bogota, Columbia and its program of spending its citizens to experience a day without a car. Millions Colombians either hiked, biked, skated or took the bus to work. Instead of one single person being stuck in their car through traffic, they had many people placed in one bus. Due to such a wonderful opportunity many people felt less stressed. More people were seen together then by themselves that even parks and sports centers were blooming throughout the city.

Another benefit would be less traffic. In source four of "" The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal discover in recent studies of new generations buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses. As people ride the busses more, carpool with friends or even just mobility connected with friends instead of driving less traffic has occurred. Since this has been going on pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into connectednetwork to save time and converse resources.

Cars, the nicotine in a cigerate, can hurt our earth. From studies shown limiting car usage can bring its advantages.",0
dfa5046f,0,"Hot topics in todayas world are pollution and global warming. While there is still debate, many people agree that cutting down societyas use of cars would help the world be a better place. Greater limitation of car use will reduce pollution and better society.

To commence, reduction of car use will reduce pollution. Pollution is essentially hurting the planet as a whole, as well as all the organisms living in it. In fact, Paris, France, has recently taken action against car use effectively. According to Robert Duffer, ""The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" In only a few days, after banning half of the diesel and gasrun cars in the cities per day, ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" If such a change can happen in under a week, the entire world could benefit greatly from adopting similar policies. In the U.S, things are also turning around for the better. According to as article, ""The End of Car Culture,"" ""transportation is the second largest source of Americaas emissions, just behind power plants."" This is largely due to car culture in the U.S, which is fortunately declining. In fact, in the same article, it is said ""As of April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak and equal to where the country was in January 1995."" This shows that America is well on itas way to becoming a greener nation without having to make dramatic changes to itas way of life.

Continuing, more limited car use can better society, or at least work in a community. Society is currently too dependant on cars. However, Vauban, Germany is starting to change that. In another New York Times article, Elisabeth Rosenthal states, ""70 percent of Vaubanas families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here."" The remaining thirty percent of people hardly use their own cars for anything more than distant traveling, as most of Vaubanas streets are ""carfree."" This can show that a population of people, in this case over 5,000 of them can survive without constantly being behind a wheel. In another case, in Bogota, Columbia, there is a designated holiday to celebrate not using cars. Appropriately titled, ""Day Without Cars"" is an annual event held in order ""to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog,"" according to the Andrew Selsky. While it may sound silly, the event had a huge turnout in spite of bad weather. Other cities joined into the fun after a few years, and also in the article, Enrique rivera, the mayor of a Paraguay town, said of the event, ""'These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders.'"" The simple effort to better the world has brought people together for a good cause.

In retrospect, the idea of declining the use of cars will help humanity as a whole greatly. Doing so would simultaneously slow down the destruction of the Earth for all organisms inside of it, and also help the human race better itself socially.",0
dfb68b55,0,"To many, it is a necessity. To others, its a waste of money. Cars have been a growing industry ever since the ModelT, but over the last few years automobiles may soon start to look like a thing of the past. There have been many efforts to reduce car use because it is better for the environment, creates a more social atmosphere, and the best of all it is cheaper.

Could you imagine major streets, cities, and highways almost deserted of those four wheeled gas guzzlers? Well annualy in Bogota, Columbia citizens participate, or for many ""celebrate"" no car day. Other forms of transportation such as skating, biking, or walking are very common as violaters of no car day face twenty five dollar fines. Many enjoy the holiday like Carlos Plaza, who rode his twoseat bike to work with his wife. It is a day to be socializing with others, not locked up in your vehicle but to get out and enjoy the fresh air before it is all polluted and blown out the exhaust. The day alone has caused a blooming of parks, and restraints throughout the city. With less drivers out on the road, this day is traffic free and extremely safe as well. This is not only a common trend in Colombia, but is beginning to be seen in the United States as well. Teens have begun using their summerlife to being in carpools or riding the bus to not only get around environmentally, but to also meet and be with friends and develop a more social community. This can be seen through carpooling apps and cell phones to arrange other forms of transportation.

Over the years there has been a push to use more ecofriendly cars such as hybrids, or electric cars. But what about not driving a car at all? Many have made this change in Vauban, Germany where residents of this upperclass community have gone motor free, and given up cars. This suburban area alone is a huge effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, similar to citizens in paris who have lost their driving privileges due to the extreme amount of smog in their city. By banning odd numbered plates from driving on monday, and even numbered plates from driving on tuesday, pedestrians hopped on trams and bicycles to commute the rest of their day. Each time you firie up your engine, carbon monoxide and other pollution gas is released into the atmosphere, causing a widening hole in the ozone layer affecting Global Warming. In this twoday restriction, smog was significantly reduced throughout the city.

Many gimmance and frown as they fill up their gas tank, knowing they just spent forty dollars on gasoline, and will be right back at the same pump next week. Money makes the world go around, and spending less on cars, highways and other expenses could brighten anyones day. It is absolutely free to get to work on a bicycle, and New Yorks bike sharing program has significantly jumped inthe last few years as many would rather use manpower than horsepower to travel. Not just bikes but other services are cheaper as well like taking the bus, the few dollars for a bus pass or a train ticket is much less than a new toyota. The infamous no car day in Colombia has influenced money to be spent on wide, and smooth sidewalks for bikers instead of million dollar highways. Due to the recession, many are not buying cars or getting their license simply because they dont have the resources to afford one. Some believe the idea of a personal car is impractical says Bill Ford of Ford Motor Company. Bill believes it is best to use the comercial network of transportation for its lower cost, eco friendly, and a safer environment on the road.

Since the beginning of man all forms of transportation have been used, but are cars starting to become a thing of the past? On paper, the idea of not owning personal cars looks great. The environment would improve significantly, daily interactions with comuting to work develops a more social enviroment, and is of course cost reductive. So every once in a while don't be afraid to pedal the old Shwinn or hop on the Greyhound, it just might be better than you think.",0
dfd26028,0,"Here in America, with our ""broad expanses and suburban ideals"" Rosenthal, para. 3, the automobile is the way in which we move: it takes us to school, to the office, to our homes, to the homes of others, to distant, unexplored places. Entire buildings and businesses are dedicated to this wonderful invention. However, as American culture shifts and we focus less and less on the car itself, the advantages to limiting our use of this tool become increasingly evident: less polluted air, more costfriendly alternatives, and the bonding of whole communities. This turnaway from a carfocused society could certainly change the American perspective on the automobile industry as a whole.

Cars, despite some of their clear advantages, cannot provide the necessary advantage of lesspolluted air. Automobiles in the United States can produce up to 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in carintensive regions European passenger cars can produce up to 12 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in Europe Rosenthal without cars, these greenhouse gas rates dramatically drop. One example of this is the temporary ban of driving a car in Paris due to recordbreaking smog levels. According to an article by Robert Duffer, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog,"" and that colder nighttime weather and warmer daytime weather caused the warmer air to ""trap car emissions."" People from other countries also seem to be enthusiastic about limited car use and its effects. Carlos Arturo Plaza of Bogota, Colombia, who participated in his city's 3rd annual Day Without Cars, says that "" 'It's a good opportunity to...lower air pollution ""Selsky. In our own country, as Americans buy less cars and register for less driver's licenses, sociologists can conclude that ""it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants"" Rosenthal, para.6. A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will allow cleaner air, which could eventually lead to healthier living standards across the globe, as well as healthier and more diverse ecosystems and biomes. With the limited use of cars, this could all be a possibility.

Not only will this restriction of car use allow for less air pollution, it could also lead to producing more costfriendly methods of transportation. Cars and their accessories are often expensive to maintain and to purchase, so the creation of other ways to get around are a must to those who cannot afford such maintenance or purchases. In a passage by Andrew Selsky, he states that Bogota's Day Without Cars has allowed for the ""construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths"", along with ""broad, smooth sidewalks"", to travel on. In the booming and populous city of New York, its bikesharing program and ""skyrocketing bridge and tunnel tolls"" Rosenthal allow the world to see the shift towards cheap yet affective alternatives to transportation. Michael Sivak, research professor at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute, has a son who uses Bay Area Rapid Transit, even though it often takes longer than driving, simply because it is cheaper and a car is simply ""not a priority"" Rosenthal. Alternative transportation is definitely on the rise as car usage becomes less and less of a trend.

While all of these advantages to limited car use affect us all, the one that will most directly and immediately affect people is the bonding of whole communities. When car use is reduced, there is more opportunity for interaction with others, whether it be through modern technology such as the cellphone or social media, or through facetoface communication as seen in a good oldfashioned conversation between two people. Various factors, according to Mimi Sheller, professor at Drexel Unviersity, are accountable for this community bond: the Internet, which allows for connection with people without driving to meet them the ""renewal of center cities"" to draw in ""empty nesters"" Sheller, Rosenthal as well as carpooling apps and services. Vauban, an entirely carfree suburb in Germany, has adopted a nocar policy in an attempt to separate suburban life and automobile use, an asset in a new project known as ""smart planning."" This separation allows its citizens to have more personal interaction, with its businesses being a short walk from their homes and less space to park a personal automobile. This compacted suburban example in distant Germany is also being adopted in some places in America as well, and it may eventually be the future of American suburb life. With these changes come more and more opportunity to delve a deeper connection with the citizens who live in your area.

America has long been pictured as ""one of the world's prime car cultures"" Rosenthal. It's the home of many famous and renowned automobiles, including the Ford Model T and Detroit, Michigan, where Chrysler automobiles are manufactured and exported all over the globe. However, as the United States evolves into a different sort of country, so does its focus on the car. Restricting use of the car offers up many advantages to its citizens: less greenhouse gas emissions, more costfriendly options to transportation, and the opportunity to bond with your community. As the American Dream continues to change, so will the way in which we move.",0
e05c55e4,0,"Wouldnt it be great to hear that Just by citizens limiting car usage they are kind of making the world a better place? Instead of driving from place to place, they at the park, or taking a nice walk around town, or maybe even having a little fun ice skating. Its exciting to hear by just walking anywhere instead of taking a car or a motor vehicle, you are making the environment better. Also who doesn't love less traffic in the streets? Limiting car usage has so many advantages, you maybe just have to get out of your car to see it. Imagine walking down the street and hearing the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional sound of a distant motor.

In Vauban Germany, most streets are completely car free. Heidrun Walter said ""when i had a car i was always tense. Im much happier this way."" Passenger cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions in europe, and fifty percent in some car intensive areas in the Untied States. pollution is a huge problem, not only for us but for the environment. Just by limiting cars,you can reduce gas emissions. In the the passage it says that in the untied states, the environmental protection agency is promoting ""car reduced"" communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously.

Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. Almost four thousand drivers were fined, and they also had their cars impounded due to some of their reactions to the fine. large traffic went down in the capital of france after five days of intensifying smog. In the passage it says that cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions. They blamed diesel fuel because france has a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. All these car fumes and bad pollution can cause many dangers and car usage has a big part in this problem. By limiting car usage, the smog in paris cleared enough on monday for the ruling french party to rescined the ban for odd numbered plates on Tuesday.

In another place, Bogota Colombia, it was the third straight year cars have been banned with only busses and taxis permitted for the day without cars in this capital city of seven million. They did this so they can reduce smog. The people who didnt follow the rules while this day was in progress, they faced twenty five dollor fines. this day can do good for many people and can give you many opportunitys that you havent got to do before. In the passage a businessman named carlos arturo plaza said ""it's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" he said that while riding a two seat bicycle with his wife. the usage of cars is not always need, having a little fun wont hurt, taking a walk, going to the park is always a good thing. Even if it rains, that wont stop the people from participating in this day.

Car usage isnt the worst thing in the world but there are many advantages when you dont use them. pollution decreases, as well as smog. you have a day to enjoy the outside world. while you do that think of the gas emmisons you arent putting in the environment. People dont really notice it but pollution has a big effect to global warming. Just by limiting your car usage, you can be doing a favor not only to you but the environment and the world.",0
e086da7a,0,"Limiting car usage has many advantages. It would have advantages like less pollution in the atmosphere, congestion between the streets would be reduced, and people would be more interactive with the outside world. The limitation of car usage has showed many improvement all over the world.

According to the first source in the passage ""In german suburb, Life goes on without cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, it states that passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emission in Europe and up to 50 percent in some areas of the United States. In source 2 ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, it says that when there is cold nights and then it is warm during the day, the warmer layer of the air traps the gas emissions from the cars. There are all statements that prove that the gas that is emitted into the air by the car affects our atmosphere. If there is tons of cars out during the day all at the same time, they are all polluting the air which affects us all. The amount of pollution coming from factories and other things is already way too much for us to be adding even more gas emission into the atmosphere. Also, there are not only little cars but different sizes of cars ranging from extra large to small. Some cars let out more pollution than others but when all the pollution from all the cars come together, it is a gigantic problem.

Congestion is something that happens in many places where cars are used alot. In Miami, congestion is a big problem and it is very stressing specially during afterschool hours. In source 2, it says that when France passed the law in which even numbered or oddnumbered license plate had a certain time where they could not drive, the congestion went down up to 60 percent in the capital. Imagine the amount of congestion that was avoided each day by passing that law. In source 3, they state that they had a carfree day in Bogota, the capital of Colombia and it left the streets devoided of traffic jams. They also assure that it was a great way to take away stress. Stress is often caused by very long traffic jams in very populated cities such as Miami or Bogota.

If the usage of cars was limited, people would be more interactive. We would see more people walking and riding bikes. We would carpool with friends and instead of just driving to a place where the person is going to be in a car from point A all the way to point B, people would interact more with one another. Talk to people while they walk, use public transportation and it would benefit local bussiness even. In sorce 1, they say that in the new approach of limiting the access of cars, stores would be placed by a walkside, somewhere you can walk to instead of being placed inside a mall along a distant highway. In source 3, it says that the limited amount of automobiles has lead to the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, parks and sports centers have bloomed and even the sidewalks have improved!

The advantages of limiting the car usage are so great. Not only do they reduce pollution and congestion but also make people become more interactive with the outside world. It is something that benefits us all in many ways.",0
e0b8e387,0,"In many places around the world people own cars and drive around almost every day. But what many people dont know is that cars can release harmful gases that can hurt the earth's environments. Three reasons why limiting car usage in your community is good is because it prevents traffic, it helps the environment and your community, and we dont really need cars to live our everyday lives.

Limiting car usage in your community is good because it prevents traffic. Everyday, people use their cars to go places even if the place their going to is down the street and that causes traffic some times. For example, in Paris there has been days of nearrecord pollution due to traffic so Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air from pollution. They said every Monday motorist with evennumbered license plate were ordered to leave their cars at home or face a 22 euro fine. This ban helped because congestion dropped 60 percent in the capital of France just after five days of the ban was set.

Another reason why limiting car usage in your community is good is because it helps prevent pollution to the air around you. Cars can release gasses that can harm the earths environment and the community around you. Which is why in the United States the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting ""car reduced"" communities much like the one in Vauban, Germany. These ""car Free"" communities consist of a small town where the usage of cars is illegal, you are not even allowed to own homes with a garage in it. This is very good for the environment and can prevent air pollution.

We should limit how often we use cars because we dont really need them to get around and many countries believe so too. For example in Bogota, Colombia there is a program that was set to spread out to other countries, during this program millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work. One reason why these people might have done this is because any one who violated this rule would have been fined 25 but the main goal for this was to prevent smog in their countries environment. The turn out however was huge! Even when there was rain it didn't stop them. The mayor of Bogota said ""The rain hasn't stopped people from participating"" and now for the first time two other Colombian cities, Cali and Valledupar joined the event.

There are many reasons why we should limit the usage of cars in our communities because it prevents traffic , helps the environment and because we dont really need to use cars so often , take Colombia for example. So lets take action and follow the steps that many countires and communities are taking to help our communities.",0
e0dbb2e7,0,"Cars, they make life so much easier, or, do they make them deadlier? The amount of green house gasses has increased dramaticly over the past years, due to the gasses emitted through the tallpipes of cars. However, there has been ways that people are trying to lower these gasses. People around the world are reducing the use of cars for a more cleaner form of transportation. In Vauban, Germany residents in this community ""have given up their cars""1. Also in Paris where they ""enforce a partial driving ban to clear the air""10. While in Bogota, Colombia they have a car free day to ""promote alternative transportation and reduce smog""20. These cities are pioneers in the way of a cleaner form of travel.

The first step is to just have a day without cars, like a new holiday. In Bogota, thats just what they have. On this day ""millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work""20, and those who didn't were fined. This reduces not only smog but the stress of driving and the business of traffic jams. On one of these carfree days, even though it was raining the spirits of the people didn't dampen. Enrique rivera, the mayor of Asuncin, Paraguay, said ""these people are generating a revolutionary change and that it is crossing borders""26, when he visited Bogota. As a result of these days ""parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restraints and upscale shopping districts have cropped up""28.

Another way that the carfree idea is shaking up is in Paris, France. On a Monday ""motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home""11, if they didnt they would recieve a 22euro fine. There smog riviled Beijing, ""known as one of the most polluted cities in the world""14. however, after only one day, ""the smog cleared enough on Monday that the ruling French party rescinded the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday""19.

The biggest leap, however, would be a town with no cars. Vauban, Germany is a community where ""street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden""2. The streets are filled with ""the swish of bicyles and the chatter of wandering children""3 instead of motors and horns. This expirimental town has sparked a new way of life a cleaner, safer way of life.

We have gone on thousands of years without cars, and after they were introduced they polluted the air and caused us stress. So if we could go on without them before, then why can't we now. As demostraighted by Paris, Bogota and Vauban life isn't that bad without a wheel to sit behind.",0
e10c11f8,1,"The Elector College ishould be aboliished becauise of it'is many flawis that it hais.

Firist and foremoist, preisidential election iis not about the people. In the article named, ""The Indefenisible Electoral college:Why even the beistlaid defenise of the isyistem are wrong"" it talkis about how the people don't get to vote for the preisident. The article isayis,""Under the Electoral College isyistem, voteris vote not fot the preisident, but for a islate of electoris, who in turn elect the preisident."" Thiis iis moistly unfair, the people ishould get to decide whether whom their preisident might be not isome electoral choisen by the politacl party or preisidency campaignis. Thiis law deoisnt follow the wayis of the conistitution even though it wais eistabliished by the founding fatheris. It'is very abisurd becauise, the conistitution istartis with, ""We the people"" and in thiis caise the people iso to ispeak, dont get to vote for their own preisident. There iis no reaison why electoral are the oneis who'is vote count on the election becauise they dont have the minor idea of what the people want. In addition to that, if the people vote for the candidate'is electoris, how do the people know that the electoris are voting for the running candidate they won? Well they isimply don't. Stated in Source 2 under ""What'is wrong with the electoral college"" it talkis about how electoris vote for whom which ever candidate they want. The article isayis,""Can voteris control whom their electoris vote for? Not alwayis. Do voteris isometimeis get confuised about the electoris and vote for the wrong candidate? isometimeis."" If the electoris are the oneis chooising who the next preisident iis going to be, then there iis no reaison why the people are voting if their voteis don't count. The people are not able to decide whom their next preisident iis going to be. Moreover, who are theise iso called electoris? Stated in isource 2 under ""What'is wrong with the electoral college"" it talkis about whom the electoris are. The article isayis "" Back in 1960, isegragationiistisin the Louiisiana legiislature nearly isucceede in replacing the Democratic electoris with new electoris who would oppoise Jonh F. Kennedy. In the isame vein,""faithleisis"" electoris have occaisionally refuised to vote for thier party""is candidate and caist a deciding vote for whomever they pleaise...""Baisically what they are isaying hear iis that the electoral are random people who actual vote countis inistead of youris'. Doeis that isound correct to you? Normal people from around your claisis or any get actual count on their vote, what happened to, ""All men are created equal"". Congreisis iis letting other people decide for you, nobody elise but you knowis what your deciisonis in isociety are. Not even electoris ,A.K.A randon beingis. Ais isaid before thiis goeis againist what our founding fatheris would actually want that iis why it ishould be aboliished.

Secondly, the Electoral college hais cauised variouis problemis in previouis hiistory before. In isource 2 it talkis about how congreisis made an error. The article isayis"" Whaqt iis a istate isendis two istaeis of electoris to congreisis? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice preisident Richard Nixon, who wais preisiding over the Senate, Validated only hiis oppenet'is electoris, but he made isure to do iso..."" doeisnt that iseem a bit fiishy to you. He validated the other candidateis elector voteis, why not hiis? Congreisis hais been cheating uis with thiis law. It hais been controlling and deciding who maybe in power. Furthermore, in the isame article it talkis about how the electoral college isyistem focuiseis on a winner take all isyistem. The article isayis,"" Becauise of the winner take all isyistem in each istate, candidateis do't ispend time in istateis they know they have no chance of winning, focuising only on the tight raceis in the ""iswing"" istateis...""you isee how on fair thiis law iis? It doeisnt even acknowledge ismall istateis to vote not even the electoris. There iis nothing fair about thiis act and I damned for it to be aboliisehd.

In concluisin the electoral college act iis ufair and hais cauised for election to be a haisisle. And only that but ""We the people"" and ""All men are created equal"" doeis not count in thiis law. iso yeah, moist devinetly it ishould be aboliished.",0
e1cf4688,1,"Should we keep the electoral college? No because when you vote for your candidate in the presidential election you are actually voting for hisher electors. Also because electors can be anyone not holdin up in the public office. Finally because voters cant always control their elected electoral college member will vote for the same candidate. Over 60 percent of todays voters would prefer a more direct way of electing our officials than how we are electing them now.

Did you know that when you vote for the candidate that you want to be elected into office you are not only voting for that candidate you are actually voting for that candidates electors? Under the electoral college system us voters dont vote for the president but we vote for a slate of electors which in turn elect the candidate we voted for. Say that you voted for Obama in last years election you didnt actually vote for Obama you voted for his electors to vote for im in turn of you voting for them. Many people see this to be fine but say that your candidates electors turned and voted for someone else thus leading you down a road of betrayl. This is one important reason for the electoral party to be disbanded.

Electors that represent a candidate in the presidential run can be anyone not holding public office. Who chooses for these electors? Not the voters of course but the state and sometimes the people who you are actually voting for the electors you havent even heard of or seen in any flyers or ads. That state chooses their officials from state conventions,and even sometimes at the state partys committee or the president has his own party of electors for himself which would in a way be cheating by having your own officials vote for you.

What if the electoral party you voted for to vote for a specific candidate and they went off and changed their mind mid election and passed that countries vote for a different xcandidate in the election? You cant always control the electors to stick with them voting for the elector you voted for but without the electoral college that group of voters who voted for a candidate would actually vote for the candidate that they actually want to win. Thus making the electoral college irrelevent because they dont need to form a party and change their vorte mid election.

We should not not keep the electoral college because of all the flawls in it and the deciving image it holds up. Because you do not vote for the candidate you vote for the electorial party member representing that candidate. That the candidate can be anyone chosen by the state and you cant always control that the member of the electoral college that you voted for to vot for a different candidate that the ended up voting for during the election. This is why we dont need the electoral college to help vote for the presidents we should have a more direct way of voting.",0
e1f70522,1,"What is the Electoral College? The Electoral College is a process ,not a place. The founding fathers established it in the constitution as a compromise between elections of the President by a vote in congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. In the United States people select a president every three years. They would either select their president by Electoral College, or by the most popular vote.

Voting by Electoral College is not safe at all,they should change it to election by popular vote for the President of the United States. When you vote by electoral vote it is never guaranteed that they are going to vote for who you wanted to vote for. They might even change their mind at the last second ,so you never know what they are about to do. Some rich people can pay them to buy off their votes. Then ,boom you lost a vote it might result to a tie or lost. According to paragraph 11 ""In the same vein,""faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast and deciding vote for whomeverthey please..."". You never what could happen ,it is like taking a very riskfull risk and every votes matter.Just one vote can make a very big difference. Further more,voting by popular vote would give you a better chance of getting your candidate to win.When you are the one that elects the President you feel more confident and good.You'll know that you voted for the one you wanted to win and the one that you think that will change everything the way you wanted to. Also ,you don't have worry about anything else ,like people going in the voting box and taking the votes out. Once you vote ,your vote is immediately safe.

In the other hand,voting by Electoral College benefited us.Obama which is the current president of the United States wouldn't probably be president if it wasn't for them. according to the last article ""In 2012's election ,for example ,Obama recieved 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and rodney...."" That means their votes helped Obama win. also the Electoral College avoids problem of elections in which no candidates recieves a majority of the votes cast. Winners take all methods in awarding electoral votes for what they've done.

To summarise my reasonnings Electoral College votes should be change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. Peoples should be allowed to vote on their own. Everybody would be much happier.Without happy people the country would be upside down.",0
e223d6c8,1,"The Electoral College is a process put in place by the founding fathers as a compromise for the election of the President. It is a combination gote of the Congress and of the citizens of the United States. The Electoral College is on of the most disputed political topics right now. The electoral college is a proper method for electing presidents because it forces presidential candidates to have transregional appeal and it rules out the possibility of an election where neither candidate recieves the majority of the gotes.

The Electoral College doesn't allow a candidate to win by gaining their electoral gotes from one region. As stated in source 3, ""no region has enough electoral gotes to elect a president"" meaning that if a candidate were to only campaign in a region that they knew would got for them, then there is no possible way they would win. For example, in 2012 Mitt rodney was a favorite in the south so he had no incentive on campaigning heavily in other states because that he had won the south over completely. Not only did he not win a major electoral state, Florida, but he also didn't campaign in ohter states for which he gained no electoral gotes. Even by some chance that they win, there is a very small chance of them being reelected because the regions that they didn't campaign in will feel disenfranchised and that will cause them not to gote for the president again. So if a candidate doesn't campaign in all regions that doesn't mean he won't win the election the first time, but he is likely to lose the reelection.

With the Electoral College process in place, it rules out the possibility of an candidate not winning the majority of the gotes. For example, their have been two elections where a president only had 43 percent of the popular gotes, which some people would think that would be enough, but the those presidents had the majority of the electoral gotes which is what caused them to win. Even though there is a slight possibility of this happening, there are always those couple of states that are last minute decisions and are called ""tossup states"" because nobody ever knows who will win that state over and it might be a state like Louisiana, who only has 8 electoral gotes but 8 gotes is enough to break a tie and even win the election for someone.

On the other hand, some people might argue that the Electoral College method might turn off potential goters due to a candidate showing that they have no interest in carrying that state due to what party that state carries, but no one goter can decide an election, and that is because the goter doesn't gote for what president they want, but for what electors they want who in part will gote for the candidate. Though they have a valid argument the Electoral College is still the right method for the job.

In conclusion, the Electoral College is the proper method because it forces presidents to campaign in multiple regions and it rules out the possibility of a tie in the election. The president is suppose to rule for the people and some people might not gote for a president just because they don't like them but with the Electoral College the right president wins.",0
e295c323,1,"The Electoral College should be not be abolished and the government should not change to election by popular vote for the President of the United States. The Electoral College requires the presidential candidate to have a transregional appeal, it produces a clear winner and avoids runoff elections, and the Electoral College allows people in swing states to be more thoughtful and choose wisely because the popular vote could be in their hands.

In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President , it states, ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region South, Northeast, etc. has enough electoral votes to elect a president."" This means that the favorite candidate of a particular region has no reason to campaign too much in those states because that candidate doesn't gain many more votes. Any candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be successful because the people of the other region feel that their interests will be overlooked by the president.

The Electoral College decreases the amount of pressure of a runoff election. In paragraph twentytwo of the article In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President, it states, ""The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."" So if both presidential candidates receive an equal percent of of popular votes, the Electoral College's number of votes could be the ""game changer."" The number of votes in the Electoral College produces a clear winner. If there wasn't an Electoral College, then there would have to be a recount of votes and one vote could change the entire election. This could cause chaos in swing states because of the one vote of someone that might not even care who wins the election.

Based on many elections, the Electoral College creates more thoughtful voters in swing states. Those people know that the power of turning an election around is in their hands, so they must use that knowledge wisely, not recklessly. People in nonswing states will vote on a candidate that their peers like or that they heard is ""the best"" even though it may actually be a choice reconsidered two years into the winning candidates presidency. In paragraph twenty of the article In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President , it states, ""Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign, to really listen to the competeing candidates, knowing that they are going to decide the election."" The most careful voters should be the ones to decide because they are the ones receiving the most attention by candidates trying to persuade them to vote for them.

Overall, the Electoral College should not be abolished and the government should not change to election by popular vote for the President of the United States. The Electoral College doesn't allow a presidential candidate to have a single regional appeal, it produces a clear and fair winner and avoids runoff elections, and the Electoral College creates more thoughtful and careful voters, because when you actually think choices through in life, it could make a tremendous impact on yourself everyone around you.",0
e2aa5882,1,"The people of our great nation are told to vote on who they would like to lead and represent them. This is a Democracy and American citizens deserve this right. There have been incidents where the majority of the popular vote from U.S. citizens did not lead to the election of that candidate. This is because of the electoral college. This is the cause of citizens not having the president they asked for. Most American people do not agree with the electoral college. ""The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational"" The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best laid defenses are wrong, Bradford Plumer.

The disaster factor is a what the electoral college should really be concerned about. The system allows for many slipups. ""The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century"" The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best laid defenses are wrong, Bradford Plumer. In 1960, segregationists in the louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. Also, electors who aren't loyal to the county have occasionally chosen to vote for the party that they'd want rather then vote for their party's candidate. Popular vote is what our founding fathers wanted in the beginning. They wanted equality between people, and the wanted the people to vote for who they wanted as a leader. With the electoral college, this vision cannot become reality.

The popular vote is what a Democracy is all about. ""The Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachorism, a nondemocratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the candidate who recieves the most popular votes the winner. The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that the electoral college is not democratic in a modern sense"" In Defense of the Electoral College: Five Reasons to Keep our Despised Method of Choosing the President, Richard A. Posner. There is no point in having the people vote if they aren't voting for what they need as a nation. We have brought our nation together so that they can decide on someone to watch over them and protect them.

The Electoral college is non Democratic and needs to be abolishes as soon as possible. There is no more use for it, as the population continues to grow. The popular vote is the way our great leaders taught us how to vote.",0
e31a8dd3,0,"Citizens are often using cars to get from work and back, however if citizens were to stop using cars there could be some advantages like traffic can be reduced, new buildings can be built, and habits of car use can be stopped.

If citizens were to cut down on using cars traffic would be reduced. According to Robert Duffer a person from the Chicago Tribune he states that ""congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France after fivedays of intensifying smog"" Robert Duffer, paragraph 14. With that being stated by Robert Duffer it should be clear to people that with reduced traffic people are able to get to places where they need to be in just a short matter of time, citizens won't have to worry about being late for whatever it is citizens have to do. Robert Duffer also states that almost 4,000 drivers were fined according to Reuters 12 Citizens should realize that with almost 4,000 people being fined it should tell citizens that they should cut down on car usage to help prevent smog and to also save them money.

Along with citizens cutting down on car usage to reduce traffic if they were to cut car usage new building can be built. According to Andrew Selsky from the Seattle Times he states that ""parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitty sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"" Andrew Selsky, paragraph 28. When citizens cut down on car usage many new things can be built and explored by citizens but if citizens were to not stop car usage then new things wouldn't be built and old things couldn't be replaced or fixed. Andrew Selsky also states that it has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths 27. There is many citizens out in the world that would rather ride bikes than to use a car just to prevent pollution, with 118 miles of bicycle paths there shouldn't really be any car use. Using bicycles could help change the world so much more and less pollution could be created.

Not only with citizens cutting down on car use for new buildings to be built, citizens can stop their habits of car usage if they give it a try. According to Elisabeth Rosenthal a lady from the New York Times she states that ""with all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of recession may find less reason to resume the habit"" Elisabeth Rosenthal, paragraph 36.Citizens stopping car commuting could really help those citizens with habits of not being able to stop car commuting which could result in saving the earth and air pollution. Elisabeth also states that a chairman of the Ford Motor Company proposed a partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which pedstrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety 43. While the chairman of the Ford Motor Company is stating this information maybe citizens will change their minds about car usage just to improve safety or to even safe time.

All in all this why citizens should car usage to reduce traffic, new buildings can be built, and to try and stop habits of car use by giving it a try. Citizens trying to do these could help stop air pollution and they could also save themselves money.",0
e364803a,1,"Dear Senator, I think the Electoral Collage is unfair to the citizens of the United States of America. The Electoral collage resembles too much control by the United States government. As said in Source 2: The Indefensible Electoral Collage: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong, ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. This dosnt even sound right does it... This is one example of United States government trying to rail the presidential elections, and i can asure you that this is not the first time this has been attempted by the government. The U.S Constitution declares that citizens of United States of America have the right to vote. What this looks like is the government trying to vote for us. Another thing that i do not get about the Electoral Collage is why are we voting for the elector instead of just towards the president. I get that they have to monitor the votes but arnt we already using electronic computers to vote... I think voting would go alot smoother if the votes went strait to the presidents through computers instead of having an elector who has a strong personal opinion against one political party who has a chance of twisting the votes around to strongly support the political party that heshe is opinionated towards. This why the Electoral Collage is dangerous. There have been cases of law breaking electors twisting the votes around. It is alot more safe to just let the citizens to just strait up vote. In source 3, It tries to tell you all the possitive things about the Electoral Collage... The possitive things they mention about the Electoral Collage are small compared to the issues with it. The Electoral Collage is outdated and needs to be taken off. It is just unfair now.

thanks, Anonymous...",0
e36b32ec,0,"There are few people who can can imagine living a full life in this generation without these glorified metal boxes with wheels attached to them even fewer set living a life similar to that as a goal. The advantages of limiting the amount of cars being used are surprisingly unique due to the dwindling amount of disadvantages there are. Some of these advantages include reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and that there will be a reduction in smog. It is always nice to see humanity band together, willingly or forcefully, to work for a common good.

Let us begin with the most pressing issue: preserving the environment. Studies have shown that nearly ""12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the United States."" come from passenger cars Rosenthal 1, 5. Reducing these greenhouse gases, which pose a threat to the Earth's atmosphere, would be an improvement, although slow, still an improvement nonetheless. While this would not be the immediately noticeable of changes, making an effort to cleanse our cities of pollution would be.

Moving on, some places have taken this matter into their own hands, matters that some would describe as extreme. Paris, France is one of these examples, ""enforcing a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city...motorists...ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine..."" Duffer, 1011.It is pleasant to see a city taking this matter into their own hands. This ban, though, did spark an uproar on the Internet, but it did die down. Many approaches to cleansing cityair have been drastic, but others such as in Columbia, had some sort of event where ""the goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog."" Selsky, 21. This did allow a public freedom, despite there still being a fine in place. The remarkable fact of this is that even though cars are being banned, a large portion of the targeted population actually do not mind the change, even ""the rain hasn't stopped people from participating""Selsky, 23.

Suprisingly enough, this carban revolution is still going on today. Many more people are starting to realize the benefits to the ban. Elisabeth Rosenthal, in her article ""The End of Car Culture"" even adds in that many ""sociologists believe...it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment...""34. This simply furthers the ideal that humanity as a whole CAN see a chance to change, wants to desperately do so, and WILL do so...eventually.",0
e37ebd0e,1,"When you're voting for a president to govern our country, your vote should count just as much as anyone else's. The political way of voting right now, is by using electoral college. You cast your vote thinking that your voting for a president when actually your voting for that candidates electors. Electoral college is unfair, irrational, and could have some really serious consequences.

Electoral college is not fair at all to the people voting. When you vote for president, most of the time you think that your voting for the person that you think will really help to improve this country. With electoral college, you might as well just vote directly for the electors. If all your vote is doing is going to the electors, then presidential candidates shouldn't even advertise themselves because in the end your not voting for them, your voting for the electoral college for that candidate.

The presidential candidates don't go to all the states when running. They simply go to the states that they know will support them and the states that will most likely vote against them. What about all the other states that arent neccesarly with or against the candidate? They don't ever see any advertisements for the candidates, the person in the presidential race doesnt go to see them, and so when they vote they are basically blindsited by the name on the ballet. It's completly irrational to only go to the states that love you or hate you.

The best argument against the electoral college is something called the disaster factor. To make a long story short, basically it's that the state legislatures pick the electors, and those electors could always defy the rights and will of the people. For example, you could vote for a presidential candidate, but hisher electors cast their vote for the opposing candidate. That's taking away your right to vote for the person that you want to win.

When voting, your vote should go to the person that you chose. Not who the electoral college for that person called. Electoral collages have so many flaws in the system. It's unfair to the people voting, not all the states get as much exposure to the candidate as others, and the system could totally collapse on itself if the electors dont vote for the person that you voted for. That is why popular voting is the best way to elect a political figure. Your vote is going to the person you choose, not to the person someone else chooses for you.",0
e38718b0,0,"Do you think you would be able to live without your car? It would be less difficult than you think! In fact, there is a whole town named Vauban, Germany, that has given up their cars! According to Source 1, street parking, driveways, and home garages are generally forbidden, unless of course you have the money to buy a parking garage space for a whopping 40,000. A citizen of the carless town, Heidrum Walter admits, ""When I had a car, I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up to 50 percent in some areas of the US, according to Source 1. If only we had more towns like Vauban, maybe our impact on the world would be less destructive.

Some towns ban cars for a few days at a time. Paris enforced a partial driving ban after days of nearrecord pollution. Congestion in Paris went down 60 percent and the smog from the pollution cleared up enough that they rescind the ban. Some people would complain that having little to no cars will be an issue for jobs, delivery companies, or getting children to and from places. There's always a bus, and there's always the option of car pooling! Bogota, Columbia is another town that has done a car free day, except Bogota's is annual. These Columbians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to places during the carfree day, according to Source 3. Businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza says, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" As a result of this annual carfree day, 118 miles of bicycle paths have been constructed in Bogota. I think more towns should ban cars for just a few days. We could all get a little excersize, help the environment, and improve our mood and lower stress!

A recent study found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009, Source 4 says. The number of miles driven in the US was at it's height in 2005 and dropped steadily after. In April 2013, the number of miles driven per person was almost 9 percent below that peak! Some sociologists believe that if this pattern continues, it will have lots of beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, according to Source 4. Some places, such as New York, have carsharing programs and bikesharing programs, which is a nice way to get from place to place that's healthy for you and your environment.

There's so many reasons why we should use our cars less! Like I explained, it's very healthy for your environment, and if you choose to walk or bike, its healthy for your body, too. Also, pollution rates would go down quite a lot if we would just carpool or walkbike to places! People have said that they feel so much happier and stress free from not using a car all the time.",0
e41a5641,1,"Dear State Senator, In voting for a new president we should keep the process of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is apart of the United states history. It was established by our founding fathers in the Constitution. If we keep the Electoral College there will be a less chance of a tie and a dispute then there would be in a popular vote process. Also the Electoral College is fair and we would be avoiding runoff elections.

The first reason we should keep the Electoral College is there will be a certainty of outcome. Even though the total number of votes is 538, the chance of a tie is likely ,but highly unlikely. ""In 2012's election, for example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and rodney....Because almost all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state,"" this means that a tie is not likely, but it could happen Posner 18. If we used the process of popular vote in the United States there would be a bigger chance of a dispute over the outcome then there would the outcome of an Electoral College.

The next reason we should keep our historical process of the Electoral College is it's fair. According to an excerpt from ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" from Slate Magazine , ""the Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal"" Posner 19. This means that all states are equal and none of them have more or less power than one another and none of the states have enough power to elect a president. Bradford Plumer from Mother Jones thinks ""It's official: the electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational,"" there are many arguments that state that the electoral college is upright, many people disagree saying its a great system involving easy and fair processes.

Also the Electoral College reduces the pressure which complicates the presidential election process. With the Electoral College the problem of elections where none of the candidates have the majority of the votes cast is avoided. ""For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College"" Posner 22.

Keeping the Electoral College is very important. First off it is a part of our nation's history. It also keeps electing a president easy, fair, and nonpressuring. Even though the method of the Electoral College is outdated and old, it still is a good way of electing a new president. This process keeps disputes from occuring and makes all the states be heard and equal.",0
e43869b8,0,"In this generation, our planet is getting filthier and filthier by the day. What many people are too late to realize is that we are the main cause of our dirty planet. Cars contribute to air pollution a lot. What's the only solution to this smog filled atmosphere? There are many, but limiting car usage will definitely be beneficial and highly advantageous. Limiting car usage will help reduce air pollution significantly, and will even help humans out too.

We breathe the air in our atmosphere. When you notice that our atmosphere is as dirty as it is, you really don't want to think about what you are putting into your lungs. The amount of air pollution is an extreme amount, and if not controlled soon, we will be in danger. An advantage of limiting car usage would be that the air pollution will be benefitted, and will be getting lower hopefully. As Robert Duffer states Paris of having "" intensifying smog."" That should be very concerning news and should be a clear wake up call. Limiting car usage is definitely something our planet needs to look into. A healthier atmosphere is better than one filled with smog. The decrease of air pollution is just one of the many advantages of limiting car usage.

Limiting car usage is also advantageous by taking away stress. Many people that drive all know what the pains are of being stuck in traffic. What if you don't wake up on time and you skip taking a shower, or skip eating breakfast, and speed as fast as you can to make it to work? It causes severe stress. From that point on in the day, you literally can't concentrate or focus and you just know it is going to be a rough day. Well, limiting car usage would take some stress away. See, super slow traffic , being late to work, skipping the most important meal of the day, it all just builds up into a lot of unneeded and unwanted stress. If people don't have to deal with congested highways, they could enjoy a nice walk to their job, or ride their bicycle. Doing this would instantly take away stress. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress..."" says Carlos Arturo Plaza, a business manSelsky. There are cities that have tried having a day with no cars. It has worked in taking away stress, as you can see. Taking a bike ride or walking instead of driving a car is also beneficial because it's exercise.

Limting car use has its benefits. People should be aware of the growing danger of air pollution, and limitng car usage will help reduce the amount of pollution. Also, it helps in taking away stress and clearing minds. It is not a bad idea to start limiting our car usage, for we will receive the benefits of decreased car usage.",0
e441c1b3,1,"The state senator that is reading this should understand that in my favor keeping the Electoral College is the wise thing to do. It will avoid runoff elections and how it always has a process if something happens and that the process is fairhence Electoral College would be the best.

To start off, the Electoral College helps with elections be cause it avoids runoff elections. In other words it keeps us from running into problem where neither candidate gets the majority of the the votes cast. For example, in 1968 president Nixon and Clinton in 1992 each had 43 percent of the popular votes but because their electoral votes was 301 to 370 it does matter so this means it was a runoff election until the percentage of votes changed. The Electoral College soon produces a clear winner. This is just solving a problem where no candidate receives the majority of votes. Now there is only one con to the Electoral College and that is that it may turn off people from voting because they believe that their vote out of everybody who votes isnt enough to do a difference so they dont even vote. So voters in presidential elections are way better than just one vote deciding an election.

Furthermore, the Electoral College is consisted of 538 electors. The candidate needs atleast 270 to be elected. If they have atleast 270 and there and they are not tied, but they have the same popular votes, also known as a plurality. The Electoral Colleges 538 electors will decide. This is 100 percent fair because those electors study this, they do this for their job, and they understand. They make up for the people who didn't vote. So just think, wouldnt you want 538 professional electors deciding whos president or 538 people who dont even want to vote and dont even know about the campaign to decide whos your president. All the lying about the Electoral College that it is an anachronism is false it is a success. This is common sense if you ask me.",0
e495cc9c,0,"Have you ever thought about what your life would be like without a car? May of us can't even seem to grasp the concept. So many America's are too dependant on their vehicles but, other placesacross the world such asGermany, Paris, and Bogota have began working on this new concept. I strongly support the idea of no car usage, just think of the benefits that could come from it, conservation of resources, lowered pollution,improved safety, and just think of all the money you would save without a car. The possibilities are endless.

Pollution and bad air are problems we face all around the world, and cars have much to do with it. ""If the pattern persists and many sociologists believe it will it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment"" Source 4: The end of Car Culture. Intense pollution andbad health are problems that are faced all around the world, imagine the positive effects we would see not only in our environments but in our own selves if we stop car usage. We need to protect the world we live it by keeping it clean, also keep ourselves healthy in order for survival.

Many families lose loved ones every year due to vehicle related accidents, cars and traffic have a good percentages of deaths each year. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capitol of France, after fivedays"" Source 2: Paris bans driving due to smog. congestion has to do with traffic, adults complain every day about traffic and how dangerous it is. ""It's a good was to take away stress"" Source 3: Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota. We spend a lot of our lives stressing over many things, why add the stress of traffic and wrecks? We have many more important things to spend our time worrying about, we shouldn't stress over something that we can live without. Taking away vehicles would wipe out stress, traffic, and many deaths a year.

financial problems aren't a forgein subject. Almost everyone can recall a time in their life either when they were facing the problems themself or heard about a close friend or family member going through a tough time. ""All of our development since World War 2 has been centered on the car, and that will have to change"" Source 1:In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars. Not only people but countries have been guilty of putting cars infront of other neccessities. Many young adults will base their finances around a car of their choice when we all know their are far more imporant bills to be paid. Also, with taking away the centering of cars we have time to face and solve more imporant issues. Taking out cars would give people a chance to get their priorities straight.

This is why I strongly support the idea of no cars, I see nothing but positive results that would come and many other would agree. Improved safety, lowered pollution,improved safety, and money savings are just the beginning. I understand most can't imagine life without their vehicle but change isn't always a bad thing, especially when there's many factors at stake.",0
e4a5be91,0,"Germany,France, and Columbia,all have something in common, they are cutting down on car pollution. Car pollution is rising problem in the world, making up almost fifty percent of the United states pollution and twelve percent in Europe. From making cars distinct from everyday life to banning all cars for a day,these countries are trying to cutdown on the car pollution build up.

One of the biggest feats in trying to cutdown car pollution is making it an unusual thing in everyday life for a city in Germany known as VAUBAN.This city does not ban cars but even then only about thirty percent of residents in this city own a car and fiftyseven percent have sold their own cars to move here. This city is a home to a mere 5,500 residents, but they all live with in a rectangular square mile. This shows that it is possible to live without cars as personal transport and still be with in reach of stores, work and home.

Another city taking a big step in the fight against car pollution is the well known city of Paris,France. Paris has enforce a partial driving ban in its streets to hopefully clear or cut the air of pollution. The city has made an odd law, ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day."" When this law was first enforced nearly 4,000 drivers were fined according to Reuters. This law was meant to exterminate the smog because the city was rivaling one of the most polluted cities in the world, Bejing,China.

One of the other cities creating a anticar pollution act is Bogota, Columbia. The city of Bogota has created an annual ""Day without cars"" which is fine with the residents. Instead of cars residents use bikes and buses and other modes of transportation to travel around the city. This event has been rubbing of on a fellow cities in the area. The cutdown on pollution here is slight but will slowly make an impact over time when this annual ""Day without cars"" begins to take place in multiple other cities, hopefully, instead of these three cities.

Avoiding car usage is a difficult feat to an everyday car user but if you can avoid it then it can really effect the environment in a positive way. Making a day for no cars or at least a small amount of car usage can really impact the environment. This movement has even begun to start in the United States and hopefully will continue from then on into the future when we eventually have a whole lot of fueless cars for everyone to drive in.",0
e4b1ed5f,1,"Are you the kind of person that is really interested in political stuff? Politics can be a subject that will start fights, but not everyone is so interested. You must know what the electoral college is. It is a system where when you vote for your president you are actually voting for a group of electors that will then vote for the presidentSource 1. This means that even if there is a majority in the popularity vote from the people. The electoral college can over rule that and vote for the other. Some say the electoral college is good because it prevents ties or because it will make sure there is a winner. But if they can over rule your vote are you really voting for your president? I say the electoral college is a bad system and it needs to be extinguished.

There is no doubt that you should get to decide who your leader will be. And if the electoral college can over rule your vote do you really feel like it's your decision? In the 2000 presidential race, Al Gore lost because he recieved the most popularity votes from the people but the electoral college voted for Bush insteadSource 2. This means that the people thought Al Gore should be the president but instead they didn't get what they wanted because the electoral college thought otherwise. Do you think this is in anyway fair? The majority of the country ended up unhappy with the election because of ther electoral college. I say that alone is enough reason to abolish the electoral college. If it happens once it can happen again. Do you want to feel cheated and betrayed again? Let's get rid of the electoral college!

Some others may say that they support the electoral college because it can't have a tie. ""Because almost all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis, even a very slight plurality ina state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state.""Source 3. It is still possible to have a tie though because there are 538 total votes and since that is an even number then it can happen. And if there is just a slight difference and instead the electoral college creates a landslide then that isn't representing the actuall number of the votes by the people. Once again you are being cheated out of your sya it the election. The hardest thing to understand is why people would still support something that doesn't support them. The electoral college basically throws away your votes and replaces them with theirs. And once again, it is possible for ties in the electoral college due to the even number of votes.

""Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much to say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters.""Source 2. This alone shows that your votes are being represented equally. It is saying that 500,000 votes are equal to 35 million votes. Isn't it obvious that those two numbers are very different and they could have a very large effect on the popularity of each candidate that they are voting for? but instead they have they same effect and the 34.5 million voters that don't get their fair say could very possibly be unhappy with the turnout of the president. The people are supposed to be the ones that vote for their leader, not a group of 538 ""qualified"" politicians that can over rule the entire country's vote. It's ridiculous how the system works and you are crazy if you support it. I know i want my fair share of input and the electoral college won't allow that.

There are supporters who say that they support the electoral college because it avoids runoff elections. Because even if there is a tie in the majority votes from the people it is unlikey for there to be a tie in the votes from the electoral college. ""For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the electoral College...""Source 3. In my opinion if there is a tie in the popularity votes then they should revote, it may take longer but it will still be a decision by the people. Just because it makes the procces faster doesnt mean it makes the procces better. They can create a better system in the event of a tie instead of electors over ruling the people and picking whoever they think is best. That isnt government for the people, by the people.

In conclusion, the electoral college needs to be extinguished for many reasons. those reasons are because it doesn't let the people vote for who they want and it over rules a notions votes. And because it doesnt show the number of votes as equall. Some may say that it is good because it prevents a tie but if there is a tie then I'm sure htere are better ways to revote. we need government for the people, by the people and that isn't what the electoral college is.",0
e4ede3f4,1,"Why does this country even have this system? Where someone else basically chooses for you? The Electoral College should change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. This should change because the people have the right to have their opinion go to what is being voted on,not some else choice also because it's like people are voting for something they don't want foresfuly. The United States is a what we call a democracy meaning the country is lead by the power of the people.

So when two people have an idea to make something better and another person has a different idea they each want to others to hear their ideas. Each person will have their reasons on why they think the way the way they think and the people will have to make a decision on what the they think is best for their community and their country. The United States is a democracy which means it is lead by the people. It's the people say. So when someone votes they expect their vote count against what they are going for. You making a decision and someone else who is higher than you changes it makes voting ironic. Why vote? Just make them do the whole election. ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president""Plumer. So technically we are not doing the voting we are just what is called ""giving options"" to those who are actually doing the voting. We the people demand to be heard and want what we want. In Source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong it states that over sixty percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. Point being be should be heard no matter what.

In the United States we are not forced to do anything really. Especially when it comes to choosing. Everybody thinks differently so why should someone else vote for the choice of the people. It's like we are voting for someone we don't want when someone higher that you is voting for you. Each stae has their own number of electoral votes but it shouldn't be that way because it the president your voting for is in a tie and he need those votes the people would know that their votes are helping the person they want to see win. But when the electors choose something else the people cant think that. Sometime the electors refuse to vote for the their party's canidate. which makes the situation even terrible.

Source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong paragraph 11 it says ""Electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever the please."" So why even waste time on telling people to vote if someone else will choose for you sometimes not what you want.

In the end having to count so many votes could be dificult and when counting it could lead to mistakenly counted. But we the people make our own desion for our own good. Just imagine someone asks you what you want to eat and get you something totally different.",0
e4eef26b,1,"""Do you want to be apart of a Electoral College"" Electoral colleges. Do you know what this means? An electoral college is a process of multiple facts. Not a place. As everyone thinks Electoral College sounds deceiving because the word ""college"" in the name but apparently thats not true. The founding fathers established it in the constitution as a compromise between election of the President and votes by the people of America. Dear Senator, this is where I begin rambling on and on about how the electoral college is wonderful and great. But I am just going to let you in to alittle bit of knowledge behind the thinking, before you get your fingers in a knot. I propose that we shall keep the Electoral college in order to keep things fair amoung the country. Lets get talking shall we.....

The Electoral college is all high and mighty and is a process that consists of the selection of the electors. During the meeting of the electors, they discuss the presidents and vice presidents that are trying out for there 'role' in society. They also align the counting of the electoral votes by the Congress men. If you did not know Senator the Electoral College or as we call it ""EC"" consists of 538 electors in the so called 'pole'. A majority of those electors are 270 votes that are required to elect the President. There is one allotment for each member of the House of Representatives adding an extra 2 for your senators, like you! As you can see the ""EC"" has alot to offer and your even included. Why would you want to get rid of something that your apart of! Wait a second you don't know the rest of the story do you. Well now I understand why you wouldn't want them to just be another organization. Am I Right?

Each candidate running for the high quality name known as ""The president"" in your state has his or hers own group of electors. They are usually chosen by the political party, but the state laws vary from time to time. Fun Fact for Mr. Senator did you know this is in the 23rd Amendment? Oh silly me your the senator you should know this! Continuing on with our little debate here there is an important part of the Electoral colleges that you must know. Every tuesday after the first monday in November is when these elections occur. And if you didn't think that the citizens have a say in this at all, well you are mistaken! The citizens help choose the your states electors because when you vote for President your actually voting for your candidates electors. So they do have a say in this partake.

""Winner Take All"" sound familiar to you. Maybe not but I am going to explain it anyway. The Winner Takes All System awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. Except for the unlucky ones like Maine, and Nebraska they have something called the ""Proportional Representation"". All said and done the ""certificate of Ascertainment"" is introduced after the elction has partaken in. This lists all of the candidates who ran for President in your state choosen along with the names of there ""side kick"" the electors. This shows who will be in your country running for president and elector for the next 4 years until the next election.

Of course the ""EC"" has some problems which of course you would like to hear so I will state them as well. Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, and the US Chamber of Commerce want to abolish the ""EC""! They are not alone on this one. Whats wrong with the electoral college you say? Under the ""EC"" voters vote for something other than the president but for the slate of electors, who then turn over andelect who ""THEY"" want to be the president. This is why we have the voting we have today so each person can vote on who they want and still be treated the same. But it can also make a crisis to.

Allowing the people to vote for whoever they want to is not a good idea. It can lead to bigger problems and issues. Voting for yourself can be very, very stressful. Adding on top of more strees. Of course its easier this way but your electing who is going to be the ""President"". Someone who controlls your country, tells YOU what to do, and makes new laws. It shouldn't be as easy as writting on a piece of paper who you want to be president. There should be some type of way to make it alittle more precise. This is why there is the Electoral College. All you have to do is get with someone you trust and vote for them to be apart of the candidates electors. Then all they have to do is vote for who they want to be president and see what happens. Its just as easy as what we have now but alittle bit more neatclean. I Know I am spilling alot of information onto you about the ""EC"". And the advantages and disadvantages of having it. But I ask you to read this letter and think about what role YOU play in this election. Write back to me in your response of the actions you are going to be risking.

Sincerely, Yours trulyMs.",0
e579884d,1,"Dear state senator of Florida, I'm sending you this letter for one purpose only, to convince you with strong defensive facts the electoral college is unfair, outdated, irrational and should be replaced with the popular vote. Let's begin with the simple fact that we, the common people of the United States of America, land of the free, don't even have the right to directly vote for a human being that is to be running our country for the next 4 years, possibly 8. Instead, we are voting for electors in the same political party as the candidate we wish for? Actually no, we don't even obtain that right because as stated in source 1 electors sometimes aren't even chosen by political party considering ""state laws vary on how electors are selected and what their responsibilities are..."" In source 2 it states that an elector can be anyone not holding a public office. The elector chosen is a complete stranger to more than half of the population of the state yet we are expected to trust that this person will live up to his or her word that heshe will vote for the president we want to be running this country when we have absolutely no control over their actions election day. Trust isn't easily given especially when there are no laws given that the elector must only vote from the candidate majorly favored in that particular state. So lets see the elector that we vote for, which in some cases people even get confused and vote for the elector of opposing team, can walk in election day, deceive all the people from hisher state and walk out with absolutely no penalty.

In source 3 it later states that ""voters in tossup states are more likely to pay attenten to the campaign knowing that they are going to decide the election"" but what about the swing states? Because the winnertakeall system candidates don't even go to those states knowing that they'll most likely lose. Does that seem fair to you? That basically means that winner candidate could be the same manwoman that couldn't careless if their votes were on them or not.

Furthermore, in source 3 it explains how the electoral vote is the only way to ensure a certain outcome but as said in source 2, a tie may seem unlikely but highly possible. So let's say there is a tie, the winning decision then passes down to the House of Representatives. Here the state delegations cast one vote for the candidate they wish for but in the light of truth it is impossible for one representative of millions of people to be able to reflect on what the people want. So now what? Not only is plan A, the electors, totally bogus but plan B,which is the house representatives, completely takes our right to chose the citizen we want to represent the United States.

I hope you read my letter and come to realization that the electoral college is basically just a dirty method that's taking the rights of the common people. If it keeps on there will be one election year where more than half the population will open their eyes to fact that they don't even have a say in who they want to be running this country and simply not vote, then where will that lead us? Dictatorship? Rebellion? Popular vote is the way to go. It for one allows citizens to be apart of descision making in who should be president which later on abolishes the whole dispute over ""swing states"" and ""tossup states"" because candidates will have to work twice as hard to earn their seat in the big house. Candidates will have to visit each state, anwser necessary questions from the citizen, compaign harder and at the end of the day a hardworking candidate will become a hardworking president who will lead our country to prosperity.",0
e5db6f6f,1,"Dear me. Senator, I would like to argue with your decision of getting rid of the electoral college. I would like to argue with you because the Electoral college is a piece of history, we could some problems if we keep the electoral college, but there are a bit of problems with this voting system. So Senator this is my letter that i want you to read so you can rethink the decision of getting rid of the Electoral college.

The Electoral college is a voting system that depends on the popular votes to see who gets the electoral votes in the president race. The founding fathers established the electoral college in the constitution, which means this voting system has been with this country since the beginning of the United States. To get rid of the Electoral college is like getting rid of a piece of this country. The founding fathers made the electoral college so the president and vice president could get chosen. There are five hundred and thirty eight electoral votes possible to get. To win presidency you must have two hundred and seventy electoral votes. These votes are one of the most important things. So I want you Senator to imagine getting rid of a piece of the constitution, just imagine ripping a little piece off. Guess what you can't because the constitution is to important to this country to take anything off of it. This is one reason Senator that the electoral college should not be disbanded.

The Electoral College has the ability to get rid off problems such as avoiding run off elections, which means that no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. The Electoral College also has swing states, which means the people in the state pay close attention to what the candidates say and vote for who they feel should win so that the winner take all method isn't in effect. A good example of a runoff election is the elections of Richard Nixon and Bill clinton. Both of these presidents had forty three percent of the popular votes, but dominated in the electoral votes. A good example of a winner take all method is the election of 2012 where the candidates focused on the voters in the toss up states or the states that listen and vote for who they think is better. Another example of a runoff election is if a candidate does not win a majority of the votes vast than the presidential election would be greatly complicated. The complication is then reduced by the Electoral College, which chooses a winner. The Electoral College can save a lot of things for just a voting system.

Although the Electoral College helps a lot there is a couple problems with it. When you vote you vote for who you want to vote for, but when that vote gets put in the Electoral College doesn't have to put there vote to who you voted for. The Electoral College is also unfair to voters because of the winner take all system. During the 2000 campaign some states didn't even get to see their candidates. Some states didn't even get to see a ad on tv for their candidates. The Electoral College is also known as the disaster factor because of the crisis in the election of 2000. The electors are chosen by the legislatures and the electors could always defy the will of the people. The Electoral College can be fixed, so don't take it way that way it can be fixed and arranged.

The Electoral College is good because it keeps us away from problems, even though it has some, and is a part of our history. This whole letter is to explain why you the senator should not take the electoral college away. I have to say it has problems, but those problems can be fixed by some simple solution.",0
e5dcf622,1,"We should not keep the Electoral college because first, it's unfair, and also, it can quickly turn into a disaster.

To begin with, the Electoral college is an unfair system. In The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong , "" Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always.""Plumer, p10.When voters vote for the Electoral college the person they put in might not even vote for who the people want for the President. The system is not only unfair when people vote, also when campaigns happen in states. In paragraph 13 of The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong , the author states ""Because of the winnertakesall system... candidates don't spend time in states they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states."". With this system, we have some states that are left out of the campaign of candidates going through states, because they are not important to the candidate for winning.

In addition, not only is the Electoral college unfair, the system can fail at any given election. Plumer wrote in paragraph 11 ""...what if a state sends two slates of electors to congress."" the Electoral college is only to have one slate of electors from each state. With two slates from one state it would give both the state and the candidate an advantage over the rest of the states and the other candidate, that would turn into a disaster. Not only can the states destory the Electoral college system, the system can destory itself. Included in paragraph 12, "" The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe."". Even the people put into the college can ruin themselves by one or two electoral voters changing their minds.

Not everything about the Electoral college is bad. The article In the Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our reasons despised method of choosing the President said, ""..it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote.""Posner, p18. Even the other vote systems are strongly disliked. The Electoral system is not the most disliked system but it can also get the President everyone wants. In paragraph 19,""... a candidate with regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."". A candidate for the president can't focus on one region, because it will make other states feel that they are not important.

Finally, the Electoral college should no longer exist because, it's an unfair system and can quickly turn into a catastrophe.",0
e5edee6d,1,"With the years, we have changing many things in our society. Since technology, by making new electronic devices, to things in our government, by making new laws and new things to help people in all the country. But, does that mean that we have to change the Electoral College to election by popular vote for the president of the United States? In my point of view, the Electoral College is a traditional way to vote the President by the Congress and by qualified citizens that our founding fathers established in our Constitution. And there are many evidence to support that keeping the Electoral College is beneficial to our country.

According to the text ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner, A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College is possible, and it happened in 2000, but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. For example, in 2012, Obama received 61.7% of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3% of rodney. Almost all states award electoral votes on a winnertakeall basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoral vote vistory in that state. This demonstrates, how people accept the fact that they are voting the electors and then for the President and Vice president. This help people by making easily the hour of vote for a candidate.

However, as we can se in the texts above, not everybody things like this. For example, in the text ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer, the author says that according to a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60% of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. But, each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee, it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely. Posner, paragraph 16.

Another evidence from the text ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner, is when he says ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal"" Posner, paragraph 19. That means that No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite has no incentive to campaign heavely in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing huis plurality in states that he knows he will win. ""The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised..."" That highlights how the Electoral College is trying to helping people vote their candidates and feel safe and comfortables with them.

To conclude, despite the fact many people say that the Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism and a nondemocratic method of selecting a president, the Electoral College is a traditional way to vote the President by the Congress and by qualified citizens that our founding fathers established in our Constitution that helps our community to help people with thir desicions and make our life more comfortable and easy.",0
e5fc3379,0,"Are you up tight and tense? Well this may be do to your car. In counties such as Germany, Paris, and Colombia they are trying to make cars a thing of the past. Cars are polluting our air and causing harm to our environment. And what do we do? we continue to drive without a care in the world. So allow me to shed some light on the topic, and show you the advantages of limiting car usage.

First of all, cars are bad for the environment. They pollute our atmosphere everyday and we never notice it. Well the certainly noticed it in Paris when they had nearrecord pollution after several days. So Paris put a ban on driving to reduce smog. This was a great idea with an even better result. They reduced congestion by 60 percent. What the French did was allow cars with an odd numbered license plate to drive one day, and the even numbered license plate cars on another. Also, in Bogota, Colombia they have a program that bans cars for one day. Only allowing buses and taxis being permitted for the day. It is also a good way to relieve stress as shown in this quote from the third source. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,"". This ban on cars is apart of a improvement campaign that started in the 1990s. It has worked well for Bogota and is now beging to spread to other cities in colombia. This campaign has resulted in the construction of many miles of bike path and parks. This campaign has a very bright future and hopefully will spread to other countries and allow us to lower pollution in our atmosphere.

In addition, Their are places that have already done away with cars in their communities. Such as Vauban, Germany. The streets of Vauban are completly car free. And people are even selling their cars to move to this quant little town. As shown in this quote from Source one ""70 percent of Vaubans families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here."" Can you believe that?

People are willing to sell their cars to live a town. Well they have good reason too. People who moved to this town have said with cars they were tense. But now that they have sold their car they are much happeir. This is one of the more appealing advantages of limiting car usage, your own happiness. Finally, America is also trying to play a role in cutting down on car usage. Trying to promote car reduced communities throughout America. These communities will help very much to reduce polluntion and strengthen our atmoshere.

In conclusion, Their are many advantages to limiting car usage. But it all depends on what we do ourselves to help. So next time you are going some where just remeber, their is always anothe way to get to your destination.",0
e6083fb1,1,"The Electoral College was created by our Founding Fathers. They put this in the Constitution to make electing the President of the United States fair and equal to all the citizens in the United States. The Electoral College should not be changed no matter what. To go against the Constitution would be to go against the nation, for we were built on the leadership of our Founding Fathers and the guidance of the Constitution. This Contitstution was created so that the people have more power than the government. So I strongly believe that the Electoral College should stay the same. It is the government that needs to change. There is nothing wrong with the Electoral College, it is just the ones that run it. So if there should be any change, it should be the government that should change, not the Electoral College!

The pectoral College is a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and by the popular vote of the citizens. When the voting starts the electors come to a meeting place and vote on who they want as President. After the meeting, there has to be a majority of two hundred seventy electoral votes for the election of the president. The electoral College is as I have said it before is fair and equal to all the citizens in the United States. To take this away now would be a catastrophe, because that would mean that all the other presidents in the past would not have even been our Presidents, the history behind them would be rubbish and not even true. Some states may have a ""winnertakeall"" sort of thing but they are together and voting together as on state. Some of them may vote for the other one but the majority of them is for one person. Some of the states believe that it is not even worth it to have a ""winnertakeall"", because they think it is unfair. Then after the presidential election comes the ""Certificate of Ascertainment"" which is a list of all those who ran for President and there respective electors.

The electoral college has been around ever since the Constitution was created. It may be unfair now, but if there would have been any changes to the Constitution it would have been done then instead of now. The Electoral College was probably a great idea when the the Constitution fisrt started out. Then the years have gone by and now we want change. Well I see that the Electoral College can be unfair but it is also fair in it's own right. Because of the fiasco in the year of two thousand about the abolishment of the Electoral College, it has left a scare in our nation about the government, because you guys are giving out the information on the candidates to late or not at all. That SUCKS, for most states because they may not even get one advertisment about the candidates any where or even a commercial on T.V. If the vote for the abolishment of the Electoral College does happen, then there is nothing that I can do about it, but you can still change your ways. You can make it fair and not irrational. Even send the ""Certificate of Ascertainment"" earlier than you have done before now. This is a nation of freedom and peace, how are you trying to keep the peace with other countries if you can not even keep the peace within your own?

The government is the real problem, not the Electoral College. It may be unfair, because the majority of the people may have chosen one person while the electors may choose the other. Then when they add it together it is there vote that counts more than the peoples. If the government had only done the right thing and elected what the people wanted, then no one would have a problem with the Electoral College. It is stupid that the government is listening to what we have to say but not hearing it completly. The Constitution is a document of equality for the people. Not the government. If our nations democracy is a democracy then they should listen more to what the people have to say and not what the government has to say. If the government would do this then things would run more smoothly within our country and there would be less conflict.

This nation is a nation of freedom and peace. Not for a bunch of people who are power hungry. The Electoral College is fair and equal, it is the government that is not. If the government would only change for the better then there would be no problem. This nation is still young compared to all the other countries. They have gotten all there issues taken care of, but we have not. The reason is that some of the officials are power hungry and do things to take care of themselves and not others, but some are not and they want to make this country better. Those are the ones that should stay and not the power hungry ones. They make it fair. So I strongly belive that the Electoral College should stay the same, and that the government should be the one to change.",0
e6ab67c2,0,"All over the world, major cities are trying to reduce their use of cars. From Germany, to France, to Columbia, and coming back to the US, people are limiting car use to reduce pollution, or live better, or even to save money. In some places, there is one day every year that doesn't allow cars. In other places, there are whole communities that dont allow cars year round.

In Germany, there is a community in named Vauban that doesnt allow cars unless you have the money to pay for a parking spot that is on the outskirts of town. The revolutionizing community makes peopl pay 40, 000 dollars just for one parking spot. This wonderful new place has reduced the amount of greenhouse gas produced in the last few years drastically, with 70% of the population not owning a car. This has encouraged many other countries to start something just like it.

The city of love may not be so lovely if it's so smoggy you can barely see. Paris was gaining so much air pollution from the amount of gas that was released from driving hta they put a ban on driving. This ban consisted of a few new rules to help prevent the smog from overpowering the beauty of the city. On Mondays, even numbered license plates were not allowed to use their car for anything. This same rule applied to the odd numbered license plates on Tuesdays. This helped limit the amount of driving, in return limiting the amount of smog. Smog is created when the area has cold night weather and warm day weather, causing the air to trap car emission. Diesel can be a big contributor to this and is the main gas type in France. France favors diesel because of their taxing system, but it seems they don't care too much about their environment.

What would happen if every country had a day with no cars? The city of Bogota, Columbia has had a Day without cars once a year for quite a few years. Just recently, other columbian cities have joined in and even Paraguay's capital has participated. What this day is supposed to do is promote the use of other types of transportation, for example walking or biking. It also reduces smog and the amount of air pollution, in retaliation, improving the city. In Bogota, there is a 25 fine for those who do not participate in this environmentally helpful day.

Although the amount of driving in the US has decreased since 2005, there is more we can do to help the situation. The average number of miles driven did peak in 2005 and drop from there, in return, dropping other statistics as well. As of April of 2013, the number of driven miles has dropped 9% below the peak, being the same as in January of 1995, says Doug Short of Advisor Perspectives. The roads have even become safer due to the amount of young drivers dropping 23% between the years of 20012009. Even if the number of miles hadn't peaked, there still wouldn't be as many drivers on the road because of the recession. Americans couldn't afford to but cars due to the amount of money lost during that horrible time.

All through the world, people are trying to slowly save their environment by reducung car use. From one day to a whole year, everything helps to save our world. The German community of Vauban has made it nearly impossible to own a car. Paris, at one point, had to put restrictions on their driving. Columbia has an annual day of no cars. The US is working on lowering thier use of cars and dropping their average miles to help clear the air surrounding them. Even if it is walking from point A to point B, it helps the community and lowers air pollution.",0
e6b801c0,0,"Many places all over the world are starting to become ""carfree"". This can have a lot of advantages. Air quality will improve, people will save money, and people will have less stress.

A major advantage of reducing the amount of people driving is that the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted from those cars will be reduced. In paragraph 5 of In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars , it is stated that 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe come from passenger cars, with an even greater percent in large cities. If these cities were to stop using cars, the smog surrounding the cities would be able to clear within about a week. If all of the major cities in Europe would limit the use of cars, then the air would be much cleaner. In Source 3: Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota , the article talks about how cities in Columbia have had a carfree day for three years in a row. The goal of this day is to reduce the levels of smog throughout the country. It is also to try to get other countries around the world to have a similar day. If every country were to participate, the overall air quality would be able to improve drastically.

Another advantage of becoming carfree is shown in Source 4: The End of Car Culture , where it describes that ""Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" The article also says that in 2005, the number of miles driven in the United States peaked and has gradually lowered since. With less cars being bought, people are saving lots of money they would be spending on repairs, gas, tires, and other things that attribute to the price of a car. Not having to worry about whether or not their car will start when they have to go to work will be able to lower a person's stress. As less people drive from place to place, they will begin to walk or ride a bike to get where they need to go. Many people believe that exercise can also reduce stress which can make people happier and more willing to help others.

Whether it's improving air quality, saving people money, or lowering stress, becoming carfree has many advantages. As less people use cars, more good effects will begin to show.",0
e72da7e1,0,"Cars have made an impression in human history. They have been used to get from point A to B for decades. They may help us but they also can hurt us. Gas emissions are hurting the environment and smog continues to grow. Some governments have already implemented ways to reduce these emissions. These have helped the problem and it may even be to our advantage. Many cities have already sought out ways to benefit the people that have chosen not to use their cars. This limiting of car usage has benefited many countries and the trend seems to be catching on. In the first source, Elisabeth Rosenthal writes that it has made peope even happier than if they had had a car. It has also helped reduce traffic in normally busy streets. The most obvious benefit and advantage to having limited car usage is the fact that the reduced car use has reduced gas emissions. These many advantages may make, not using your car, worth your while.

Limiting car usage can be beneficial to the environment and it can also be beneficial to you. It can make for less stressed people. In Source 1, it describes how in a small town in Germany, many people are getting along fine without motor vehicles. As a matter of fact, some even said that they were happier without a car. Heidrun Walter states that ""When I had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" It may be less stressful because the government there had designed that town so that everything they could need was within walking distance or could be reached with public transportation. Many cities have already adopted this idea including New York. Source 3 has also asked people of their opinion and businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza said ""It's a great opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Carlos had said this while riding a twoseated bicycle with his wife. Walking, Hiking, and even bicycling have been generally seen as a way to distress and relax your tensions. Stepping away from the car and just walking may just be the stress reliever you needed.

A usual sight to see in busy cities and on main streets is the amount of cars that jam the street alway the way up during certain hours of the day. This can become increasingly annoying to some people that can be on their way to school or job. A carfree day has had a very succesul turn out in Bogota, Colombia. Source number 3 described the streets of the capital of Colombia to be ""Eerily devoid of traffic jams."" on that day. So many people might have participated because violators would be fined 25. This carfree day was intentionally placed to promote alternative transportations such as biking or public buses and to also reduce smog. Another example of a type of car limiting was seen in Paris, France. Paris was near a record amount of smog in the air with ""147 micrograms of particulate matter PM per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London."" Source 2. Paris took action to try and reduce smog with this simple method: Leave cars with evennumbered license plates at home or face a 31 fine. They proceeded on to the next day with the same concept but this time instead of evennumbered plates, it was oddnumbered plates. This reduced congestion by 60 percent in the capital of France.

One of the more obvious advantages of limiting car usage is the amount of emission that can be prevented from not using your car. In Source 2 it is stated that after 5 days of limiting car usage ""the smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to rescing the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" After just five days of the imposed fines, gas emissions into the atmosphere was reduced significantly enough to lift the ban. If five days made such an impact it can also make a huge impact if many more people were to start limiting their car usage. Car usage has already been falling in the United States. In source 4 it states that ""New York's new bike sharing program and its skyrocketing brdge and tunnel tolls reflect those new priorites, as do a proliferation of carsharing programs across the nation."" This is talking about how all these factors have come to reduce car sales and car usage in general. Less cars equals less gas which would then equal less air pollution.

In conclusion, there are many advantages to limiting your car usages. You may not only be helping the environment but you may also be helping yourself. Using your car less may even make you a less stressed individual. It has been shown to reduce congestions in busy streets. It has also helped reduce gas emission. Limited car usage has started a trend in many countries and may even be a trend here. It can give us these advantages and many more.",0
e755887f,0,"Transportation. A means of arriving at your destinations, a reliable way to get around. Humans use transportation everyday whether its by car, walking, biking, running, etc., but we mostly rely on cars to get around. Cars, although very useful in needing to travel, have very resourceful qualities that humans tend to overlook. These qualities are effecting the environment in negative ways. Many countries are taking action to enforce a better protection for the environment by limiting usage on cars to reduce the smog pollution and to distance human's reliability on cars.

One of the main issues faced today is pollution because it causes diseases and illnesses, ruining the earth's population. Smog is caused by car pollution which is increasingly more common found throughout the world because of the mass amount of vehicle usage per day. Paris has banned driving on Monday's ""...to clear the air of the global city"". Par. 10 Many face a 22euro fine if not obeying by the nodriving policy. This has helped decrease congestion by 60 percent and decrease smog pollution. Diesel fuel was blamed for most of the problems in France due to the majority of diesel engine fueled vehicles. Taking away usage of vehicles minimizes this problem. This drastic change in transportation has encouraged Obama to spread limited car usage to the United States to help the greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. is most reliable on cars for transportation. Less people in the U.S. over time have delayed on receiving their leaners permit and license, decreasing car usage. ""...beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions..."". Par. 34 Although pollution is a prime issue, humans rely way too much on cars as a means of transportation. In order to help this problem Vauban, Germany has gotten rid of cars. They have limited car usage to only a few places, such as huge highways where they're necessary, and they have limited parking to huge garages instead of ones in your house. This has become an increasing impact on the world and other countries by showing ""...an example of a growing trend...to seperate suburban life from auto use,..."". Par. 4 Bogota, Columbia is also eager to spread the decrease in car limitiation to other countries by taking off days from car usage. This has helped humans to become more proactive and to become active in keeping the environment safe and pollution free. Relying less on cars benefits humans as well because not as much of their money will be turned towards automobiles. ""In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport"". Par. 9 This has impacted the environment and humans in a beneficial way.

Promoting more carreduced communties, has proven to be more effective in caring for the emnviorment. Many countries that take action in reducing automobile usage have more control financially and decrease pollution meandering through the earth's precious air. Limiting car usage is an advantage on society because it reduces smog and makes humans less reliable on cars for transportation.",0
e7b0c7c2,0,"In your everyday life, just about anywhere you go you will see people traveling from place to place in their own vehicles. Is the idea of us, as individuals, not owning our own motor vehicles even an option? The idea of not being able to transport where you need to be when you need to be there is a terrifying thought. But, when put into consideration you will find it some what reasonable.

Just think about it, all the toxins released into the air and all the traffic we can be stuck in for hours at a time! Reducing the clutter and the use of oils is enfact very possible. Residents in Vauban, Germany have completely almost completly cut owing cars out of their community. 70 percent of vaughn's family don't own cars while 57 percent sold their cars to move there. With mostly ""carfree"" streets with the exception of the main thoroughfare, Vauban has forbidden driveways and home garages. Though car ownership is aloud if the car owner buys a space to park it, Vauban is leading an example of an alternative way that communities can live reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This example has most certainly envulenced Paris enforcing a partial driving ban. pollution, a large issue in the streets of paris, is being reduced with a driving ban fining anyone who did not leave their cars at home. After five days of this ban, congestion in france was down 60 percent.

Though completely banning cars may be found inconfiniate or extreme, Bogota, colombia, takes place in this uprising craze by devoting one day a year to ""The Day Without Cars"". By doing this they strive to promote alternative transportation and reduce clutter in this capital city. Violators of this event would receive 25 fines. The community who participated in this event have found alternate transportation, and comfort in a break from the clutter. Businessman Carlos Arturo is quoted ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"", he rode a twoseated bicycle with his wife to get from place to place. As more Colombian citied participate in the event Municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the eveny and were enthusiastic. Enriqur Riera, the mayor of Asuncion, paraguay stated that ""These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders"".

These changes are most certainly revolutionary and are changing the way we see our lifes and the way we see transportation. The idea of us working, learning, and living without indivisual automoblies is becoming to look like a huge possibilty. The fact that there are communties taking part in this act, reducing polution and clutter, show that this very well could be part of a change for us and the way we live. With the ownership of automobiles and drivers liscenses going down in america, Mimi Sheller, a sociology professor at Drexel University and director of its Mobilitier Research center, stated that ""Different things are converging which suggest that we are witnessing a longterm cultural shift"".",0
e7c565f3,1,"Dear State Senator, While I normally don't have any complaints, and being the person I am not many things ""bug me"", but I recently found that I disagree with a certain argument. And while it is near voting times, I believed it's best for me to send you my side on this continuous debate to change your mind on the matter. The electoral college has had its share of arguments and I would like to make my side seen knowing I have quite a bit of logical arguments. Please read with an open mind.

The electoral college is unfair in many ways, this one however can be seen as minor. The electoral college gives an easier way to get tie, and although a tie hasn't been a main focus, it can prove to be a problem. I read an article stating that if a tie were to happen the election would be thrown to the house of representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. This would anger a heap of people for many reasons, one stating it would almost rule out their vote.

Secondly, the electoral college simply takes away from voting in general. An example of this is lets say Obama won popular vote, he should win because thats what America wants right? No, because what if another president won electoral vote? that president would win and take away the point in voting. This is unfair because we the people would like to have a better say in who becomes our president.

In the article I read, it stated ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. unfair, outdated, irrational"" I agree completely. How is it irrational? Well simply because it is just an extra step added on. In all reality our country would be fine without it. Popular vote is exactly what we need, and that alone is enough. And while I do believe it's good to go an extra step, it shouldn't go when not needed. This to me is most important because I could argue all day long and in the end this would be my argument.

Thank you for your time and please take this into consideration, I realize that it has its upsides but it is just unfair, outdated, and irrational. And please notice the other downsides swell, while I did not have the time or room to include them.",0
e80c3cb7,0,"Countries and cities all across the world are joining in on the ""no car"" trend, and it seems to be no passing fad. From Germany, to France, to Columbia, to the United States, everybody is trying to start driving less for a cleaner, happier world. countries governments everywhere are trying to get people off the roads and start biking, walking, or using public transportation instead. As the people in these countries have learned, there are many advantages to giving up driving cars, if even only for a few days rather than their entire lives.

The main advantage is a cleaner planet. Emissions that cars release play a large role in the world's air pollution. Carbon emissions create smog that makes the sky grey, damages our lungs, and harms the plants that give us clean air. Due to carbon emissions from cars, Paris once had as much smog as ""Beijjing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world"" Source 2. If we start driving less cars it will have really beneficial implications for the environment, especially ""... since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants"" Source 4. Imagine what positive effects banning cars would have on the population's and world's health.

One positive effect would be a lot less stress. Driving is a dangerous activity where you are constantly putting yourself at risk. Many people realize this and tend to be scared of driving or are constantly nervous when they drive. Rushing to drive to work on time also creates negative stress. Says German media trainer and mother, Heidrun Walter, of no longer owning a car, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Daily long commutes are also a large determining factor in someone's mood. Some people have to drive for hours a day just to get to their already stressful job and then again when they go back home. This creates for a very unhappy society. Now there are a couple of good things that come from a society that is no longer obsessed with car culture. One thing is that ""the Internet makes telecommuting possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to meet friends"" Source 4. This lessens the need have a car to take you to distant places. With the banning or lessening use of personal vehicles cities and towns are being rebuilt. ""In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway"" Source 1. This has encouraged healthier and cheaper modes of transportation such as walking, skating, bicycling, and public transportation such as buses.

Fewer cars and this rebuilding of cities saves you money and commute time. Just think about all those rising gas prices. You don't need to pay tolls when you walk, or get fined when you run too fast. Prices for parking spots and passing tolls are going up anyway. It's an easier and cheaper alternative to just walk or bike somewhere. Public transportation like buses and subways cost a lot less too. Studies have found that fewer people are buying cars and getting their licenses it's for a reason.

Lastly, not only are leaders across the globe joining in on the idea of life without cars, but so are carselling companies. ""Companies like Ford and Mercedes are already rebranding themeselves ""mobility"" companies with a broader product range beyond the personal vehicle"" Source 4. Even Bill Ford, executive chariman of the Ford Motor Company proposed a business plan in which ""personal vehicle ownership is impractical or undesirable."" Ford suggested becoming partners with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety"" Source 4.

So next time you think about buying a new car or driving to work all buy yourself, try to rethink your actions and imagine the effect it will have on not only you, but everyone around you. Maybe you can bike to work if it's not that far, take the bus instead, carpool with some coworkers. The planet and future generations will thank you if you just limit your car usage, even a little bit at a time.",0
e84031bb,1,"Dear Senator, The Presidential Election is one of the most important events that goes on in the United States. At the core of this election is the Electoral College. The only problem is, the college has many flaws. Like in Source 1, it states that our Founding Fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election by a popular vote from the citizens who qualify. As you know the E.C consists of the selection of electorss, meeting of electorss where they vote for the President and Vice, and the counting of the votes by Congress. There are 538 electorss, 538 votes, and it takes a majority of 270 votes to win the election. This flawed system has been around too long and it needs to be altered. I am in favor of getting rid of the E.C and going to winner by a popular vote.

If the Presidential candidate is favored by more than 50% of the country then he or she should win. Like in Source 2 history shows that in the past candidates have clearly won the popular vote, but sill lost the presidency race. The problem with the current system we have in place is that the people who are supposed to have a direct voice in the government do not. Instead the people vote for other people who they are supposed to trust vote in favor of their opinion. I can see how some people believe in this system of trust, however some history has shown us otherwise.

History has shown that electorss can go against the opinion of the public. When you vote for electorss most of the time they in turn vote for what the people want. The only thing is you are not ensured that this will occur. In the end it is up to the electors who can decide however they wish. Personally for the U.S. it would be more effective to go to winner by popular vote, not only because of the unsureness of the electorss, but also because that is what the people want. Another valid argument to get rid of the whole Electoral College process is in Source 2, it states that sometimes voters get confused with the electorss and vote for the wrong candidate. That could be detrimental to the country if the wrong person for the job was elected. If it was the popular vote sytem the selection of candidates would be clear and easy to understand, which leads to less mistakes when voting.

The view of getting rid of the Electoral College is actually quite popular. In Source 2 it tells us Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S Chamber of Commerce, and others have all agreed that we should abolish the Electoral College. Going all the way back to the beginning of our country we started off on the base principle that the people must have a direct voice in the government. That is the reason our country was made a democracy. The Electoral College has bent those principles and hasn't fully allowed the voice of the people to be heard. With the popular vote put in place their are no middle men, it is just the people voicing what they want and who they want to represent them.

Looking over the information that has been presented it is clear that the Electoral College has to go. The system is flawed for many reasons such as the popular candidate not winning, voices not being ensured that they will be heard, and the confusing system of not voting directly for your President. If the change of winner by popular vote in the election is made none of the previous flaws will be present. The popular vote sytem will ensure the people get what they want and the process is completely fair. For these reasons it is in our society's best interest that our government makes this change. Abolish the Electoral College and bring on a new age of simple and fair elections!

From, A concerned citizen.",0
e86094fd,0,"There are several advantages of limiting car usage. First and foremost, limitations will seriously reduce the emission of greenhouse gas and the production of smog caused by diesel fumes. Beautiful cities are being polluted as we speak, and that is something that could be so simply reduced. Limitations on cars will make the air cleaner.

If car usage is limited, as it has been some places, it shows to make the surrounding ares calmer. In places such as cuban, Germany, where cars are almost completely gone, residents say they are much happier and less stressed out Rosenthal, 2009New York Times. Rush hours and traffic jams will be reduced, leaving more time to make cities beautiful again. Bike paths are being reconstructed in many places, in attempt to make as little impact on the world as possible. Try a week without using a car. Use other commute options to get where you need to go. People see that they are less relient on using car commute Rosenthal, 2013New York Times.

Alternative transportation is encouraged. In places all over the world, people are stepping up and making a change in the way they transport themselves. sidewalks are being remade in order to accommodate walking pedestrians Selsky, 2002. Shopping centres and diners are being located in closer ares, making it easier to walk or bike to them. Bill Ford of Ford Motor Company expressed his wishes for transportation by saying he wishes cities to have ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety,"" Rosenthal, 2013.

Instead of spending so much time with car developments, limiting car usage would mean more time to other ares of development. David Goldberg of Transportation for America made and fantastic point by saying, ""All of our development since World War 2 has been centered on the car, and that will have to change,"" Rosenthal, 2009. Instead of spending so much time creating things that will ruin the world, why not use that time instead to try and better it? Construct something useful. People are doing it all over, and it's proving to work very well.

All in all, having a limitation on car use will be much easier and helpful than people realize. The more we actively work on changing the world from preventable harm, the better our surroundings will be. Even if a car is driven on occasion, it will reduce the greenhouse gas dramatically, making a positive effect on the way people live.

1. ""In German Suburd, Life Goes On Without Cars,"" Elisabeth Rosenthal, 2009.

2. ""Paris bans driving due to smog,"" Robert Duffer, 2014.

3.""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota,"" Andrew Selsky, 2002 4.",0
e88f87d4,1,"The people, the people, the people that's all you ever hear presidents talk about. ""I care what's best for the people"" or ""It's the people's vote"", if that's true though then why do we still have the electoral college. The electoral college is a creation of our founding fathers and yes it might have worked then, but times have changed. The electoral college is now just taking away the people's votes, has the disaster factor', and because of the electoral college many candidates only focus on swing states.

To start, if it's all about the people then how come our votes don't count. Instead of voting for the president we are voting for who the electors vote for, if they even follow what we say. Although the exerpt from ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" disagrees with me, in paragraph 18 they give the perfect example to prove my point. In the 2000 election of Gore and Bush, Gore had more popular votes than Bush, but still had fewer electoral votes. In other words the people voted for Gore, but instead we got Bush! So if it's all about the people of this great country then why did we not get our choice of president.

Next, the disaster facter' is described in source 2 otherwise known as the excerpt from "" The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong"". In paragraph 11 it talks about how in 1960 the segregationists in the Louisiana Legislature tried, and nearly succeeded, in hand picking electors who they believed would be opposed to Kennedy. So what if next time do they succeed and the vote doesn't go the way the people want. As if that isn't enough reason, also in 1960, Hawaii sent two slates of electors to Congress! Luckily, President Nixon saved the day or that could have been yet enough fiasco the electoral college created.

Lastly, when candidates know for sure they don't have a states vote or even that they do have a states vote they tend to not visit those states. In source 3 it says that it makes them a more successful president because they don't only have regional appeal. However, it also makes it so they aren't connecting with every regional only the swing states so what about the states that are for sure to one canidate do they just not get to hear from their future president? The idea of an electoral college is making it so only certain states get to talk to the candidates and that's not fair.

In sumamary, why do we need the electoral college if all it does is cause problems. You could say that there's less of a chance of the larger states over powering the ones with less population, but at least then it's in the peoples hand what happen. The electoral college takes away the peoples power, has the disaster factor, and the candidates ignore certain states. All in all the electoral college is causing more problems then we need, let's finally make the election the people's vote.",0
e8a65671,0,"Living in a polluted world were you cannot see the sun is not ideal, most of pollution comes from car emissions. We as people today cannot imagine what it would be like without a car, but there are advantages of not having one. There is a city in VAUBAN, Germany that residents have given up cars.

VAUBAN is a experimental community that has ""carfree"" streets. ""Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park large garages at the edge of the development, where a carowner buys a space, for 40,000, along with a home""s1p2. At first glance this experimental town might seem to be completly outrageous, but it works very well,this community has 5,500 residents. Without a car life would seem to be a lot harder, moving around would require effort, but towns like this one have all the shopping and parks within walking distance of your home. Stores arent spread out,so it doesn't take a 15 minute drive get to the store, but only a 5 minute walk. A resident of the town said that "" When i had a car i was always tense""s1p3. To me this means that the resident no longer had to worry about getting into a car and worry about getting into a accident, all they have to worry about is catching the bus.

Car congestion is the worst when you are trying to get to home or to work, in the big capitals around the world they have banned driving for certain people nonspecific day every week. Paris is a example of one of these countries, if you were caught you had to pay a 31 dollar fine. After 5 days congestion was down 60%. ""According to the BBC public transit was free of charge from Friday to Monday""s2p18. Other countries are doing this as well, In BOGOTA, Columbia they have a program called ""A Day Without Cars"". In this program all cars a banned, the only way to get around is with taxis and buses, people who dont agree have to pay a 25 dollar fine."" It's a good opportunity to take away stress said Carlos Plaza""s3p24. From this event many countries have come to observe to take the idea and apply in their country, also parks and sporting center have popped up because the people are more active.

Having a car isn't all it is cracked up to be , owning cars and getting licenses have decreased in the past years. This is because people are finding better ways to get around without harming the enviornment. Paris,France had smog so bad that it rivaled Beijing, Chinia, but with the legislation and cooperation of the public they were able the get the smog to go down. There are many advantages of not having a car, you can relax and destress, help the enviorment , and be able to see the sun during the day due to car emissions going down to almost nonexistent.",0
e8d8fc03,1,"Americans around the world gather around their televisions, frantically waiting to see who the next leader of the USA is. The first Tuesday of November is always an exciting time for American citizens. Citizens watch the number of votes go up, thinking their vote counted, when in reality, it did not. Many people are aware of the electoral college. The electoral college are the ones truly voting for the United States leader. While we may have had this process for years, it's time for us to take a vote to change the way we vote. Citizens of the United States of America should be able to vote by popular vote because the electoral college is outdated and ruins the American freedom.

The world we live in now compared to the 1800s is very different. We've upgraded, not only in our inventions, but our states as well. The electoral college was made when America was first established because it was fit for the needs of that time. The Office of Federal Register states, ""The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" Back then, it was needed to balance things out among the 13 colonies. In those times, we didn't have the advance technology we have now to see our candidates on screens or in person. Since then, we've turned 13 colonies into 50 states, turned horses into cars, and small radios into televisions. Rules and laws change to fit the current needs all the time. The electoral college should do the same. Due to the fact this system has been around since the founding fathers, major mistakes occur. This process is too old to keep up with the third largest population in the world. Bradford Plumer of source 2 tells us that in 2000 ""Al Gorethanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency."" If this is truly a land of democracy and of the people, how could we let such a mistake happen? How could we let majority of citizens vote but not get the person they choose?

Another factor to this problem is the American freedom. The electoral college imposes on the American freedom and right to choose their president. The United States of America is a representative democracy. The citizens choose who they want to lead but those votes aren't truly their own votes. According to Richard A. Posner of source 3, ""...the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense...it is the electors who elect the president, not the people. When you vote for a presidental candidate, you're actually voting for a slate of electors."" American citizen votes do not matter as much as we think they should. The founding fathers built this country for the people. The people should have an actual voice in who they want to lead this great nation. In addition, Americans should have a direct say. Votes should go straight to the president and not the party's electors. This is not only fair to citizens but also a more relible plan. Bradford Plumer of source 2 explains to us that """"faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please..."" We can't depend on these electors to determine one of the most important things of this country. We can't depend on these ""faithless"" electors to vote who we want when they might do the opposite. Voting by popular vote prevents these mishaps and restores our democracy.

While others may claim that the electoral college is beneficial to candidates because of big states, small states, and swing states, it's a onesided deal. It may be beneficial to candidates but what about the voters? Source 2 reads ""during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" If these candidates expect to lead the third largest country population wise, they should have to put out the extra effort to visit and campaign to every state. The candidates need to show they care for this country and they are here for everyone. If they cannot put in the extra effort to see the lives they are going to change, do they deserve to be president?

All in all, the electoral college is no longer needed to today. The electoral college is made for the modern world and also disrupts our representative democracy. Times are always changing, we, as a society, are always changing, and the electoral college needs to change as well.",0
e91e410f,1,"Dear Marco rubin and etc., I think that we should not keep the Electoral College and change to election by popular vote for the sake of the people. With the Electoral College, your voice isn't really heard. Votes should be counted individually and America will get the president that they really want.

For starters, there was a situation back in 2000 where Al Gore won the popular vote but didn't become president. That my friend, is unfair. The Electoral College doesn't really prove who actually won. Although, the incident happens back in 1880, I don't think it should happen again. Most of America wouldn't really think of the president as the president. I must admit, the Electoral College is a quick way to send in the votes on election day but it isn't efficient.

Like stated in paragraph 10, voters don't vote for the president, but for the state of electors. The electors are basically anyone who isn't holding office. State conventions, state party's central and presidential candidates can pick the electors. Votes can't always control whom their electors vote for which why you should get rid of the Electoral College. Plus it's a dumb name.

Another reason why is because the people of this country will be pissed if another Gore as Bush situation happens again. Electors are really in control, therefor if they dislike who's running against their political party they have a shot at voting for whomever they want. That's unjust, and frankly unfair. Especially if a huge state is at risk.

One counterclaim might be that the Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives the majority of votes cast.

I don't want to vote and wonder if my voice will be heard. I want it to be guaranteed because that's what the United States is all about. It's all about us being able to choose the president. The Electoral College is unjust and is a waste of time. If you guys decide decide on letting us elect the president by popular vote, more young adults will start voting and we'll know out voices are heard.",0
e96c53a6,0,"What would it be like to live in a society without the use of cars? Well some cities and even countries have begun to limit car usage such as VAUBAN, Germany where ""70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars""Source 1. There happens to be many advantages to limiting car usage such as: less pollution, less stress, and better cities. The positives of limiting car usage are very great and would have a positive effect on any city willing to set up these limitations.

The first advantage of limiting car usage is the effect it will have on the environment. According to Source 1, ""cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States"". All this pollution and emission not only effects the environment but also leads to ""intensifying smog""source 2 which is not only bad for the environment but also bad for people. The use of cars may not be the only source of emission, but it is ""the second largest source of America's emissions""source 4. Many cities have already realized this and have begun limitations on car usage. Just think if all cities put a limitation on car usage how much fewer the percent of emissions would be and how great of an effect it would have on the environment.

Another positive of car limitation is its impact on cities, towns, and comunities. Bogota a city in Colombia participating in the limitation of car usage has seen the positive effects on there city. Bogota ""has seen the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths"" which means more people biking which means less people using cars which means healthier peoplesource 3. This city also has seen an increase in the building of parks and sports centers, restraunts, shopping districts, and smooth sidewalks. Limitations on cars also leads to an improvement of the town's people, because people such as Carlos Arturo have used the limitations as ""an opportunity to take away stress""source 3 or vaughn's Heidran Walter who just feels less tense and ""much happier""source 1. Not only will these limitations positively effect cities but positively effect the overall mood of the people too.

There is a long list of advantages of limiting car usage. The advantages include: a healthier environment, improved cities, and happier people. Limitation has already started in many cities arouend the world, because these cities see the many advantages to limiting car usage.",0
e9bab566,0,"There are many advantages in limiting the amount of car usage. Many people seem to believe that if you do not drive everywhere, you can preserve the land and it is proven to reduce stress. Another advantage would be that the government wouldn't have to spend as much money on highways and other transport. There is a lot less congestion, and polution without the use of cars. These are all good examples of how reducing the use of cars could be very good for the environment.

To expand on the theory that a carfree cities are a lot better for the environment, we can say they preserve lands and cause stress levels to be reduced. In the first article, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"", Heidrun Walter is quoted explaining that he is ""much happier"" without a car in his life. He also states that when he did have a car, he was ""alway tense"". This seems to show stress levels going down, but that is only one example. In addition to stress levels, land preservation was also brought up. It is stated that without cars, roads and suburbs would be nicer and better for walking. Without cars, cities are also considered denser. Researchers are trying to conduct an experiment with a no car city and see how different and ""better"" life would be, to get more facts about it.

Next, this carfree world could help save the government money. Studies show that in recent years, eighty percent of appropriations have gone to fixing and preserving highways for cars to continue driving on them safely. In addition to that eighty percent, twenty percent was provided for all the other ways for transportation, for example, buses. Without cars, we would be saving the government eighty percent of their money, holding on to the idea that areas would be kept in good shape without cars driving on them! Thats crazy!

Lastly, polution is a HUGE factor in this idea. Without cars, we would have a lot less polution and smog. In France, they have a few carfree cities and they states that without cars, sixty percent of smog levels went down in only 5 days! Fuel is blaimed for a lot of polution dailey and without cars, we could have a cleaner air and city in only a few days!

In conclusion, carfree cities could be a very good idea for some cities. We can make the air better, having less smog, spend less money, and have nicer land. These are only a few of the advantages to having a carless city.",0
e9dc0fe8,1,"Dear Senate , it is evident that many people think electoral voting is the wrong thing to do. I think that we sould use another method of voting like popular voting. I feel this way because the president that you might be voting for might win the popular vote but because he had lost the electoral vote he doesnt become president. I believe this is wrong because the president with the majority of vote by the U.S. should win, people should be able to decide who is president , and because I think its wrong to not give the U.S. citizens what they want.

Although electoral voting may seem good its not because you dont really vote for your president that you want your voting for a slate of elector that pick the president they would rather have. In ""Source 2:The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defense of the system are wrong"" it state that ""Under the electoralcollege system , voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors , who in turn elect the president"" From this we can see that its shouldnt be like this because the people should be able to choose the president who they voted for. also in source 2 it states "" The single bets argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century the system allows for much worse. Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" This just show how bad electoral voting can get. So we need to change the way of voting before it gets out of hand.

After reading the passage I see another problem that electoral voting causes , which is that electoral voting is unfair to the people of the united states. It states ""At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning focusing only on the tight race in the ""swing"" states."" this just explaing that candidate that know that they cannot win your states votes wont even bother to try.

People might feel that electoral voting is the best way to vote because we've always used it, and because it restores some balance that me be needed with larger states. But their still wrong because electoral voting has caused many problem for us in the past and how dont we know it will not cause them in the future. that why we should change our way of voting.

Electoral voting is a bad method of voting because it is unfair to people, most of the time your not even voting for the candidate you want, and because its like of vote don't count on whether or not we get the president that we would like.",0
ea2a47a6,1,"The process that undergoes during the election of the President of the United States, is unfair. ""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational.""Source 2 We should change the process that undergoes today which is known as the electoral college to something that would actually reflect the people's thought on who should lead our country, and I think that we should decide our elections based on popular vote. If we stick with electoral college, voters won't recieve for what they've asked for, some may find it confusing, the people have no power over their electors, and they have no loyalty to us. That is why we need justice and see that our voting system should be change to popular vote.

Voters and electors are both the same thing, they're both human beings, and that means we have our own ideas and they have theirs. Once the electors go to vote to whom we would like for president, the voters no longer have power over them. ""Electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidates.""Source 2 So why should we trust someone who won't even keep their word that they would vote for our likings, the people's likings. We should trust ourselves with our own decisions and outcomes. Not some bafoon that won't even stay loyal to their state. Sure if we allow every single person's vote to be counted, it would take probably months to find out the outcome. But the result would actually be true for once. The peoples words and actions actually matter in the government. Changing the procedure that elects our president should be changed to popular vote so that our words and actions can be heard everywhere around the country and change what needs to be changed.

Like I said, our electors won't do what we ask them to do, sometimes. They may, sometimes, defy us. ""Electors could always defy the will of the people.""Source 2 They have their own minds that can think and act, and when they have the power of the people of a state, they can use that power for their wants and needs. But we the people of the United States do not need some person to look after us. We defied Great Britain, the greatest country in the world back then and your saying that when we are liberated, the people still need someone to look after our wants and desires, like they're babysitting us? Well I think that's mahogany. When we give the electors our votes, they have the power, and we don't. ""Voters can't control whom their electors can vote for.""Source 2 So why bother voting when our votes don't even count? The electors should become the people of this country since our judgement don't even matter to affect the country that we live and protect. When the states were created, some were made to bigger and sustainanble than others, those larger states may have a greater impact on our government than the smaller states. But size doesn't matter, numbers matter. If three small states have the same idea, they may over come a large state. That result would show the real outcome of our people's desire for our country. That's why we should change electoral college vote to popular votes.

With such a complicated system to bring our favored canidate for president in, some people don't understand how the process works and may end up voting for the wrong canidate. Voters somtimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong canidate."" Source 2 With popular vote in play, people could just vote to whom ever they desire and done, you're finished voting. That would be a simpler way to process things that everyone could understand. Why do we need complicated systems anyways? Sure with such a simple system many things things could happen, but we just need to change the procedure for voting, not it's security. I think if the country would be a lot simpler if we changed electoral college voting to popular voting. Justice would finally be served to the United States of America.

In conclusion, I think that we should change elcetoral college voting to popular voting so that it would make electing a new presindent simpler, have a true result that reflects the states wishes, and voters can actually have control over their votes.",0
ea641ffa,0,"The laws have changed. We now have days where we cannot use our cars for the day. We can only get around using buses, a local taxi, bikes, walk etc,. Would this benefit us or would it not? Some cities and countries around the world are banning cars. Instead they would like to use public transportation, a bicycle, or maybe your own two feet to get around. I believe that this topic is reasonable and I agree.

The United States is considering this law of not having to use our cars for a day or two each week so we can get out in the fresh air or try out some new transportation for personal knowledge of more ways to get around. The paper, The End of Car Culture, states that ""recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" Assuming, we are already shifting into a lifestyle of not having a car for a day or two. To me, this would benefit the country because of our high obesity rate. If more people ride their bikes to places or walk places, this will give them more exercise opportunities and help them lose weight in a more constructive way. Just riding your bike or walking a mile to the grocery store a day can definitely help someone out.

Speaking of helping things out, how about the environment? The article, Paris band driving due to smog, states that ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" Robert Duffer also states that Paris uses Mondays to be dedicated ro evennumbered license plates are ordered to leave their cars at home and the next day oddnumbered license plates were ordered to keep their cars home. The diesel fuel in Paris was hurting the environment so that is why they banned cars. Here in the United States I believe that the car pollution is also hurting our environment. Riding bikes and walking places is a good activity for everyone to do.

Most of us, except the 2% of people in America, have trouble with money. Riding bikes around and walking to a friends house or to the store, would definitely help our money situations. Not having a car two days a week means we do not have to get gas as much, which would save us money. Using a taxi would be useful too but, not as much because the money adds up also. Not using cars can completely help our community and country in so many ways.

Banning cars for a day or two sounds like a fantastic idea. Being able to go out and get fresh air and get some exercise would be great for our country. Less pollutions, less money and more constructive activities for getting around to places. All sounds like a good idea to me. Let's see if the United States takes action.",0
ea646886,1,"When the Constitution of the United States was written our founding fathers decided on an Electoral College as the way to elect the president instead of a direct vote. The Electoral College is a process that makes a compromise between the popular vote of the citizens and the Congressional vote. When citizens vote for president they are actually voting for a member of the Electoral College that is going to select their president, rather than the citizens voting for the president themselves. The Electoral College is made of 538 electors, the number of electors from each state varies depending on the states Congressional delegation. Washington D.C. is counted as a state for this process and alloted only three electors. The electoral college should be kept in use because it simplifies the outcome and allocates more power to the larger states.

The Electoral College should continue being used in today's government as a form of selecting the president because it simplifies the outcome of the vote. When voting with a popular vote system a debate over the outcome of the vote is very likely and will probably cause some controversy. When the votes form the electoral college are counted the margin of victory is much higher which simplifies the result of the poll. During the election of 2012 Obama only recieved 51.3 percent of the vote, however he won the vote of the electoral college with an astounding 61.7 percent, a increase in the margin of victory by 10.4 percent. With this wide of a margin of victory a dispute over the victor of the presidential election is unlikely and almost impossible to argue against. Some might argue that the Electoral College is flawed because electors can choose not to vote for their candidate. It is true that this has happened in the past, ""in 1960, segregationist in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded on replacing the Democratc electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy."" P.11. If this happened the popular vote for Kennedy would have gone to his adversaries instead. It is true that electors can choose not to vote for the candidate they pledged to and that this has happened in the past however the electors rarely betray their party's nominee and a tie in the electoral vote is extremely unlikely.

Additionally, the Electoral College sould be kept in today's democracy because is allocates power to the larger states. It only makes sense that the larger states with a larger population should get more of a say in their government, and recieve more electoral votes than a small state with fewer people. With this system political influence is restored to the larger states making the candidates focuss on the more populous areas. More power to the more populous states also means that runoff elections are avoided. In 1992 and in 1968 runoff elections were avoided due to the use of the Electoral College ""Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority of the Electoral College"" P.22. A runoff election extremely complicates the election process however the chance of this happening is greatly reduced when using the Electoral College which almost always produces a clear winner.

The electoral college should be kept in use because it simplifies the outcome and allocates more power to the larger states. The Electoral College avoids the outcome of a runoff election. It also greatly reduces the chance of a dispute between the victor. Most people do not like the Electoral College because they are not directly voting for their candidate however many people fail to realize hat it is rare for an elector to betray his nominee. Electors rarely betray their candidate because they are chosen by the candidates party or the candidate themself. The Electoral College gives political weight to states and is very useful in deciding the new president with no debates over who won.",0
ea75780c,1,"The electoral college has come too far. It is old, a disaster factor, unfair, and very irrational. Many of the arguments made to support the Electoral College are based on mostly assertions and not much on reality. The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer, paragraphs 9,10,11, and14.

Under the electoral college system, us voters do not actually vote for the president. We vote for a slate of electors who then vote for the president. Although we do have a say in who votes for our president, most people prefer a more direct approach. In some cases, one being Al Gore's, the candidate can win the popularity vote, but only to lose it all in the electoral college vote. If the candidate wins the majority vote, that clearly means many people want them in office. Which brings me back to the original point. Why have the electoral college vote for someone else when the masses are making it very clear who they prefer in office.

One of the best, consistent arguments made against the electoral college is something we might call the disaster factor. The 2000 election fiasco could have been much worst considering the type of system we have. The state legislatures are the ones responsible for picking electors, who can ,at any moment, go against the will of the people. Electors have even refused to vote for their party's candidate and vote for whomever they deem acceptable.

One of the riskiest situations that come with the electoral college are ties. When there is a tie, the case is taken over to the House of Representatives, where the each state delegation will vote for the president. Each state casts only one vote, which means one representative from Wyoming is representing 500,000 voter. This would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. One person can choose the destiny of all those voters who don't get much of a say. Electoral ties are not as unlikely as they seem. In 1976, for example. a tie would have occurred if only 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted for the opposite party.

When you boil it down, the electoral college is downright unfair to voters. It is unfair, outdated, and in needs of improvement. We live in a country where everyone should have a voice, not just one person representing the voices of everyone. This is why we should rid of the electoral college. Voters know what they want and shouldn't have to rely on other people, who can swing their vote at any time, to make the decision which they consider right.",0
ea76ab44,1,"Dear Mr. rubin, My name is PROPER_NAME and I am a concerned youth.

The electoral college system is arcane, confusing and disruptive to the constitutional democratic republic that is the United States of America. Voters are thrown off by this system and are often completely overlooked in an election. For a country that was built on the ideals of freedom and fair representation, using the electoral college system isn't right.

Firstly, candidates running for president need a majority of 270 the 538 electors to win an election. Thus, they focus more on winning swing states such as Ohio, rather than winning the approval of their constituents. This immediately shows faults of the electoral college. What kind of government is running the world's superpower? One that ignores its people and bombs governments of other countries for doing the same thing? The electoral college takes away from the value of the vote a right for which the United States of America was founded. The electoral college may have had good and just intentions, but isn't effective or fair now. Also, with the embarrassingly low voter turnout the USA has already, having a confusing, oldfashioned and unfair system of electing leaders will only decrease the amount of citizens that actually go to the polls. Studies like the one published September 1st, 2012 by the American Research Institute, have shown that the average American person doesn't know very much about their country and how it works. Those that do are a minority. So, why would the government that is supposed to be looking out for, protecting and listening to its citizens still use a system that only deters already ignorant people from participating in elections?

Secondly, the electoral college in addition to putting down the voter has been proven to be faulty. Like the 2000 election with George W. Bush, with Clinton in 1992 and Nixon in 1968 these men all had less of the popular vote, but were president. How? How did they become the Leader of the Free World the Free World that gives everyone the right to vote for their representatives without the popular vote? Without the blessing of their constituents? How were these men sworn in without the backing of true democracy?

The electoral college.

This system goes against every democratic ideal in the United states foundation! And yet, it is still how president after president is put into the Oval Office sometimes wrongly as explained above.

The electoral college is wrong. It just is. There are no valid arguments for it. It puts down the voter and, in a sense, makes them obsolete which, in addition to being extremely hypocritical, is just not right.

Mr. rubin, I am a citizen of this great country. I don't break the law, I don't burn flags, I love my nation and I care deeply for my fellow Americans. You are a United States Senator. Shouldn't you feel the same way? Help to abolish the electoral college. There are only benefits for the corrupt, not for the citizens.

Mr. rubin, help to abolish the electoral college if you believe in a strong America.",0
eab0f598,0,"Fellow citizens there should be a limit on car usage. If there's limits with our car usage then we would have a better community, there would be less pollution,less drugs passing through other citizens cars. If there isn't a limit on car usage us citizens would be the ones suffering from chemicals getting into our lungs from all the pollution our own cars let out, two we would be affecting our community because everyone wouldn't walk anywhere they'd just spend money on gas going to somewhere or visiting there friends and family. Better to save the earth, then to damage the earth.

First, why not just have limits on car usage saves our community just by a little step like that. We wouldnt have to worry about just walking down the street and a drunk driver just coming out of no where and hitting us. In source 1, by Elisabeth Rosenthal in interview a mother of two and she said, ""When I had a car I was always tense."" why be tense when you can be stressfree just by not using your cars all the time and having limits on them. If we actually do help our community by having limits on our car usage then we could make cities denser,and healthier community to walk around in.

Second, pollution sucks, these chemicals we're observing are eventually going to hurt us in the long run we are either going to die of the gas our cars are releasing or we're either going to get really sick from it. Who wants to get sick because a stupid decision of driving a car? most definetely not me. These limits are for the best for us citizens. Like source 3, by Andrew Selsky States ,""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air.""of course its better to just take a nice walk than to just be lazy and drive a car. Bike rides with friends sound better than a car ride, in a car people usually blast the music and don't communicate with one another, but while you bike ride you can communicate with one another and actually have fun racing eachother on these bike rides healthier than a car ride.

Last, with the limits of car usage smuggling can be prevented because it won't be easy for people from other countries trying to pass by in cars with drugs because the state would have certain transportation they can only use which they might not want to use because it's so public. Source 2 states, last week, Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matterpm per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London,his only means someone from another country brought it to Paris and its ended up at London who knows how.

It's better of just having car usage limits to prevent drug passing, also to help our community, and have a healthier earth without polluting the eart.",0
eacdc030,0,"In the modern world, we are almost completely dependent on our technology to get us through the day. These human creations, such as, cellular phones, the internet, computers, and cars make it easier for us to perform everyday tasks. But for such heavy use of these items, there are side effects. Cars in particular can, and will, create lasting issues in our environment, which if not resolved will cause many problems in our future. But there is hope if the First World states like the UK, France, Germany, and the U.S. were to cut down on car usage, we would see a drastic decline in not only the air polluting greenhouse gases, but also expenses for families spending all their money at a gas pump. Furthermore, we would see an increase in other things, such as the amount of exercise and public people would acquire through alternative transportation.

The foremost issue is of course, the environmental effects of cars. According to the New York times, cars are on average responsible for ""12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas"". These emissions can often make cities uninhabitable. In places such as Shanghai, Hong Kong, and other urban centers heavy pollution requires citizens to wear gas masks, and acid rain devastates plant life. This heavy pollution has such an effect that it causes black snow in Russia, thousands of miles away. But the scale of the problem is much larger than acid rains and black snow our planet is heating up, and greenhouse gases are to blame. If you want evidence just look at our neighbor, Venus. Roughly the size of Earth, scientists believe that Venus once has water, but look at it today, and you will see our solar system's hottest planet. Several million years ago Venus was overcome by volcanic activity of much greater extent than anything ever seen on Earth since it's formation in precambrian time. These volcanos spewed thousands of tons of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere, and thus began the greenhouse effect. The sun's rays would pierce through the smog and reflect off of the surface of the planet, but when they went back up the smog stopped them and turned them away, back down towards the planet's surface. This caused the planet to practically absorb all of the energy and heat of the sun. Before long the surface temperature became hot enough to melt lead, making Venus utterly uninhabitable. If nothing is done to stop atmospheric pollution, this is our future.

But in our modern world many people would be completely lost without a car, it has become the staple of our infastructure, not unlike the horse from years past. But there is evidence in the small town of Vauban, Germany that life without cars is a very possible thing. The small community of Vauban has forbidden cars within their town, and the results are suprisingly positive. Of the residents of Vauban, seventy percent do not own cars, and are very happy with their circumstances. As Heidrun Walter said to the New York Times, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" While other states might not have such successful car free zone's, Colombia has an annual carfree day in their capital of Bogota and surrounding cities. This day often has millions of Colombians biking, and walking from place to place. There has also been an improvement in city beautification according to an article by the Seattle Times, ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks... and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" Not only does the restriction of cars help the environment, it can also help the economy.

The average American citizen's budget consists mainly of two things, housing, and vehicles. But during the recession of 2008, there was a decline of about nine percent in average miles driven. The burden of gas prices and car payments became too much for many unemployed Americans. But after the recession passed, the decline continued, and may soon accelerate. The New York Time states that ""Demographic shifts in the driving population suggest that the trend may accelerate. There has been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39yearolds getting a license, while older people are likely to retain their licenses as they age"". If this trend continues, then we have already taken the first step in curbing our greenhouse gas emissions and by doing so, we may increase the living standards of our citizens who would have more money. As well as repurposed government funding in other cleaner and faster forms of transportation due to a lesser need in road construction and maintainance.

Finally, the world we live in today is changing, and with always increasing technology, it may not be long before a clean alternative to gas burning vehicles arises. But you cannot count on the unknown and what is known is that should we continue on our current path, the world will be a very hot place by 2040. Either we must change, or our cars will die with us.",0
eaddf4b3,0,"Car usage is decreasing all over the world quickly. Many people see that needing a car is no longer a priority to them anymore. Many communities are eliminating cars in the neighborhood. And in certain areas of Germany, people are not even allowed to have cars. They sell them to live in the neighborhoods.

To begin with, limiting car usage is eliminating air pollution in Bejing, and Paris and in the United States. In Paris, there has been heavy air smog and if ur caught driving in the streets you get fined 22euros 31. Thousands of people were fined according to the international news agency headquarters in London for driving there cars during the smog. Twenty seven27 people had there cars impounded for their reaction to the fine they were given. Because of the air smog in Paris, people were not allowed to drive anywhere they had to take the public transit to get to their destination. So reducing the car use in Paris help get rid of the smog faster.

Also, another reason eliminating car usage is an advantage is less traffic backups. In Bogota, Colombia the citizens hiked,biked,skated andor took the public buses to work which left the street empty of traffic jams. Since the mid1990s, the city has had ""A Day without cars"" campaign. Over time, the city has seen over 118 miles of bicycle paths being created and most of Latin American cities. Parks and sports centers also have grown throughout the cities. The sidewalks been replaced by smoother ones, traffic jams have had a dramatic drop and also more restraints and upscale shopping centers were built. So after all, eliminating cars is not a bad thing.

In addition to, every year in the United States more and more people been buying fewer cars and getting fewer licenses as each ongoing year goes by. So the question that reaks through everyones mind,""Has America passed the peak driving?"" Well, we may not know that answer for sure but what we do know is there is alot of changes going on. Now we all know this country was the birth place for the very first Model T Ford, and where Wilson Pickett immortalized ""Mustang Sally."" We all have love affairs with cars in this country, but over the past year our love affairs have cooled down some. Statistics show that between 2001 and 2009, driving by young people decreased by 23 percent23%. But when this generation ""grows up"" will the car rates start going back up because the parents have to take their children to soccer practice, school plays? This will remain an open question until that time. As of recently the number of miles driven per person has dropped nearly 9 percent9% below the peak and the same rate as it was in January of 1995. Part of this explaination is because people were unemployed and could not afford new cars.

According to Mimi Sheller, different things are converging. For example, she stated that the internet makes telecommunicating possible and easiar and makes peolpe feel more connected to others without driving around.

To conclude, there are a plethora of advantages of why limiting car usage is a great benefit to everyone and even the environment! The air pollution will be cut down by a major percent.",0
eae6d838,1,"AnnoyinglyRepetitive commercials, constant news interviews, and a myriad of kisses on the cheeks of stangers babies occur every 4 years. Its been the same process since the start of this country to aid in electing new presidents Designed in eloquence by our founding fathers. On the contrary I do strongly believe that the electoral college was on the lesser side of this eloquence. The grueling process, the unfairness and the overall confusion provided by the electoral college in my opinion make this ""electoral college"" one of the most unintelligent lesser thought out compromises that this country has ever had to abide by.

The electoral college is tiring, The process downrightgrueling, and overratedoutdated. As Americans using the electoral college keeps us hidden. We believe we have a voice when in reality the ""voice"" that we thought we had is barely above a whisper. According to the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" the author Bradford Plumer states that ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" This statement provided by the author suggests that something so simplesounding turns out to be so complicated. By Americans placing a vote not for themselves but for the electors it is now not in the peoples hands like the government patronizes, even though you may put in a vote to elect a democratic candidate you never know who your state assigned electors might actually vote for, are you tired yet?

In Addition, its unfair to the presidential candidates. Although a presidential candidate may be well liked by people and ""win"" by popular vote that does not nessasarily mean the win in the presidency Although I understand the fact that using the electoral college ensures a winner and avoids runoff elections I still do believe that this process is highly incompetent. The article by Plumer gives the example of the fact that in the 1960's segragationists almost succeeded in fully replacing democratic electors with electors of their choice or in essence ones that opposed of Kennedy. For candidates who place their blood sweat and tears into an election just to have lost by some electors but happend to be wellliked by people is foolish. America is supposed to be a country of the equal, and with the use of the electoral college is the perfect example of why this country could not be any farther away from equal.

Furthermore, the process is confusing. Between the electors, voting and the overall uncertainty it is not worth it. Going through unneeded stress just to further confuse people is idiotic. The presidential election should be elected by popular vote and the goverment shall see to it that the peoples votes are actually counted towards something. I honestly do not believe that the title of ""land of the free, home of the brave should be given to a place where the government can not even see that this scheme no longer works. Its tiring, unfair, and confusing all red flags that this process is in need of some serious fine tuning.

In essence the electoral college is dead. Cheating people out of their rights is dead, and schemery is dead. Our government needs a serious wake up call. They need to open their eyes to the fact that this process is no longer effective and we are not that impressionable as the ones who were before us. The electoral college needs to be laid to rest and we should be alotted all the rights that we have not recieved from this grueling, confusing, unfair process.",0
eaea47df,0,"The cities of Vauban, Germany Paris, France and Bogota, Colombia all have something in common. They have all taken measures to use cars minimally for at least a small period of time. The results of car use are pollution and accidents among other large scale issues. The cities previously mentioned, however, have taken active roles in preventing these issues. It is no guess as to why the pollution is created ""...transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions..."" states Elisabeth Rosenthal of the New York Times. A seemingly simple, but effective, idea could prevent the pollution caused by cars limiting car usage. Cars have been a major cause of stress with people who always rush to arrive at their destinations, and social interaction in person has significantly shot onto the negative end of the spectrum because of the invention of cars. By limiting car usage, the overly tense and smogged communities alike would benefit.

A frustrated, tense driver is not an uncommon occurrence. The term ""road rage"" was not spontaneously thought of. The purpose of cars is to transport someone or something from destination ""A"" to destination ""B"" in a short amount of time. This makes the very nature of cars one of urgency and with urgency comes stress. Stressed drivers have been the cause of many a car accident. All it takes is someone who is almost late for a meeting to speed too quickly for an accident to occur. Cutting down on car usage would exponentially decrease the number of car accidents, and it is likely to increase the overall happiness of a community that harbors less cars on their streets. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" states Heidrun Walter of Vauban, Germany. The community of Vauban has given up their cars. In fact, there are only two places to park there the parking garage requires a 40,000 fee to reserve a space, and it is rare to find a private garage for a home. Vauban is an example of what is likely the beginning of more communities based on minimal car use. ""All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change,"" states David Goldberg, official of Transportation of America. ""In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting 'car reduced' communities..."" Elisabeth Rosenthal Communities are realizing the benefits of reduced usage.

An astounding statistic: ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Elisabeth Rosenthal Pollution is the main concern for the generation of fossil fuel consumers. It is not unknown that cars cause pollution because of the diesel and gasoline that fuels the car. The pollution cars bring will not cease to multiply until cars are used less, and hybrid cars are not necessarily the answer because there has always been controversy on whether people will actually buy them with time. Cities who ban car usage see significant changes in the quality of their atmosphere and an example of this is Paris. Paris, the travel destination of both adventurers and lovers, experiences some of the worst pollution even when compared to Beijing, China. ""Congestion car traffic was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after fivedays of intensifying smog... The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world,"" stated Robert Duffer of the Chicago Tribune. Paris benefited from the bans and reduced the amount of smog in the city. Paris took action on their car usage issue and it would be beneficial for other places to follow suit as pollution is an increasinly major environmental issue and health hazard.

Not only would pollution be shifting downward, but city projects would improve with the limited use of automobiles. Cars promote the improvement of highways and roads. This creates a situation in which the city funds the roads, but fails to focus on other important city structures such as sidewalks and local stores. Roads are constantly run down and massive amounts of tax money go into repairing them, but limiting car usage would prevent road damage and change the city's view on other structures. Bogota, Columbia has a ""Day without Cars"" to ""...promote alternative transportation and reduce smog,"" states Andrew Selsky of Seattle Times. With just one day reserved for not using cars, ""...uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks... and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" Andrew Selsky Reducing car use enhances the experience of those who normally don't use cars because of improved bike paths, sidewalks, and is the foundation for a more lively city community.

Luckily, the United States seems to already be on the path to lowering numbers of cars used. ""...Recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by,"" states Elisabeth Rosenthal from "" "" . America is one of the biggest mascots of the car industry they have always been on top of advertisement and 'showing off cars' with companies such as Ford and Mercedes. The decline of car usage is beneficial in America for the environment as emissions will be lowered, but the car companies would need to find a different tactic to generate or maintain money flow. The resulting effect is that not only would limiting car usage aid the environment, decrease stress levels, and promote structural integrity of a city, but it would be the dawn of a new cultural age based on a community that has a better transportation system to ""...conserve resources, lower emissions, and improve safety,"" as proposed by Bill Ford of Ford Motor Company. Limiting car usage will usher in a healthier age for the younger generations.",0
eaf07620,0,"Cars seem to be a major issue of today time. We run out of gas, cant afford to fill up our tank or have mechanical issues. People fail to realize the major issues of today. With the abundance of cars driving today, Pollution in the air is at an all time high. ""On monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31."" This is a small act that people are doing to limit the amount of cars out on the streets and pollution in the air. If we had days that everyone rode their bike, or even walked to work we could have a very clean city and air. ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of france, after fivedays of intensifying smog... in China one of the most polluted cities in the world."" That statement right there goes to show if we limit ourselves to less car rides and more walking or biking, our health would increase and problems would decrease. Of course you need your car to go to the grocery store or mall because you cant just ride a bike there and carry the groceries or shopping bags home but, if you're just going to visit a friend or have casual lunch you should try a different way of transportation.

""As a result, 70 percent of vaubans families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. ""when i had a car I was always tense. Im much happier this way."""" That statement coming from an outsider who had just sold his car and moved to a carfree city goes to show that life is much better without one anyway. Your daily problems of gas, mechanics and now being able to breathe outside is all coming from a vehicle. There are ways to reduce these problems so I dont understand why people are not making the move right now. The only REAL reason a vehicle is absolutely necessary is if your going on a long roundtrip. You do not need one for going down the block. There are many advantages to reducing car use. You dont have to worry about money because you dont have to spend 45 dollars to fill up your tank, 25 dollars for parking or the 500 dollar transmission needing to be replaced.

""parks and sports centers also have boomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new resturants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" Everything that was just mentioned in those few sentences were positive things regarding cars being eliminated from the situation. Most people these days go in there car, go to work then go straight home. If you were walking you can take many different routes and discover places that youve never been to or seen before. They have fixed all of the sidewalks and problems that you could encounter by walking and added in things to make it more joyable. Again there are exceptions to the ""eliminating car usage."" There is no way we could completley cut it off but we should defintley limit it.

We dont want to completley cut off car usage but lowering the amount of it is defintley something we should do. By doing so we will be basically stressfree with financial, mechanical and any other issues. We will be cutting off the amount of pollution in the air making the enviornment better for us and everything in it. This is something that has been an underlying problem that was wellneeded to be adressed.",0
eafb8a56,0,"Limiting car use causes pollution, increases costs to users regardless of where services or services are offered. Furthermore, over use of the gas results in increased environmental degradation, harming our resources while damaging our environment.

When consumers pay a larger amount before gasoline is refined then there are higher costs of running the engine than otherwise. There are fewer places where the gas can be purchased locally causing more problems. Car trips will usually have higher tolls which results in lost wages for the transportation worker, who goes to an unnecessary location for work and then returns home and gets to pay back his transportation back costs. The car accident rate amongst children also has increased. Car pollution can become airborne easily, contaminating children's health. Also children tend to be more careless and more often in accidents simply because of being pushed out of their cars onto the road. All of this can be done to better an already polluted Earth that is becoming increasingly damaged at a much faster rate. Limiting our vehicle use helps our citizens with a reduced budget. It also reduces pollution for local areas. Furthermore, it improves public health and makes city dwellers a wealthier society.

Limiting our own usage by adopting public transportation, walking, biking, and public transport actually would be beneficial for the citizens and planet. I think its very healthy but very little others show similar sentiment mostly environmental activists who want a more environmentally clean place so it often is still looked down upon it still will bring about a very drastic price eventually but there will never be carbon credit trading or an oil recycling scheme unless people want it too. Limiting car use is good for the city.",1
eb04c94b,1,"Dear State Senator, For years, the presidential election has been running with an Electoral College, one in which the public does not vote for their choice candidate directly, but instead for a slate of electors to have a final deciding vote. Although the system could have worked like a breeze when first originated a point to be reckoned with, since I do not see how the system ever correctly displayed the citizens of America the Electoral College method has proven itself to be undemocratic, unfair, and an unjustly irrational system.

Simply stated, the Electoral College does not allow an accurate representation of voter's beliefs, taking their votes and twisting, manipulating them into a deciding vote from electors. The popular vote can be seen as an inputoutput machine, the people's own votes going in the contraption, and once inside, the input is stretched and exaggerated to output a ""neater"" electoral vote out of 538. While some argue that the Electoral College vote is usually rather close to the popular vote, it just isn't the same as when the Constution loosely states America as a 'for the people, by the people' nation.

Several times throughout history, the Electoral college has swayed the presidential election in a completely different route than what the outcome of the popular vote would have been. The perfect example, constantly brought up in arguments against the Electoral college, is the 2000 election with main candidates of Republican George Bush and Democrat Al Gore. Through the popular vote, it is clearly seen that a majority of voters chose Al Gore to be their president. Through the process of the electoral college and manipulation of votes, though, the presidential candidate ended with George Bush winning the election with a 271 electoral votes versus a 266 pointed toward Gore, thus creating an entirely different viewpoint of the people.

The idea of an Electoral College is also what has swung possible voters out of voting rooms, the voting methods winner takes all outlook overriding. With the set up of the Electoral college, popular voters decievingly decide for a slate of electors instead of a President. For example, if a majority of Florida electors voted for Bush, the entirety of Florida's 29 votes are down for Bush, even though not all electors really did vote that way. Those citizens in states who do not fit with what large majority of voters believe are discouraged in voting for their own candidate knowning that, no matter what, it's almost certain their state will end up giving its votes to the candidate they oppose. This can lead voters to not voting at all, creating an even less accurate election while the country pushes citizens to vote, frowning down on them if they do not.

Besides major points, there are many smaller faults wiithin the Electoral college. In example, there is always the possibility of a slate voting for a candidate that differs from the one they have pratically promised to vote for. The fate of our country is put into the hands of the 538 members of the electoral college, opposed to the vastly greater full population of American citizens. Also, with the 538 Electoral College members being an even number, although rare, it is more likely for there to be a tie than if the popular vote was used in deciding the presidential candidate.

A pro Electoral college argument is that the citzens in swing states states that are likely to go either way in an election instead of an almost certian outcome are more likely to pay attention to ad campaigns knowing that their state is most likely what will decide the winner of the election. Advocates say that they are, on average, most likely to be the most thoughtful voters, and that the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide our nations outcome. This outlook is littered with flaws, first starting off with the fact that swing states get more media coverage than the rest of the nation. These voters are valued more than others and are given more information to have an informed vote. Besides the fact that it is proposterous to value the vote of one citizen over another, this isn't fair to members of other states who recieve virtually no coverage due to candidates feeling like the state's vote has been secured since day one. The nation as a whole should recieve all the facts together with equal coverage, so that each and every voter can become a thoughtful one, and not only those located in swing states.

All in all, the decision to abolish the Electoral College is a backed up one, the facts and details there to support, meanwhile advocates for the practically ancient method don't have many solid counters to prove their point.

I hope you take this letter and it's claims into consideration.",0
eb393a7d,1,"Dear Senator, I have recently read some interesting information about a process of voting called ""The Electoral College."" It seems to work quite well in favor of getting the ""right votes"", however I do agree that there are too many possibilities and factors that could go against the public viewsand be in better favor of the government. As I recall, the government was set up for order and protection of the people. I am young and most people would probably judge the fact that I am so young to be stating things as politicalas this, however, I do seem to fathommore about political issues like thisand other things than most adults even know. Judging by the unbiased information I was given that shows me two sides of the issue, I'd say that though The Electoral College seems to work, there are so many factors that favor the government rather than the people.

On one hand, yes. The Electoral College does seem to work. It gives a fair amount of Electors to each state due to their Congressional Delegation and we are given the information that we, The People, are voting on the Electors rather than the President but there are too many factors to that. We must take into full recognition that electors do not have to be faithful toward the end to the President they were going to vote for in the beginning. We must also consider the fact that the Electors are people not in public Office. I am assuming that means that they must work for the government rather than in the public. I must state the possibilitythat there could very well be some possible, underhanded things going on in the government for the assurance that a particular Presidential Candidate is chosen to win the election, all based on the fact that they are chosen by the Electors. This came to mind because of paragraph 11, under ""Source 2: The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong."" Within this paragraph, it stated that the Electors need not be faithful to the President they said they would vote for in the election. As well as this, the government was made for the people and the people hardly seem the get an advantage with the Electoral College since we have to trust a group of human beings that could very well be unfaithful.

On the other hand, Electors not sticking to what they said rarely happens Or so we are told. As well as that, the Electoral College seems to work well and has a certainty of the outcome and avoids ""Runoff"" elections. However, the government was made for the public and therefor, I do believe that the people should choose their president as long as everyone is completely informed with uncensored information aboutb how everything is run, what that President, as well as what Congress and the other branches of Government intend to do whilst the current President is in Office. Many people don't even bother with trying to understand the way our government works and just completely trusts and goes along with whatever the government tells them but I think that is wrong!For a healthy government and a happy population, everyone must be informed with uncensored information and understand the outcome of these actionsand how it willl affect them in the shortterm and longrun. It is difficult and takes longer than what everyone would like but who wants to live in a so called ""Democracy"" that looks like a form of Oligarchy. Given the information I read, it doesn't seem fair or right. it seems like a form of control a form of Oligarchy a lie.",0
eb3f60b7,1,"After a presidential election, citizens soon start to realize that their word doesn't matter. The Electoral College are the voters that mean more to the presidential candidates, and it is a disrespectful system to be the face of our ways of democracy. In these sources citizens and governors want to abolish this system of voting and deciding a blind fate for America. The people vote for the electors not the president, the electors elect the president not the people, and the possibility of the disaster factor happening on future elections. Popular vote doesn't seem to have much of a purpose anymore because the electors seem to be making the decisions in this country.

Starting off, the people of this country need to know on what they are voting on rather from what they thought they could of been voting on. The Office of the Federal Register state,"" You help choose your state's electors when you vote for president"" source 1. They insist that we are basically voting for a possibility to get the candidate we want or to be betrayed and vote for the other party. Truly this means that this system is cheap and could backfire. Not only that but half or a little over half of citizens seem to take responsibility to vote, in that case it makes it harder to get the electoral votes to go in favor of popular votes. Our votes only exist to help choose votes.

assisting the first claim, our votes are unexistent. Richard A. Posner claims,""it is the electors who elect the president , not the people"" source 3. Right of the bat the Constitution and it's preamble is disrespected by this system. The preamble says that we as citizens of this country are the voice of this land and would further on insist or choose what we want it to be known as. But, that can't necessarily happen if we don't vote. Posner also says "" and that trust is rarely betrayed"" source 3. Even though this is a fact there is still the possibility or the potential to be nailed or betrayed by the electors. If there is a possibility in something unfair to happen by law it should be taken down and changed for our safety. Yet this happened in 2000 , when W. Bush aquired more electoral votes than Gore but Gore had more popular votes. A plurality only has a chance to win electoral votes.

additionally, the system could supposively allow for much worse tricks and grief. Bradford Plumer describes ""The single best argument agaisnt the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor"" source 2. The disaster factor includes legislatures replacing the Democratic electors with new ones and this happened in the 2000 fiasco. This is were the popular votes and higher that the electoral votes given to the president. Knowing that the legislatures could succesfully replace or revise or votes into the opposing party. Voting campaigns seem to just be a game , the electors want to win so 17 sates didn't even have the chance to see the candidates at all. This is the system sudgested by our founding fathers and it is a mockery to let it stay and bring judgement to our votes.

It is humorous to and unfair to see the electoral college take over our votes. It seems that our votes are only seen as jokes. As if the whole preamble was a way to joke around with the citizens and give them hope. Many governors want to Abolish the electoral college, and most of us should take responsibility to vote for this and dismantle the electoral college from ever taking over our voice. The disaster factor, the way on how the electors decide, and how we vote for the electors not the president, are prime examples on how irrational this system is. The only way to get our voice back is to ablolish it and start over fresh with a new system in mind.",0
eb57ebf5,0,"Many people believe that driving makes everything easier since it gets you from point A to point B. But so does walking or riding a bike. There are many advantages to limiting car usage all over the world. Limiting car usage not only decreases the problem of smog or greenhouse gas emission it also helps give back to the economy in different ways.

Limiting car usage helps decrease any sort of problem with smog or greenhouse gas emission. As stated in Source 2, ""Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city""10. Since Paris decided to enforce the ban, the smog had cleared enough Monday for the French party to rescind the ban on Tuesday. Thus proving the point that limiting car usage either through a ban or just a vehiclefree zone, as in Germany, it can reduce smog andor greenhouse gas emission. Greenhouse gas emission can be reduced simply by either switching to a more economy efficient car such as the hybrid or creating a lowcar suburban society. As stated in Source 1, ""Passenger cars are resposible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States.""5.Businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza asserted that ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution""Source 3,24 demonstrating that more than one person agree that lowering the use of cars is good for any society.

Economy may get better but it might just all depend on whether or not society begins to limit their car usage. As car usage is decreasing, people now have time to go out and be care free. As they stop limiting themselves from just driving from one place to another, more opportunities arise. Places such as ""parks and sport centers also have bloomed throughout the city""Source 3, 28 because people now have the time,instead of being stressed,to go have fun. Now new restaurants and even upscale shopping districts have cropped up, these places are being placed because of the restriction on driving your car. Even though it may have ""negative implications for the car industry""Source 4,34 our economy will be boosted leaving the negative implications for car industry out of the question when it comes to advantages versus disadvantages. People will have stores within walking distance and since there will be suburbs with carfree zones it makes communication easier and faster, leaving driving places from stressing anyone out.

Everything isnt always dependent on time and if you have to work, with these suburbs containing carfree zones, stores are only a walk away instead of ""along some distant highway""Source 1,6. As mentioned in Source 3 ""the goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog""21 and with limited car usage it is guaranteed that this will occur. Even though cars may be needed, there are many more efficient ways of achieving something without using your car. America has already joined in reducing their driving percentage by either using environment friendly cars or not receiving a license at all. Places all over the world believe the limiting of vehicles in their society supports their country thus a lowcar society is what it takes to ""conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety""Source 4, 43.",0
eba2167f,0,"Since I turned fifteen all I could remember dreaming of was my sixteenth birthday and getting a license, like most normal teenage girls. I just couldn't hold back on the feeling I got just thinking about a car and that freedom I would finally have as a licensed driver. That's when my mom decided how important it was to take care of the planet, and how I should dedicate my time to making this planet all the more greener. I've always been interested in the environment so I though about all the ways I could stay green...with a car that is. What most people don't understand however is the amount of pollution we have in our planet today and how we can do few simple things to avoid it, that's right girls, stop worrying so much about the car and focus more on how you could limit car usage and the advantages of doing so such as avoiding more pollution, walking which can actually help you health wise and maybe even saving money on gas a little green for green.

The amount of pollution we have here in dear mother earth is just astonishing. Take Paris for example which happens to have more smog than any other European capital. This kind of pollution isn't only bad for the environment however, it also affects us as individuals, pollution can not only intoxicate our planet but us as well. Rather than spending a life time figuring out solutions and filling our bodies up with medication we should just be avoiding the problem once and for all, kill it at its source. Avoid using so much car travel that at the end of the day, a bus can take you to the same place and best of all, it comes guilt free.

Adding to the whole idea of a healthy lifestyle and environment, try walking, which by the way also prevents car usage and so kills two birds with one stone. If you drop the keys and pick up a pair of running shoes your helping to save the envoironment and at the same time guaranteeing a longer life for yourself. Take Bogota, Colombia for instance and its brilliant idea of Carfree day. Yes, it's exactly as it sounds a whole day dedicated to reducing car usage, and although they still allow buses and taxis on the streets, regualr every day use cars are 100% banned. Whats the point of this you may ask? Well, it all must begin somewhere, one action creates a chain reaction.

One of an average persons problems here in America involve financial issues, especially now with the economy we have, gas prices aren't the same. How can you avoid a situation like this that may even help you cut down on your daily budget? How about taking other methods of transportation for a change? This way you save extra money for other necessities and at the same time, help clean out our environment by changing up your daily car trips here and there. Although it may not seem like much, a little bit of something can make a huge difference.

All in all, I believe it is important for everyone to undestand how essential it is that we put some thought into our world, especially those eager to drive. Just take a minute out of your eveyday busy schedules and find ways to reduce reuse and recycle to make our world even better for our future generations.",0
ec05cd67,0,"Cars are a great means of transportation. Unfortunately nothing is perfect. Cars have many advantages, and like everything, disadvantages too. People rely too heavily on their private vehicles especially with the easy accessibility of public transportation. Limiting the use of cars limits pollution, which is a growing issue among many people. Among that, there are many other advantages too. Limiting the use of cars is certainly a step in the right direction.

As the ice near the poles shrink, the problem of global warming grows. Global warming has been linked to car emissions. Limiting cars will limit emissions of harmful gasses into the air. Sadly people seem to like their cars more than the environment. This is unfortunate because there are so many other ways to get around. For some reason people are just too close minded to try something else. If the amount of cars on the road shrinks, then the amount of pollution going into our environment will follow. Carfree days in major cities is a good way to get the carfree trend started. With large turnouts, it certainly gets people open to the ideaSource 3. Saying that, this will not work long term. Getting the ball rolling and keeping the ball rolling are two completely different things. Car free cities is a better long term strategySource 1.

Now lets talk about our economy. Most people probably wish it was a little better. Jobs make a strong economy. If people didnt have cars they would be in need of some public transportation. Instead of paying that monthly payment on your car, go take the bus. The demand for public transportation would rise immensily thus the supply would follow opening more jobs.

All in all, limiting the use of cars has more advantages than disadvantages. Most of the potential problems could be easily fixed with a little bit of brain power. Opening more jobs and cleaning up the environment should be reason enough to switch over to a carfree lifestyle.",0
ec6a9f5e,0,"Boom the sound of ginormous truck slamming into a house full of people , smoke everywhere there's about to be a fire many people are unconscious or dead. More than half of the people in the house are rushed to the hospital. As you can see there has been an atrocious accident because of that vehicle. Their should definitely be a limiting of car usage because their would be less car accidents , people would be able to spend less money on cars and we would have less air pollution. Also having a car can cause a lot of stress or tension for people.

Obviously we're having a lot of problems with money in this world , if we limit car usage that would really help is us out a lot. See as it states in source one paragraph two "" A carowner buys a space, for forty thousand dollars , along with a home."" With those forty thousand dollars you can do a lot to help the world. It also says that fifty seven percent of the people who live in a suburban area sold their cars just move where they live at now. Who needs a car when you can just walk ""stores are placed a walk away, on a main street rather than the malls along some distant highway. ""source one paragraph 6.

Pollution is destroying our world and we need to help stop it, so here's an idea lets ban driving due to smog says Paris. Their was an enforced partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city. Do you agree with that? well I do and here's why. Paris has more smog than other European capitals so if they don't stop the smog it's going to be horrific for their city. Source three paragraph twenty one "" the goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog.""not having cars for one day is brilliant idea because is an improvement to the city of Bogota.

Their is a lot of disruptions an accidents going on because of cars mainly because of the traffic so if their was less cars it would be more peaceful. Usually when there's traffic you hear a lot honking and there's a lot fines for that. The fines are very expensive to pay so you're wasting a lot of money. Also when people are honking they don't realize that other people are sleeping. Everyone needs sleep , some people can't sleep through everything so all it takes is one honk and bam they're awake. Sleeping is really needed in your life imagine notgetting enough sleep because of traffic well yeah that would suck an a lot of people already go through that.

So in conclusion what I'm saying is car usage should definitly be limited at least in some countries or states. Money is a really big problem we have that needs to be solved and this is a great way. People living in a surburan area have to pay more just for extra parking places. Air pollution is very bad for the world with les cars that will stop as well. Traffic is not good for the world either because it is stressful an it is not good for people to be stressed.",0
ec84cc10,0,"From the small town of Cocoa, Florida, to the busy streets of Beijing, China, driving cars is a global phenomenon. It could be said that reducing the use of cars is beneficiary to the human population. Although, some believe that the negative effects of limiting automobile usage will surely outweigh the positive outcomes. The superior argument, however, is overall, less vehicle use.

Limiting car use would be an improvement to society on a global scale. According to source 1, passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. This shows that the the excessive use of transportation harms the ozone layer. Even at 12 percent, the percentage will gradually increase and later will become an even more significant threat to Earth's atmosphere. According to source 4, transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind powerplants. If the numbers were reduced, it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment. This would cause less pollution and more breathable air in the long run. The world we share will become uninhabitable if we continue in these environmental patterns.

Furthermore, there is more justification for the advantages of limiting car usage. According the source 2, congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France. This was due to the fact that Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air five days before. The amount of time it took to air out smog that rivaled Beijing,China is an impressive factor of being fuel efficient. According the source 3, Bogota Columbia has a program where, for a day, you go around town carfree. It is part of an improvement campaign that began in Bogota in the mid1990s. This has lead to the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American city. Not only does the environment become more habitable, but your physical health is improved as well.

However, some would argue that limiting vehicle use is not the route to go. According to source 2, when the Paris driving ban was enforced, delivery companies complained of lost profit. This is not completely true since plugin cars, hybrids, and other earthfriendly cars were unaffected by the Parisian ban. Car companies will still be in business because of the use of green cars instead of fossil fuelpowered automobiles. According to source 4, demographic research has shown that there has been a large drop in the percentage of 16 to 39yearolds getting a license, while older people are likely to retain their licenses as they age. This may harm the next generation as they become more dependent on alternative methods of traveling. It does not mean, however, that they won't have similar efficiency of speed and reliability with different transportations as they would now. The goverenment will have more money from public transportation to improve upon the community, and greener way. of traveling, like walking or bike riding, will create stronger immune systems and keep the majority of the population in healthy physical shape. The argument of the disadvantages of limiting car usage is somewhat counterproductive, as shown in this paragraph.

Cars, one of the less significant necessities of a well functioning society, will continue to be used. Children, teens, and adults alike will all be affected by the results of driving. We do require a method of convienient transportation for daily occurences, however, there is an extent over how much driving is sufficient to continue our everyday lives. Whatever an individual's decision may be, the amount of car usage will determine the living conditions on Earth for generations to come.",0
ecddd8fc,1,"Dear Florida Senator, I am here to tell you about thee electoral collage, and not why we should keep thee horrible theing, but how we can replace it withe sometheing better. The electoral collage has been in use for a very long time, since thee Constitution was finalized, but it should end now. The Electoral Collage is a confusing system theat can easily be manipulated and changed to benefit one political party. As shown in many past elections, it has just become anotheer reason people do not want to vote. Popular vote is easy and simple and it should be used in future elections.

First of all confusion is a huge factor when talking about thee Electoral collage. We as voters do not want all theese processes. We do not want hoops theat we want to jump therough. We are simple people who want a simple process. In thee electoral collage, theere are 538 electors, withe a majority of 270 needed to be voted in as president. Each state gets entitled to two for your senators, and one for each member of thee House of Representatives. This so far is making my head spin. This could be so much simpler if we just used thee poular voting system. In theis system, thee people can directly vote for theier president witheout any huge hassel. This makes it easier and more fair for thee voters. Speaking of fair, lets talk about how Unfair thee Electoral Collage is.

In thee Electoral Collage, theere is no partial winning. It is a winner take all system, withe thee exception of Maine and Nebraska. This makes it very unfair to votes. Swing states add on to theis idea. Swing states are very large states theat have a higher representation in thee Electoral collage. These are also thee main targets of presidential candidates. By getting theese swing states, candidates can gain a lot of votes in one state. This leaves otheer states, such as Ohio and Montana withe little to no interaction from thee presidential candidates. This is not fair. We need thee popular vote system. We need to be able to equally represent everyone witheout any shady practices. And theat is thee last topic, thee electors really control thee final outcome.

The final sin of thee electoral collage is just too big to look over. The electoral collage can change wetheer a person is voted in or not because of thee electors. They choose who theey represent. If you can not see where theis is going let me explain. A set of people who want a specific president can just represent him. This could go so far as to leave a state withe only representatives of one candidate. This could never happen in popular vote because we don't have electors, we have people. We have real American people who want to vote for who theey want to vote for. Notheing more, notheing less.

Even theough thee Electoral Collage seems like the root of all evil, theere are a few upsides. First, theere is less likely to have a dispute thean a popular vote. A dispute is not impossible, it is just less likely. Second, big states are weighted how theey should be. They are larger states theat comprise most of thee population and thee country. They should be represented more thean smaller states. Finally, since it is a winner takes all, theere are no RunOff elections. This keeps thee process shorter, but not as short as it would be in thee popular vote system.

So to conclude, popular vote should be used in upcomming elections. The electoral collage is a confusing system theat can easily be manipulated to help or hurt a specific candidate. Altheough thee electoral collage properly represent smaller states and avoids RunOff elections, it does not represent smaller states and can easly shift thee election from one side to anotheer. Popular vote keeps thee process short and makes it fair. It represents everyone fairly. I do not want you to agree withe me, I want you to look and thee cold hard facts. Popular vote should be used in thee Election from now on.",0
ecf3d6e9,1,"Dear state senator , i strongly believe in keeping the electoral college to be in care of the way the elections would proceed instead of changing the outcome of elections to popular vote because voters may not believe in what the candidate's intentions for the people but may like the candidate, it is more organized , and the people would be pleased with the outcome.

The electoral college is a great way of proceeding with elections because changing the way our election system is to one of popularity voting would not be wise because voters may not believe in what the candidate's intentions are for the people but they may like the candidate. There is more of a certainty when the electoral college is in charge for example when Obama was running against rodney he only received 61.7% of the electoral vote compared to the 51.3% percent of the popular votes that have been casted for both him and rodney but because of the majority percentage of electoral votes that were casted in his favor.

The electoral college is more organized than a popular vote because if a voter has voted for example Obama for the electoral vote but voted for rodney for the popular vote it would be unorganized because of the split vote between popular and electoral which is recquired the majority of when in a public govermental election which could impact the whole future for the nation. The election for Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 they both had only a 43 percentage plurality of popular votes while also winning a majority in the electoral college which was 301 and 370 electoral votes. When no candidate fully wins the majority of the votes that were casted they wouldn't have to recount the votes of have a reelection which would drain the economies money because of the high amount of money put into one election in the first place just to have another election, whereas the electoral college can just step in and rectify the situation just by producing a clear winner on their own instead of going through a long process just to find out who the clear winner is all they have to do is debate among themselves who they believe the people would be happy with in the long run.

Electoral college is the best way because in the long run the people would be pleased with the outcome that they have voted for because if it was turned into a popular vote election people who voted for a specific president wouldn't have won just because they aren't popular amongst the people that are voters iin that year's election. However the popular vote election may also be a good idea because if the voters cast a vote for you in the popular election that should essentially like your intentions that would benefit the countries needs and demands that are recquired for us in the long run.

Therefore the electoral college should stay in charge of all decsions having to do with the elections for new presidencey when the time time comes because if it was changed to popular vote people would vote for the candidate that they like the best instead of the candidate with the best intentions for the nation, it is considerably more organized than a popular vote election , and the people would be end up being pleased with the outcome in the long run.",0
ed32d7df,0,"We don't need them if we all work together Car pool denser cities alts will be available public transit Sidewalks roads Convenients1l6 Better for uscan still interact without overdrivinginteractive bikingwalking online interaction Giving our cars up in this day and age seems impossible but if everyone can work together, new opportunities will arise that'll outweigh the convenience of having a personal vehicle. We won't need cars if we all work and cooperate with one another. Not only that but it'll become more cost effective and convenient as a whole in the long run. Once all is said and done, limiting car usage can only be positive.

Many questions would arise if this idea was approached, wouldn't we take longer to get places? Isn't it inconvenient and a stepback from personal commuting? The answer would be yes, but for the most part it's the point. Sure you make take longer to get places by car pooling or taking public transit, but if anyone is doing it there'll be no comparison of time with personal commuting, personal commuting will be gone. If no cars were available cities would compensate with free bikes when commuting or public transit. The nocar weekend in Paris allowed free public transit, so in the longterm it'd also be free Source 2. City planning would be modified to compensate for the increased commuting time making the long commutes a little easier. If we all work together we won't need cars, and in the end it'd be positive overall.

In a world of reduced personal commuting, the cost of living would improve as well. Money spent on gas or car maintenance would be nonexistent. Instead of using taxes on expensive roads, they'll be used on inexpensive sidewalks, just like in Bogota Source 3. With the extra cash from no car expenses it'll be easier to purchase luxury items you may want. Cities will be made with convenience in mind, placing key stores in easily accessible areas, similarly to vaughn's store placement Source 1. This would answer the question of inconvenience, A ten minute drive can become a ten minute bike or walk with strategic placement. In the end, a reduced car usage society would be more cost effective and convenient, a definite positive compared to an automobile society.

Cars are definitely important to many people, but only because the majority have cars. Take everyone's cars away and they wouldn't have a reason to need one. If we all work together we won't need cars, people will help one another and cities would be planned better. In this society you'd have more money to use as you please, instead of using it to survive. Most important of all, the time to take a car someplace rather than any other alternative would be the same important locations can always relocate for everyone's convenience. A world without cars can only be positive.",0
ed465f1f,1,"Dear, or. President I need to get something off my chest, we need to change the way we the people vote. An Electoral college isn't the right way to do it anymore. We need to change to the peoples popular vote. Because this is a country for the people, we aren't voting for the president, and because electoral vote just isn't fair.

or. President the first reason why we should change the popular vote is because this country is supposed to be for the people and in an electoral vote it's not. In the electoral vote its about the government and who they want as president and alot of people DO NOT like that. People of the United States of America should be able to vote and pick who they as a president of there country. It should be our right as Americans to be able to pick our own president not a bunch of old smart people in suits in Congress. I under stand that there is 538 as it says in the article What Is the Electoral College? by the Office of the Federal Register, but their is more than 300 million Americans. So technically we aren't even voting for you.

Which brings me to my next reason, we aren't even voting for the president. When there is an Electoral college we are voting for the slate of electors in congress that will vote for the president as it says in the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the systems are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer. So like I said before a bunch of old men and old women are they taking our votes away from us. For example, in 2000 Al Gore would've won the election but because the electoral vote beat him. He had the popular vote of the people but says the congress chose other wise he lost the election. According to the same article as it says above. Over 60% of people rather people's popular vote other the electoral vote.

Last but definetely not least, the electoral college just isn't fair at all. Maybe it's fair for the government before they can basically just pick the president that they want, but it's supposed to be a country for the people. It says it in the Constitution We The Government. Also the winner takes all system, the candidates don't pay attention to the smaller states they just look and the big states like California, Florida, or New York. So technically they are cheating the electoral college because they don't pay attention to all the elected slates of those small states. According to the article "" The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the sytem are wrong"" by bradford Plumer.

In Conclusion, or. President if you care about what the people want you would abolish the Electoral college. Because this is a country for the people, we aren't even voting for the president, and because it's just not fair. It needs to be changed to the popular vote. I've been waiting to get that off my chest for a while.

Yours Truly, P.s: I hope you read this and take off the electoral college.",0
ed6ef02f,0,"There are several advantages of limiting car usage. A couple of them are that there would be less pollution in the air and that communities would be set up different to make it easier to get to places without having to drive to these place you could just walk instead.

One advantage of limiting car usage is that there would be less pollution. Source 4 says, ""If the pattern persits and many sociologists believe it will it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions."" This shows that if you cut out some of your car usage there will be less carbon in the air. Which would lead to less pollution and a better living environment for everybody. Source 3 says, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" The person who said this was talking about the car free day that occurs in Colombia. Going just one day without your car can have an impact on the carbon emissions and help bring down the amount of air pollution in that area.

Another advantage of limiting car usage is new community set ups. Source 1 says, ""But it's basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking. In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway."" This shows that the government is willing to set up the community in a different way to limit the amount of car usage on a daily basis. Which also makes your shopping trips more convinant because the stores you need or want to go to are walking distance from your house. Source 3 says, ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up. This explains how the city is being remodeled to help encourage people to start using their cars less and to be able to walk to many places instead of driving there by bringing these places closer to their houses.

There are several advantages of limiting car usage. A couple of them are that there would be less pollution in the air and that communities would be set up different to make it easier to get to places without having to drive to these place you could just walk instead.

There are several advantages of limiting car usage. A couple of them are less pollution and new community set ups.",0
ed842ad6,0,"Cars have been around since the early 1900's, but now it seems there is no need for them. The younger generations have not been getting drivers licences and technology is making it easier to ride with someone else or telework. It is an all out war against automobiles and the United States isn't the only one fighting in it. Vauban, Germany, bogota, Columbia, and Paris, France have all joined the war against personal cars.

How to win a war against cars stop owning them. Vauban, Germany's population is doing just that. Over half of vaughn's population sold theirs cars so they could live in Vauban, and over seventy percent don't own a car. If people don't own cars, then there is no need for parking. Now, without parking lots or garages all over the place stores and schools can be closer to home. For those that require a car to get to a farther away work there are two parking garages, but to own a spot in one of them one you must buy a home there and pay forty thousand for the parking space. Residents of this experiment have even gone to say that without a vehicle they are less stressed and happier.

Joy was not what Paris commuters felt when France closed down the streets to certain vehicles for one week. Why would they close the streets smog bad enough to rival one of the most polluted cities in the world. Paris is usually the European city that has all the smog, 147 micrograms to London's 79.7. So the government decided to do something about it. For five days they alternated from even licensedplate cars could drive to odd licensedplate cars could drive. To appease everyone without cars the government made public transportation completly free allowing those without vehicles to still get to where they needed to go.

In the war against cars public transportation has played a big role. Take the city of bogota, Colombia for example every year they have a completly car free day where everyone takes public transportation or walks. Due to the day without cars public transportation is better than ever, as are the sidewalks. Busses have nicer interiors and are more accomodating, and old, cracked sidewalks have turned into smooth, flat sidewalks that are safer for everyone.

Some might say that it is impossible to live without cars, because of illnesses and the lack of safety. However, in Vuaban, Germany people are less stressed which acounts for many immune systems shutting down. In Paris, France they were able to clear their city of smog in five days, without smog there would be nothing to hide the sun on a nice day letting people get vitamen C also while keeping their lungs clear. In bogota, Colombia public transpotation and sidewalks have improved tenfold since the day without cars started as has safety. Without cars there are no accidents, people cannot injure others by drunk or reckless driving, and it allows the police to watch for crime instead of speeders. Overall our society would benefit grately from becomeing carless.",0
ed8b9c7d,0,"Imagine a world where there is no traffic or loud motor from cars passing by. Think of all the benefits that would come with less or even no cars on the road. Well in the city of VAUBAN, Germany they have almost completely knock out all the cars in the city. The city has carfree streets allowing more flow of commuters on bikes and walking. 70 percent of the families have no car with 57 percent that sold their car just to move there. Heidrun Walter feels much less tense now then when she owned a car. However some may ask ""How do you get all you produce or go shopping?"". Well VAUBAN is one step ahead because all the stores are within walking distance, rather then traveling down highways crowded with daily commuters, and there are some public transport still make there way around town, such as the city's tram. One major problem with cars is the emissions they let out. Now in cities like VAUBAN where there would be at most two cars on the same road, it's more of a minor problem. But in cities like New York, where the streets are crowded with cars, it begins to cause many problems. The emmisons are known as greenhouse gas and can often choke a cities population. Now in a city like Paris how would people limit smog, and car emissions. They chose to limit the cars, causing the separation of commuters driving days by license plate numbers being even or odd. They enforce this limit with a fine of 22 euro. Of course this took a little getting use to since it came so suddenly causing four thousand driver to be fined and 27 had their cars impounded simply because they didn't like the fine. Now most people were probably not to happy to be getting fined, however the statistic showed that the limit was working and traffic that was down 60 percent. However it wasn't completely the commuter fault, since france had a tax policy for gasoline many people preferred to use diesel which was about 67 percent of the vehicles. Even though most of the traffic was down by 60 percent, Paris still has more pm then most erupean capital such as brussels 114. In BOGOTA,Colombia they took the idea of a car free city with a different approach. Instead of outright, banning cars or placing limits on days certain people can dirve, they instead banned all cars for a day excluding buses and taxis. However instead of outrage by the public many of the colombians just walked, biked or took some form of public transport. Since the begining of the project in the mid 90s over 110 miles of bike paths have been cvonstructed within the city. Another benefit is the uprise in sports and park areas, restaurants and shopping districts, since people have more time to see things they like or want. Now most of this eassy is about orther cities in different contries, but what about us, the USA. Obama has revealed his plans to lower the greenhouse gas emissions. But it seems the people have already thought ahead as statistic show less cars licenses and driving over the years. Some say it was due to to the recsession since many people were to poor to afford a car or just didnt need one since the didin't work. Mr. Sivak's reasearch has proved that getyting a car is no lopnger a proirity but instead something you get if you have moeny. He states. Mine 19 and 21 have not bother to get a driver's license, even though they both live in places where it would come in handy."" Even statistic show the between 2001 and 2009 young driver population has dropped 23 percent. The cars we use today are slowly edging their way out of our daily lives, and with the help of some laws, limits or outright bans cars will soon become a thing of the past.",0
edf53a65,0,"Aren't you tired of the accidents that happens frequently on the road, getting stuck in traffic and not getting to work on time or any important event that you must attend, and also the air being polluted by the gas cause by the car that gets us sick? Do you think it would be a good idea if we limit the usage of the car?. When you limit car usage it makes the world safer, it save time and less injury will occur.

When the car usage is limited it save time. When more people are walking on foot or riding bicycle its less chance of traffic in the streets and people can get to where they are going much faster. More cars on the road means more traffic, more waiting and a much higher percentage of people losing their jobs because of constantly being late for work. It is also beneficial because you dont have to keep buying gas to put in your car and you have to remember that the bigger your vehicle is, is the more gas it use. Dont you prefer saving your money to do other important things than worrying about paying insurance and buying gas? In my perspective i think it would work out great.

Air pollution is one of the biggest problem now not only in the United States but all around the world. The cars that are used on the road is what contributes to the pollution because the fuel from the car is what helps to pollute the air and pollution is what cause people to get sick. Based on the article cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions. It also stated that Diesel was blamed for these actions since diesel makes up 67 percent of vehicles in countries like France and 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of Western Europe. In this case the less car usage the better it is for our health and the better it is also for our environment.

When the car usage increase is the more accident that will occur on the road. Alot of people now a days are very reckless and care free when it comes on to driving on the road especially teenagers. Teenagers are known for getting into alot more accidents than any other people mainly because they are the ones that party alot and are not cautious when it comes on to drugs and alcohol. When the car usage is limited is the less accidents that will happen and it will be safer for people. occurring to or. Sivak when he was growing up he was curious about the kind of car people drove, but young people don't really care. A car to them just means getting from point A to point B.

Others may argue that having a car is much easier and faster to carry you to your destination than walking, riding a bicycle or using public transportation. Evening though this may be true cars are not safer than walking and riding a bicycle and it is also cause alot of accidents and to remind you it helps contribute to the pollution. As stated in the article with all these changes, people who stopped car commuting as a result of the recession may find less reason to resume the habits. In other words the more people get use to walking and riding bicycles its going to harder for them to take up back the habit of having a car that takes them everywhere.

In conclusion when the car usage is limited its the less accidents that will occur. The better it is for your health because when you ride a bike or walk that is also exercising and exercising is good because it keeps your body fit and in shape and the less chance of people like elderly having muscle pains and nerve problems. It also help to save money, life and time and help people not to be lazy. In this case limiting car usage will help the world tremendously.",0
edfefc3f,0,"The struggles in many peoples lives rely on timerelated events such as work, school, and other priorities. These time limits have been built up through our transportation and the bumps that come with it. Traffic is an obvious limit on peoples time every day. However, if traffic was nonexistent, how could these struggles be taken away? Simple, everybody gets to their destination without polluting the air or wasting time behind cars walking or using a bike is the way to go. Avoiding the usage of cars has many positives such as, being free from time constraints with transportation, being more active, and being an avid ""green"" human that is saving the Earth.

Traffic is all around us, whether it be internet or transportation traffic. The usage of cars has limited job arrivals because of the time that should be taken to drive to the job site. Yet, job sites should be centered around the employees as cars should toned down in the first place. ""... stores are placed a walk way, on a main street, rather than in malls in some distant highway."" Source 1, this quote directly supports and addresses a problem that has been prolonged for too long. Restaurants, sporting good stores, and shopping malls have all corralled themselves in areas that are too distant for consumers to readily access. With cars slimmed down in numbers, stores would be in place for the consumer and the employee.

""...millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital eerily devoid of traffic jams."" Source 3. When being are more active throughout the day, occurrences such as this are allowed to happen much more often. A day free of cars in Bogota left streets almost completely traffic free which in turn reduced smog and allowed for alternative transportation.Source 3. Cars allow us to ride through hundreds of miles with just the use of a few muscles. Running just 1 mile burns hundreds of calories and gets people feeling good. When people are fit and healthy, they feel better about themselves and have more confidence. The limitation of cars would allow this feeling to arise in thousands of people. People felt so good, they let nothing stop them ""The rain hasn't stopped people from participating,"" Source 3.

Saving the Earth is extremely important and many people are aware of that. However, very few of those people take action. This is primarily because of the way our daily lives are ran. Work is a necessity to support for one's own and their families, so getting to work, whether by car or by bus, is something that will not stop. However, the alternativees of tranportation allow us to reach that goal without using gasemitting cars or buses. Bikes and even hybrid cars are now rising up in today's society ""A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009"". Source 4. Young people have a strong influence on society and if they worry less about the car that they are driving or even driving at all, then there is certainly something going on. Cities are now also taking part in this action, ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city... Congestion was down 60 percent in the captial of France..."" Source 2. A simple temporary ban can not only change the mind of an individuals view on using other alternativees for tranportation, but also allow them to experience those alternativees.

The consequences that cars toll people with today are greatly weighing on an individuals daily life. They have their schedule built around their car and are constantly being time constrained because of it. The effect greenhouse gases have on the Earth is huge and has not stopped. In order to help the Earth in this parituclar topic, this action would be miraculous. Not only do many people become lazy and very unhealthy because of cars, but they also take for granted what they can do without them. Hiking and other activities are missed out on the daily because of these vehicles. Many people can accomplish new goals and set new goals if it were not for certain transportation methods.",0
ee182803,1,"electoral College would be better than the popular votes and I will be telling you about how in the next few paragraphs. Technically speaking electoral college is a popular vote, but in a different way. We vote for the electors. So that would mean the majority of the population have to still vote. Wouldn't you rather have a well thought out person than some one that isn't that smart or well thought out. Some one that could make a better decision for you.

Voters can still vote just not for the president. You would be voting for the electors who will then elect the president. Voting for a certain elector you could still be voting for the president you want. The popular votes can be tied together, many of the votes before were so close to being tied, and that would be a wreck. Could you imagine what would happen to the people. They would go crazy. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't ever happen. Having an electoral college could cause some dispute, but not as much as the popular vote has already caused. So many arguments and with an electoral college not many would have to deal with those disputes.

The electoral college requires a presidential candidate to have a transregional appeal. So that means no one president can win because of a regional favorite. I mean who would want a president that would most likely favor a certain region because they voted for him. They would feel like he wasn't even their president or they had no say in votes. A president with only regional appeal would most likely not be a good president.

The electoral college makes sure that the electors will pay close attention to the campaign knowing that they decide the election. So the electors will be more thoughtful than some people in the popular vote. The electors can make a better decisions than most of us can. They would be able to make the decisions better and listen to the candidates more than we ever could.

Yes in some ways the popular vote can be good, but think of all the people that make the wrong decisions. The ones that would just vote for how the candidate looks. Not the thoughts and campaigns he brings. So in many more ways the Electoral college is better than the popular vote.",0
ee6fb060,1,"The Electoral Colleage is not a Colleage like it sounds, but it is a process. It is a verry complex process and sofar since our government was started it is working fine, right? Well you are wrong. First, let me give a brief explanation what the electoral College is. It is a process that our government has ben using for a very long time that was started in the constitution. What it does, Each state has a number of people in it pledged to a president, such as Obama. When the people vote, it goes to those people and then they vote on who got the majority. Sometimes, this docent work. Some of these ""people"" dont stick to their pledge and vote for someone els, like if 70% of the votes were for Bill, he is supposto vote for Bill. He docent half to and can vote for Bob instead, and this is the big problem with tis method.

florida has 29 people representing it. Places such as California and Texas have 55, and 38, But if you look at places such as hawaii and Alaska, they have around 3 or voters. They have less voters because there population is less than the places with higher amounts of voters. Here is another problem, the bigger states like Texas, California, florida, etc. have a MASSIVE advantage over these places with less people. I believe that votes should be directly by how many people choose someone and whoever gets the higher vote, wins. It's WAY simpler than the way currently used and the more simple something is, the less problems occur.

One argument agenst this way of ""the higher vote wins"" is that it is possible that the votes are so close that there is no clear winner, but with the current way, if there is a tie in the electoral colleage, then it goes to the peoples votes. In 1968, if just 41,71 votes would have made it a tie, and thats extremely close. Dont YOU want to vote for the president, or would you rather vote for someone to vote for ho you want and they could be corrupt and vote for the opposite that they are supposto vote for wich has happened.

If people decided to rid of this mess of a voting system called ""The Electoral College"", wich would be a big leap to accomplish due to the ammount of supporters, would be a great accomplashment. It would also lead to those 29 people in flordia living off of doing practicly nothing and getting money having to get a real job to get money. These would be the people that try and not get rid of it and tell the good parts of it and most likley lie like most government people do, all so they can get money, withought doing practicly anything. In the 2000's, Al Gore recieved more votes than his opponent, George Bush. Bush wone even though more people wanted gore, and this happened because the Electoral College gave Bush more votes, making him win the election. Dosent is seem wrong that the people wanted Gore, but we still got Bush?

Not all of these people working in the Electoral College are like this though, Some might actuially believe it's a good idea to keep it and are a part of it not for the money. When people advertise for who to vote for, they dont advertise in Alaska or Rhode island, They advertise to the states with the most Electoral Colleage members are, such as florida, Texas, and California.",0
ee7058bb,1,"""Just be fair"" quotes many people everyday. In the article ""Does the Electoral College Work?"" Source 1: ""What Is the Electoral College"" by the Office of the Federal register, Source 2: ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer, and Source 3: ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President."" I think that the Electoral College should be abolished and to elect a president by popular vote.

The first thing to remember, is that the Electoral College is unfair and needs to be changed to the popular vote because the people should be able to vote who they want to be president. The author mentions in Source: 3 paragraph 18 that ""A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possibleit happened in 2000but it is less likely than a dispute over the popular vote."" This proves that with the Electoral College in place that there may be a big controversy about who should be the next president. Arguments would also break out between the political parties that are trying to elect their candidate president. With popular vote you could avoid all these conflicts and disputes by letting the people elect the president outright with no questions. With this in mind, there should be no Electoral College because the author suggests in Source 3: paragraph 19 that ""The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as rodney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his polarity in states that he knows he will win."" A presidential candidate should be able to gain votes from his region because that is the states the candidate are more familiar with so, he will be able to campaign better in those states and if he becomes president he will be equal to all the other regions. You could avoid this with the fair method of popular vote.

Another key point, is that the number of votes coming from each state should be equal in the amount of votes. The author claims in Source 2: paragraph 10 that ""If you lived in Texas for instance, and wanted to vote for John Kerry, you would vote for a slate of 34 electors pledged to Kerry. With popular vote you would not have to worry about all of the votes that each state gives from the Electoral College. Popular vote lets the people deside no the Electoral College deside. If two candidates were running for president and one was from Florida and the other one was from Alaska, their state could be the deciding factor which the one from Florida will win because it has more votes than Alaska which is not fair. Truly, the Electoral College should be replaced by popular vote because there is a winnertakeall system. The author shadows in Source 1: paragraph 7 that ""Most states have a ""winnertakeall' system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of ""proportional representation."" The thing is that with a popular vote system you would not have to worry about a winnertakeall and states that have a different system than the other states. Just let the people decide and everything will be easy and fair.

On the flip side, the Electoral College should not be replaced because it avoids any type of runoff election that may occur. The author argues in Source 3: paragraph 22 that ""The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in wich no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast."" This shows that with the Electoral College it would relieve all of the stress that is put on a candidate when they are running and the stress could also complicate the process of electing the president. With the Electoral College their will be a winner no matter what happens which will clearly the most fair way to complete the process of electing the president.

To conclude, after analyzingthe article ""Does the Electoral College Work?"" Source 1: ""What Is the Electoral College"" by the Office of the Federal Register, Source 2: ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" by Bradford Plumer, and Source 3: ""In Defense of the Electoral Collge: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" by Richard A. Posner I think that the Electoral College should be replaced by a popular vote system.",0
ee82f80b,1,"Mr. Senator election by popular votee is the way to go, let the people decide! It's their choice to pick who runs the U.S.A. this is the choice of who they want to run the country. The citizens should have a right to votee for who they really want. Instead of having a couple hundred people I think we should have all the people in the country choose. So why dont we? We can establish this rule and make it right let the citizens of the U.S.A. pick who the president should be!

Electoral collage as the office of Federal Register in quote ""The Electoral College consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting og the electors where they votee for the President and Vice President"". It's a bad idea to me when you can just make everyone votee for who they want not who just a couple hundred people want. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors which a certain amount need to votee as 270 is the precise number is required. Each candidate running each has a group of electors, they are originally chosen by the candidates politicial party. The choice where the people choose and votee is way easier than that, we have a choice for what we want.

The ""Indefensible Electoral College"" is wrong your voteing for the electors as it says in paragraph 10. Bradford Plumer says as I quote ""Under the electoral college system voteers votee not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the President. There for we are voteing for the electors right? So whats the whole point when we can stick to our ways and vote ourselves. This makes it way more simple and faster, better than waiting through the system for other people to votee, when you can just do it yourself.

Theres no reason for each party to select a slate of electors. It can be argued that this system can turn off potential voteers as a candidate. There are 5 reasons for retaining this system. Those are certainty of outcome, everyone's President, swing States, Big states, and avoid runoff elections. Still we need to be able to make our own decisions. We don't need other people to make them for us.

These people in the U.S.A. are determined in what they want, not what other people want. They want to choose what they believe they don't want to go through a long system. When you can just do it yourself its easier, because you know what your doing but if you go the other way you have to teach the people your working with. When you have the whole Country voteing it makes it more simple and easy to go through the process. So let the people choose who they really want as the President of the U.S.A. dont leave it to other people to do it for them.",0
ee8bf6ec,1,"Election by popular vote would be a much better system because Electoral college can be unpredictable and is an unfair method of voting for voters.

To begin, The Electoral College isn't always predictable. In the article Does the Electoral College Work states ""laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are."" This shows that Electors from every state may not be chosen correctly or by trustworthy sources. These Electors may also have different requirements to do their job or how to become an elector, so states will may have different respones from their electors. Another example of this is shown in The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong which states ""Electors could always defy the will of the people."" This demonstrates that the people who vote for these electors can easily be betrayed by the people they voted for. At any point of time these electors that should be voting for the candidate they are chosen to can change their mind and vote for whomever they please. Clearly, the electors for the Electoral College can be unpredictable and by the time are chosen it may be too late this is why we must change to popular vote.

In addition, The Electoral College is an unfair method of voting for voters. In the article The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong it states ""Candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance winning."" This shows that candidates aren't even going to certain states because they believe the Electoral College points won't be given to them. This is unfair to voters because they can't even make a proper decision on the president because they may only see one candidate. So this entire state is not fully informed on the election and may chose the wrong candidate when there may be one that shares more of their beliefs in the election. furthermore, in the article In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep ur despised method of choosing the President it states ""The Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state."" This explains that potential voters may not vote because they know that candidate will most likely not win for their state. Depending on what type of people there are in that region race, religion, political point of view they may not vote on a certain candidate. So most voters know their one vote probably wouldn't make a difference. If we had popular vote everyone would have say in who is chosen for our president.

To conclude, We should change to popular vote because by using the Electoral College we allow unpredictable people to vote for entire states and inable voters to have an unfair election.",0
eea41775,0,"Using cars can be a damage to our environment. It could cause smog and that can damage our lungs. According to the article ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", it says that ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" What Paris is doing is correct they want to get rid of the smog and the only way to do it is to get rid of the cars. Paris has more smog then other European capitals. Somes other type of transportation a person can take instead of cars are hiking,skating, take a bus and also walking.

In the article ""In German suburb,Life Goes On Without Cars"" Heidrun Walter states ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Having a car is always stressful you always have to think if your car needs gas or your always stuck in traffic. Without a car we don't have to worry about things like that. Not having a car is always helpful for people's body, they go out more for walks and that helps them be more active. in the article ""The End of Car Culture"" they are asking them self ""Has America passed peak driving?"". In these year there are not some many cars in the streets as there used to be. People perfer to take a bus or ride there bikes to work.

Using a car can also be a benefit. How can people get to places that are far away, not by walking or not taking the bus. What happens if the the route your taking dosen't go where you need to be. The perfect solution is getting a car. You can carpool your friends. However the gas price keeps going up. All the money you spend on your car bill. Use it for taking you family to eat or the one year family trip. In the article"""" a mother says that her 19 and 21 year old are not interested in getting there driver license ""They are interested but it's not a priority. They organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends."" I would perfer to take the bus or walk somewhere then to go on car. In the bus you can meet new people and make a friendship. And walking is a good form of exercise.

In Conclusion limiting car usage is good, there would be less smog and it can be a health environment for the oldest and youngest persons living in this planet. Limiting car usage you can also take it as a form of exercise, walking, taking your bike to work or school. And also,why waste all your money on your car bill?.SAVE UP!!.Lets limited our car usage.",0
ef102c65,0,"All across the globe, a revolutionary idea is being set in motion. The idea of essentially banning cars from the streets has sparked as much interest as it has critics. The automotive industry has been booming since World War 2, and although the positive effects of cars can be seen in our daily lives, we seldom take into consideration of the negative impacts of cars. Effects such as pollution, traffic, and cost have impacted our lives as automotive users, even if we have not realized it.

Pollution is one of the primary concerns of a world that is constantly driving, yet it is something people hardly take into account when driving. In theory that is understandable, considering the last thing a person is thinking about when they're driving is what their car is spitting out into the atmosphere. However pollution doesn't go unnoticed for long. For example, the city of Paris, France enforced a partial driving ban in order to decrease the almost record breaking pollution across the city, stating, ""The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" The smog did clear from the city and previous driving laws were reinstated, however this shows how car pollution has a negative impact on the world around us.

Another negative impact of driving is traffic. Traffic is a driver's worst nightmare, and it affects all of us at some point in our lives. In Bogota, Columbia, citizens participated in a drivingfree day, where everyone was encouraged to either hike, bike, skate, or use public transportation in order to reach their destination. This event, in which millions of Colombians participated, was reportedly ""leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" This program left a positive mark on the city of Bogota, and will hopefully soon spread to other countries, reducing crowded, traffic filled streets around the world.

The world runs on money, just ask any Wall Street broker. This is a paradox concerning both car owners and people looking to purchase a car. The question remains, if we're all trying to save money, why spend thousands of dollars on a costly car? According to a census taken in 2013, ""Part of the explanation certainly lies in the recession, because cashstrapped Americans could not afford cars, and the unemployed weren't going to work anyway."" This shows that the number of people buying cars is steadily decreasing. Another costly problem of cars is fuel. Buying gasoline for your car every week can get incredibly costly, especially when driving a large truck or sports car. This shows how the cost of cars can have a negative impact on our lives.

In conclusion, the use of cars is steadily declining. Cars just aren't a very positive motive for transportation anymore considering the effects of pollution, traffic, and cost that cars produce.",0
ef3f271c,0,"The limiting on car usage would be a huge positive on the world and the people. As everyone knows, cars now adays are the key to ""Making it around the world"". They say cars make your life easier and its good for the economy. Some of those facts are true but at the same time not exactly.

Automobiles are the ""linchpin of suburbs"". People can not live without their cars and need them for where ever they need to go work,the park,the store. Sooner or later in the future humans might not live at all with the usage of cars. In the article In German Suburbs,Life Goes On Without Cars, it says ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe"". All these fums and such are being spread in the air. And in Paris, pollution was a big effect on the people. Filing the air with smokes and harmful gases that affect a persons health. Do you want to go outside and have a hard time breathing? Nope i didnt think so. Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France after intensifying smog. Diesel fuel was the cause of that only because France favors diesel over gasoline. This decrease in cars will be better for implications for carbon emissions and the environment.

When you buy a car, you need space for it to stay in. A space can cost up to 40,000 max. That is alot of money you could save for other appliances and daily life products. Also with a car you may get fines for speeding or anything in that state. In the article Paris bans driving due to smog Robert Duffer said motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine. Almost 4,000 drivers were fined. The less cars the better! why go through all that trouble. As well as less cars means no highway usage meaning more construction for buildings and stores. And think about it! More stores you can shop at and save more money to shop at those stores because you arent buying gas everywhere you go and paying for car insurance.

Cars are beneficial for alot of things. But for the people and our future,it would be best to cut out cars and make our lives healthier and better. It will become a huge positive on the world.",0
ef4be617,0,"One of the largest sources of pollution around the world is transportation, such as in automobiles being used in everyday life to get around from point a to point b. Many cities and countries are trying to find ways to decrease the amount of smog and pollution caused by car edmissions. People are finding ways such as banning cars or even having days where a car is not allowed to be used. Finding new ways to decrease the greenhouse effect is a revolutionary way by starting out with automobiles, since it plays such a great factor in many peoples life everyday.

In Vauban, Germany a community has a limited restriction toward cars. Cars are only to be parked in a garage on the edge of the development with a payment of 400,00. 57 percent of residents have sold their car to live in a community where no cars are allowed. Residents claim to be more happier and have felt tense with a car always around. This effort to decrease the number of emissions and now only has Europe responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas, as in the United States it is responsible for 50 percent. Numbers are dropping in Europe which leads to a healthier environment to live in.

Another way,that Cities in Europe have started to take part is, banning cars off the streats of Paris. Paris has a large portion of smog than other European Capitals. Congestion was low during the five day period that automobiles where banned off the streets of paris. Within the fiveday period public transportation was free to get people places. The results of this car banning was a success to clear out the smog which is a risk of endangering a person's health.

Other countries such as Colombia have cities that have a car free day. Bogota is a capital of seven million that have people participate in a car free event taken every year. Businessman Carlos Aruto Plaza has claimed that it was a ""good opportunity to take stress and lower air pollution"". Rain also doesn't stop millions of people from participating in this event to reduce traffic jams and pollution. This campaign is enticing municipal authorities from other countries to start this revolutionary change that soon may be the future.

Also,car production is steady decreasing in the United States due to less young people getting a drivers licence. Young people do not bother on getting a licence or a car because they have public transportation or either car pool with friends. It has led a 23 percent decrease of young people on the road. Not many people go out to meet their friends and rather do it via internet, since technology has been increasing and is another part of daily routines. Cities such as New York have been taking part in a bikesharing program to reduce traffic in large cities. These new ways to decrease pollution are still being tested but it seems like less people will be off the road and more engaged in less traffic.

Decreasing driving is a major priority to decrease smog around cities and the greenhouse effect. Having car free days and banning cars promotes healthier lives. It decreases the risk of having health problems and stress which can have major effects on one's well being. Supporting communities without automobiles and car free days results in living happier lives. Traffic has decreased and people are left happier breathing in less polluted air.",0
efad7d63,0,"The era of mass car usage is slowly coming to an end. Many countries around the world are implementing innovative methods of limiting car usage in their country. Although a car may seem like the logical and easier way for one to get around, there are many other less costly, and better for the environment methods of transportation. It is crucial to the future of the environment for the world to act now and use less cars. Cars produce emissions that are very bad for the ozone. If the ozone tears, radiation from the sun will penetrate the atmosphere and severely damage the earth in which so many life forces thrive. There are countless advantages of limiting car usage that would benefit all the world in the longhaul.

New communities are rising all over the globe where car usage is severely limited and all residents are pedestrians. It may seem like a dysfunctional community but the residents actually feel to the contrary. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" without the use of cars, residents and their families feel much more content. All the resources they need are within the community and definently within walking or biking distance. This is just one of many progressive ideas that has proved successful and very beneficial.

In other cities where pollution is very high, bans on car usage are coming into place very well. Citizens are discouraged by law to operate personal forms of transportation on certain days. This came into place in Paris after the whole city was drowned in smog. Smog is the pollution exerted from cars and mixed with fog. Although some people did break the law to use their car, it worked for the most part. Many people do not realize the the effect pollution has on the environment until they are able to see physical change. That is why the world must act now before physical change can be seen globaly.

Change needs to happen now. Many communities are begining to see the effects of their cares and are using them less. Cars are a trend that is slowly decreasing. maybe one day, there will be no harmful car usage. Maybe one day. Change is a' comin.",0
efbb5fe0,1,"Dear Senator, What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of the Presidential elections? Do you think about the complicated electoral college or the popular vote? As an average citizen who is not in politics i immediately think of the popular vote when it comes to the Presidential elections. Why do we have the electoral college anways? Shouldn't the people be able to decide who the president is not the state legislature.

SO therefore instead of the electoral college we should just stick to the popular vote.

As an American you have certain unalienable rights, and the act of voting is one of them. So if its our right to vote than we should be able to do it not other people. The electoral college isnt that safe either. In 1960 as stated in the text, when President Kennedy ran for office segregationist in the state of Louisiana nearly succeeded in replacing the democratic voters elected by the people with voters who would have voted against Kennedy. Or in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Busch won the electoral vote and caused the biggest election scandal of the century. These are just a few examples of instances where the majority has won but the electoral college has caused an issue in the election. I am unsure of your preferences over popular or electoral but who the majority of the American people decide should become the President. We shouldnt allow some 538 politicians out of some 3 million citizens to choose the President. The American people should choose all of us not 538.

Though our founding fathers decided that we needed a system to decide the President instead of letting the people decide times have changed. Scandals have taken place, and issues have risen. But yet we still use this process even though we have an election all it does it we elect a select few to represent us. Why cant we just pick right away? The Constitution of the United States of America is based off of a democracy where the people run the government through our elected officials. Nowhere does it say that we elect people to elect the president. That doesnt sound like the country electing the president it sounds like a few ""qualified people"" electing the president.

So Senator I ask you that you make a motion to eliminate the electoral college. All it does is take away our rights as citizens to elect our officials. It has caused many scandals as well. So please I hope you can agree that we need to eliminate the electoral college and only use the popular vote.",0
efde5095,0,"We, the people of the United States, live in a car happy society. Every teenager can't wait until their 16th birthday because, for mostly every kid, that means that they go get their drivers license and possibly their very own car. Also, adults always look at getting a nice luxurious car and the top make and model of that year. Well, without a shadow of doubt, we should adopt the plan to cut down our usage of cars. It seems very successful considering 70% of vaughn's families don't own cars. It is detrimental to our country.

In case you haven't noticed lately but there is lot of pollution in the air.

According to article 1 , anywhere up to 50 percent of carintensive areas in the US make up the greenhouse gas emissions. It is depressing seeing all of this smog and pollution in the air everyday. Just a little heads up but the pollution increases every single day we use cars. It is a shame seeing such an extravogant and extraordinary country go to crap due to pollution. If you want to see how every state is going to look if we keep relying on cars then go to California and see how much of an eye sore it is. Cars are one of the major factors responsible for smog and pollution. Polution from your car can lead to animals dying and especially humans dying from your automobile.

People today care lot about making and having lot of benjamins . Everyone wants to be rich and have the most expensive types of stuff, lets face it who doesn't. If you cut back on putting money towards your car then that would save you a ton of money. Just imagine if you didn't own a car, think about all of the things you would't have to buy and pay for. Cars are expensive just to buy in the first place let alone having to pay for gas and maintain it and all of that stuff that needs to be done to it. Also say goodbye to the mechanic visits and having to deal with the stress that comes from them. It would cost less money to not own a car and just take city transportation via bus or taxi or even car pool. You could even go the healthy route and ride your bike or walk to places close by. There are many cheaper ways of getting places besides cars.

Cars can be very dangerous at times and driving can be as well. You are at a greater risk of getting into a car accident than getting into a bicycle accident. Car accidents happen everyday and most of the time they are fatal. Coming from personal experience trust me, being in a car accident is not fun and is really scary and nerveracking. It can also haunt you for the rest of your life. I almost lost my dad a couple years ago due to a terrible car accident that we were involved in that wasn't our fault. He hasn't worked since that day because he hasn't been healthy enough to do what he was doing. We both, still to this day, feel the gruling affects from that accident physically, mentally, and emotionally. It took a toll on us and there isn't a day that goes by that I don't wonder what would of been if we didn't get into that accident. So wouldn't you feel more safe in a bus knowing that your less likely to get hurt than in a car.

Without question it is neccesary to cut back on car usage and start going green and using public transportation instead. Cars are a crucial part of our pollution today and that can easily change. All signs point towards the better option being to take a step back from cars for a little bit and see what the result is. Atleast once a week say that you can't use cars as transportation. This idea seems very good and well thought out and it will definetly show improvements that we want to see. So lets do it and see how much it affects our country.",0
efead874,0,"Imagine life with little to no cars, think of all the sites that you will see because now you walk everywhere you go. Think of all the people you will meet along every corner, when you go to the mall, the grocery store, and on your way to a friend's house. You will notice and appreciate things you haven't before, this idea is all thanks to a suburban town in VAUBAN, Germany. Now, we will be able to enjoy the sites of our surroundings and the people in it, produce less gas emissions, and a better outlook on the future.

""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" said Heidrun Walter, a resident of VAUBAN, Germany. Getting rid of our cars may sound like a scary thought but in reality it can bring great things to us. When we stop bundling ourselves up in our automobiles we get to explore the world better, we get to touch and smell the things around us and appreciate them. We advance our knowledge on the things and people around us because of walking to our daily commute or day off. We also meet new people, around every corner will be a new face, maybe they or you will ask for help and from there spark a friendship. You'll find a sea of people that have the same interest as you or don't but because we no longer rely on cars we are introduced to the world more and are truly exposed to the people and things in it, giving us a better understanding of where we live and all that it has to give to us.

Global warming, we hear about it a lot especially today where green house emissions are high, however, when we reduce the usage of cars the world, along with us benefit.

In Paris, after days of near record pollution a partial driving ban was in order to ""clear the air of the global city."" ""Four thousand driver were fined and twenty seven people had their cars impounded for the reaction to the fine."", by Monday the smog had cleared enough and the French party rescinded the band for odd numbered plates on Tuesday. Meanwhile in BOTOGA, Colombia, it has been the third straight year that cars have been banned in the hope to promote alternative transportation and smog. This event has been so successful that ""for the first time two other Colombian cities,Cali and Valledupar, joined the event."" We all dream to live a long, happy life but in order to do so we need to treat our Earth right. When we reduce our usage of cars we can fulfill this dream.

""Parks and sport centers also have bloomed throught the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic and new restaurants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up."" Imagine living in a new nice community, better economy, and better health. With all the walking and biking everywhere we are faced with physical workouts, benefitting considering that America is considered the most obese nation. And with all the walking and biking, stores are made closer to walking distance instead of on a distant highway, bring in more consumers. Without cars there is less deaths due to them aswell. In result, we have a better look into the future then we might have if we didn't decide to get rid of cars.

In conclusion, getting rid of cars would benefit the world and the people in it entirely. We would we more aware of our surroundings and citizens, reduce global warming, and have a better future to look upon.",0
eff68a37,0,"Cars have always been a big part society it takes us from home to work to home again. However, people fail to realize that driving cars is damaging our earth. We don't have anywhere else to go if we keep killing earth. The government should take action and try to get the people out of cars and on bicycles.

In Paris, the government banned certain cars to drive on certain days. In Robert buffer's article it explains which cars are banned, ""On Monday motorists with evennumbered license plates were ordered tro leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. The same would apply to oddnumbered plates the following day."" Paris takes action in hopes to help their air pollution. The smog was so bad it ""rivaled Beijing, China"".

Vaugban, Germany tries an experiment. They make a suburb with real people, going to real life jobs without cars. This is one of the first carfree cities and it was great. Life continued, people still breathed, society was advancing without any help from a cumbersome vehicle. Not only did this city help with air pollution but it got people up and outside! People walked or used bicycles to get to where their were headed. Exercise is the one thing almost everyone pushes off but now with no cars you have to get that exercise in order to get to work! Mother and media trainer, Heidrun Walter said '""When I had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way""'.

Even in Bogota, Colombia people believe '""It's a good oppertunity to take away stress and lower air pollution.""' Eventhough Germany didn't allow a single car, Colombia did allow there to be public transportation only busses and taxis. The people are happy and content with this simplistic lifestyle, so much so that other cities have joined the event! This goes to show that society doesn't need cars. We can take control of our life but lately we have been letting technology control the way we live.

Elisabeth Rosenthal believes it to be ""The End of Car Culture"". What do you believe? Are you happy with the life you are living now? ""Has America passed peak driving?"".",0
f01dd0a6,0,"The modern automobile has been the axle to the wheel of the smog ridden contemporary age. Within a century, a car could be found within virtually every home across every developed nation. Though in recent years, the societal infatuation with private automobiles has begun to diminish. multiple European and South American countries began instituting beneficial ""carfree"" municipal policies and statistics show a decline in license registration and car purchases across the U.S. The progression of the ""carfree"" policies and trend will have beneficial ecological, economical, and social implications on the modern world.

The concern of greenhouse gas emissions from cars has been of much concern within the scientific world. With cities such as densely populated Bejing often covered in sheets of poisonous smog, the high emissions has proven deadly to both human and environmental life. According to source 2, Paris recently was plagued by statuated amounts of smog rivaling that of Bejing. The French solution to this problem was municipal action and a week long ban on certain vehicles. The smog contained nearly 147 micrograms of particulate matter and the country's high use of diesel as a gasoline alternative was a contributing factor. The policy was immediately effective as the smog lifted after only one day of the ban. Though the smog that plagued Paris is not only a problem of the French. As stated by Source 1, passenger cars alone are responsible for up to 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions within carintensive areas of the U.S. such as Chicago and detroit.

The focus on automobiles with the development of carintensive cities, such as the aforementioned Chicago and detroit, has carried an economical burden in tandem with it's ecological consequences. According to Source 1, 80 percent of monetary appropriations have gone to highways with 20 percent going to other forms of public transit. As exemplified within the same article, Vauban, Germany has pioneered the carfree suburban model. Maximizing ergonomic to improve public foot transit, it has financially benefited from the prohibition of cars and the nuturing of its environment. Within the South American capital of Bogota, Columbia, who have been promoting an improvement campaign designed to encourage pedestraincentric municipal development. As an effect of in newly revitalized walkways and parks, an industry of shops and restaurants appeared.

Within the United States the ""carfree"" movement has been gaining support. As stated by Source 4, President Obama demonstrated his vision to curb greenhouse gas emissions in a speech in 2013. This statement was aided by polls showing a demopraghic shift in licensed citizens.",0
f02edaa2,1,"Dear Mr. President, As Americans, we are told that we are given rights in our country. We have the freedom of speech, expression, religion, and petition as stated in our first amendment. We are also told the we have the freedom to vote once you reach certain requirements, like age and citizenship. However, are we really getting the freedom that is talked about? No. Because the Electoral College is present in today's society, our vote becomes pointless and meaningless. We become a ""popular"" vote, but really the electoral college gets to decide who becomes presidents. The Electoral College has been in our Constitution since the Constitution was approved, but we have modified simple things as in gender discrimination and race discrimination, why are we not going to change this unjust system?

Bradford Plumer, author of The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the Bestlaid Defenses of System are Wrong, explains how the electoral college is fooling our citizens to think we have a say in our country's government. He elaborates further to say that ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. This proves my point further, because once again we do not vote for our president, we vote for the people who get the ""privilege"" to vote for the most prestine place of power in our entire country.

The next problem with our Electoral College is that each state is given an uneven amount of representatives form each state. If Florida voted candidate A, but North Dakota voted for candidate B, candidate A is bound to win because Florida has twentynine representatives and North Dakota only has three. As you can see Mr. President, this becomes a preblem because four states with only three representatives could vote for one candidate, but if Florida votes for the other one, the first candidate has already lost.

Now most people are afraid of change, which is understandable. They are afraid chaos will occur if any change with our society's ethics. However, the Electoral College has already caused chaos between the two opposing sides. If we tried a new system, we could see if the people will become more civilized because they now have a say in the government. If it doesn't work, then we can always change it back and no harm will be done. As you can see, there are many possibilities and options we have yet to explore.

Mr. President, I have explained to you what the people want, which is to stop being lied to. However, every four years comes around, and yet I do not see a change in anything. I do not think it is only the people who are afraid of change, it is also you. But, would you want to live in a world where everyone hates the way the government works or a world where the citizens are given the rights they were promised? Mr. President it is now up to you to do the right thing.",0
f0702926,0,"Many people rely on their cars that they do not think about limiting car usage. However liming car usage can have a positive effect. Less car usage can mean less pollution, more human interaction, and can save people money. Maybe people should look into the idea of car usage limitations.

When you go to a big city like Paris, France or Beijing, China you can look up and see the smog caused by pollution. Pollution can be caused by things other than cars, like factories or paper mills, however car pollution is a big contributor. When car usage is limited for just one weekend the pollution and smog can decrease by incredible numbers. It may seem like pollution is here to stay, but just by half of the population reducing car usage we can make heavy smog a thing of the past.

Limited car usage can also cause more human interactions. People using public transportation or walking on the sidewalk can lead to people talking and making new friends. When waiting for the bus or subway you could start a conversation with someone new. That person could become you new befriend or your future husband. Maybe they could just be someone you talk to on the way to work each morning. The samething can happen when walking on the sidewalk to your favorite cafe. You could accedently run into them and start a conversation. Maybe you happen to like the same shows or restaurant. Being in your own car alone can cut you off from the world, which is why car pooling can also be good. The four people in the car are all using one car instead of four different cars, so they talk more. This causes more human interactions with everyone in a car together.

Car pooling can not only cause human interaction, but can also save money. You do not use your car everyday meaning you do not use as much gas. Gas is very expensive and not paying for it as often can save hundreds of dollars. Each person that is carpooling can switch who does it when so that not one person is paying for all of the gas and driving all the time. This makes everyone save money, which can be spent at businesses making the economy rise.

Limiting car usage may not seem like such a big deal with only little effect, but it can make a huge difference. Limited car usage can cause less polution, more human interaction, and can save people money. This might make you rethink how much you use your car and if you should limit your usage.",0
f08a38d0,1,"Dear State Senator, While I understand that the Electoral College has worked sufficiently up until this point, it may not always work well enough to keep America sustained for the rest of its lifetime. The electoral college is unnecessarily complicated and the more steps you take heightens the chance of error. I acknowledge the fact that discrepancies in the current voting system are highly unlikely, but they have happened before and who says they won't happen again? I don't know why voting has to jump through so many hoops to make it count. It's indirect and the votes could be messed up at numerous different points. The Electoral College is an unjust form of democracy and it needs to be changed.

Under our voting system voters votes do not actually count for the candidate that they voted for, rather a slate of electors who then vote for the candidates themselves. Having the slate of electors is like blanketing them: you can hear them and you know that they're there but you can't understand what they really want. Take the election of 2000 for an example. Al Gore had more votes among the people but Bush won the presidency because the Electoral College accurately represented the people. If America was truly a democracy, Al Gore would have been president because the people would have actually been heard. If the people could actually have a say in the way that America is run, most people would choose to abolish the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is unreliable. It could come to a tie in any election and then the House of Representatives would step in and make scales tip even further. Each state casts only one vote and I find that ridiculous. Why would each state only get one vote? I think that the states should get a proportionate number of votes to their population. There is no reason why 500,000 voters should be weighed the same as 35,000,000 voters. The people voting do not get represented fairly whatsoever.

A direct democracy would be a better fit for America so there wouldn't be so many discrepancies to how the people fit in. The people would the voice that America claims they have. The people in swing states should not be the only ones deciding who the president is because it's not fair. What about the people in the red or blue states? Do they just get silenced completely? The people need to be heard. Make america about the people.",0
f11e79aa,1,"Many citizens in the United States vote for whom they believe will achieve the goals and standards of serving as the U.S President. People think the process of voting is simple, but is it really? In the U.S, there is the Electoral College, which is'nt such a good thing for some people. That is why I'm in favor of changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States because voters can't control whom their electors vote for and the people in the U.S have a say of what goes on in their country, including the election of the president.

The Electoral College process allows citizens to vote for an elector in their state whom they believe will choose their preferred president. If the elector of their choice wins the statewide election with 87 votes, the elector votes for their preferred president along with the 87 votes. As stated in source 2 ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always."" When the elector votes for their preferred president, all the votes used on that elector counts for the president. Instead of going through this whole process, would'nt it be less of a struggle to just have citizens vote for the president of their choice and win by popular votes? Also stated in source 2 ""Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes."" This shows how the Electoral College is difficult to understand for some people. The Unites States consists of many people who come from other counrties and speak other languages. This makes it even more complicated for some to understand even if the process is translated, and just by eliminating this process, it could make Presidential elections less complicated.

The U.S is different from any other place in the world. It is a free counrty! The citizens have a say in what happens in their counrty. The people make the decisions, the people vote for what they want and the people should be able to elect a president they believe will give them that! According to source 3 ""... it is the electors who elect the president, not the people."" Why can't the people be the electors? If the people in the United States don't have the freedom to vote for a president of their choice, what say do they really have? Electing a president is like raising money for charity, the president does all the work but all they money that is raised goes to charity the people. The people want someone who will help raise the money for them, not screw over their charity. Just like when signing up for a job the boss needs to see your resume, is like the people needing to see what the president can do to help their country. The citizens should be the ones making the decisions with help from the president that they believe could help with such decisions, not from electors who believe so.

Electing a president is very important to the country. Electing the president that people think could help support the U.S is also very important but very difficult as well. People should be able to easily vote for their preferred president with no difficulty, which happens to be caused by the Electoral College. By aborting this process, voters could control who they vote for and have a say in their country by voting for their preferred president. Having citizens tricked into voting for an elector is not the way to elect a president.",0
f163880a,1,"The Electoral College is a group of selected electors for deciding the president. Each state has its own amount of electors depending on its population. States like California have fifty five electors, while Wyoming would only have three. This factor makes the Electoral College flawed. The electoral college can also ignore their states votes. On the other hand, popular vote is not dependent on the population of the state. Having all the votes go directly to which candidate they was voted for. This would allow the presidential candidates go to all areas of the United States. So although many think their vote goes directly to who they voted for, the Electoral College has the final say.

The main problem with the electoral college is that every state has its own number of electors. Smaller, less populated states are ignored during the election, while the presidents focus directly on high population states to get more electoral votes. Since most states go off a winnertakesall basis, all the votes for the other candidate are ignored. Also in the occurrence of a swingstate, candidates focus all attention on them. The voters in the swingstates then know more about the presidents and are more thoughtful on who to pick, while the voters in the parts ignored know nothing about the presidents. Some states can also be completely ignored, having no campaign there at all.

On the other hand, the popular vote is more interesting. With this, state population does not matter. As a nation the voters can vote on the presidents. Although it is used today, it almost doesn't matter if you have it. In the 2000 election between Al Gore and George W. Bush, Al Gore toke had the popular votes, but Bush toke the electoral votes. This allowed him to become president. The popular votes were ignored in that situation and allowed a president with less of the nations liking to take office.

The final factor is the electors themselves. Another cause of the 2000's election being won by the elector college is some of the electors completely ignored their states voters. They decided to place their own vote. If the state is small and one of the candidates have a big lead, it won't matter. Although if they are neck and neck it can be those few votes that decided the election. This would also cause a less liked president to take office. Without the electors there would also be no favoritism. The electors can be choosen by the candidates themselves and can a bias electoral vote from them.

The point is, the Electoral College is unreliable. The nations voters can be ignored. If the government wants a certain president to win, they can hire electoral who are baised for that cadidate. Without it, the nation's people can have their say in the election. No state would have to be ignored due to its population. So although many think their vote goes directly to who they voted for, the Electoral College has the final say.",0
f196a650,1,"The Electoral College should be abolished. It is ""unfair, outdated, and irrational"". It just makes so much more sense to go with the popular vote from everyone. Even Bob Dole agreed to this and said ""Abolish the Electoral College!"" Most people just despise it anyways, let's just get rid of it already.

Let's face it, if you have a vote, it would go to the slate of electors who in turn, vote for the president. The worst thing about it is that sometimes they can't even control their own vote. What use is that? It doesn't make sense if they can't even control something that they have such as a vote. Also some voters get confused and don't know what to vote for though. Instead, they can vote for the wrong candidate. This is why we should get rid of the Electoral College. It's just so unfair to other voters that they can't have their way because the others get confused. This can let to political disasters and events that will make people riot over a mistake that they made. They need to learn that the Electoral College needs to go.

First off, the founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. It was was founded all the way back then, it must surely be outdated and we should really try to go by our modern intelligent ways now. They believed the ""winner takes all"" system that just doesn't make sense anymore if you can just vote on your own and when the President wins, it will just be the popular vote from overall everyone.

Secondly, the people in Congress are well educated indeed, but do we really need their separate votes? Can we just skip that? We are already getting the ""popular vote of qualified citizens"" which is good. All these electors are just so unnecessary when it comes down to it. I understand only a few people still want the electoral College in place, but in all honesty, it is only what they have been taught and they think it is the right thing. There are ""538"" electors in the Electoral College and they need a majority of ""270"" electoral votes. This seems far too complicated just for voting on a President. All we need is the popular vote. There has even been a case in the 2000's that is called ""Disaster Factor"". Americans are even lucky that this event isn't the most that can potentially happen with the Electoral College in place. We should avoid this political disaster at all costs!

In the end, we should all finally understand that the Electoral College is outdated, unfair, and irrational. It was made long, long ago and we have a better way to vote other than dealing with the mess of electors getting confused and the people in Congress dealing with it all together. Just go by the popular vote from the people and we would be good to go.",0
f1b6e26f,0,"Limiting car usage would be an extraordinary improvement in everyone's daily lives. When you think of Bejing, China what do you see? Busy streets filled with cars, sky scrapers, and SMOG. The earth shouldn't be treated like this, when people excessively drive it creates significant amounts of greenhouse gases. Also, we shouldn't have to live in this kind of environment, filled with smog, it's very unhealthy to inhale these substances. Think about a world with no cars for a second like in Vauban, Germany walking to work which gets in a quick morning exercise, watching kids play with their friends outside, clear skies, oh and actually being able to take a deep breath without suffocating. These are all marvelous reasons to reduce car usage.

Think of Earth before cars there were clear skies, green views, blue seas, birds chirping in the morning. Nice right? Well, now come back to reality where the air is gray, the fields are covered with roads or dirt, the seas are filled with oil and the sea animals all fighting for their lives. According to experts, ""passengers are responsible for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in United States"". Is sitting in a car, being lazy, stuck in a traffic jam really worth this? You could be out enjoying the view taking it all in, getting in a few minutes of exercise even. To me, there is no question, I won't be responsible for the lives of others.

Now, jump forward a few years, imagine excessive car use, black skies, no room to walk. Who wants this kind of environment to live in? Noone, and thats why we need to change our lifestyles a tad, otherwise this is what it will be like. The smog that cars create is not good for you, it damages your lungs slowly, but surely. My question is would you rather save a few minutes getting to work and die a few years early, or walk to work, enjoying the beautiful view of nature and also getting some exercise in? I think this decision is the easiest one a person could make.

Lastly, think about the future generations, do you want them to be unhealthy and relying on automobiles their whole lives or do you want them to experience the awesome adventures life has? Don't use your car for one day, that's not too much to ask and just appreciate your neighbors, the animals and all the amazing things Earth has to offer. That will surely change your mind about using cars and if it doesn't have a nice life struggling to take a breath and see more than a few feet in front of you.

I definitely think that car usage has a major negative impact on our environment and it needs to change. Cars hurt our Earth, our health, and our daily lives distorting us from what we really need. Apparently, ""A study last year found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009.."" this is an amazing start and I hope it continues.",0
f1c0d653,1,"Electoral Colleges is something many people disagree with but there is a few that are for the idea. Personally i think we should get rid of the Electoral colleges for many reasons. First, when using the electoral college you do not vote for the president but you vote for a slate of electors, I think when you are voting you should have a choice for which president you vote for not electors. Using this, the electors have to win which I dont think is right.

Using electoral votes effects the people in smaller states. Big states have more of a ""voice"" to who wins the election if enough people vote. People living in smaller states have less of a chance of there choosen president to win because they dont have a large number of electoral votes. Saying that people in the smaller states know that they dont have much of a say to votes and are going to stop voting in general and stop paying attention to the campaigns.

The winnertakeall method is something that voters dont like. Candidates know that some states dont have a lot of electoral votes so they dont bother to reach out to them and dont spend time on them because they think or know they dont have a chance of winning their election. Since candidates dont go to small states that means they spend all their time in the bigger states trying to win them over and get their votes. People dont think its fair that the candidates dont make any effort to pay attention to them.

When you vote for who you want as president you dont actually vote for the president you vote mostly for a slate of electors. from the excerpt from ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" stated it is the electors that vote for presidents not us. i think that we should have more of a choice for who we want as our president but we do not. We should get rid of the Electoral College because it doesnt help us as i can see many people do not like it.",0
f236e103,0,"Limiting car usage is not bad at all! It benefits everyone in a specific way.

As stated in the article carFree cities Source 1: Heidrum Walter, a media trainer and mother two quotes ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much more happier this way"" Heidrum being a mother two you can only imagine the car trips she would have to make. Going place to place can cause a lot of stress to some people and it makes it harder for them to drive. For example, someone could be stressed to the max with all the traffic and driving around that it could create accidents along the way. No one should ever feel stressed while driving. Driving should be a privilege and good one.

In Paris they have banned driving due to smog. Diesel fuel was blamed since France has tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. Diesels make up 67 percent of vehicles in France, compared to a 53.3 percent average of diesel engines in the rest of Western Europe. Paris has more smog than other European capitals. Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London. Certain things like this can help save the environment without the usage of vehicles.

With no car usage it prevents teens from getting into accidents and or drunk driving. The safer way to go is to walk or stay with a friend somewhere safe than being on the road. Many accidents could be prevented but it wont if limiting the car usage is not available. Death rates will decrease and many people will be safer this way. A study last year found that drving by young people decreased by 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. Without transportation many young people could make other main priorities. For example, they could organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends.

Up above I have given my reasons why we should all limit car usage. It would relieve stress from on the road, saves the environment and takes the smog away, and young people would be more socialize and up for doing more than what they already do like jobs.",0
f24770eb,1,"Dear State Senator, The one word used throughout this whole article catastrophic, which is whats best used to describe the electoral college. The United States of America, born and based off of popular sovereignty, should be just that decided by the people. The electoral college has only been a hindrance since its arrival, confusing American Citizens left and right, becoming an issue to votersinterested future voters, and disallowing a fair chance of a voters vote to be of importance in their state, and to their country. The electoral college should be disbanded and reiterated by popular vote because of TWO main reasons:it does allow for a simple method of voting, and it does allow for every vote, and voice to be heard in the United States presidency election, tarnishing this country's right of democracy, causing outrages all over the country.

To initialize this onesided argument, lets begin with an important factor that the electoral college cannot be trusted on achieving, the fact that every vote counts. With over 300 million people now in the United States, under a unified country that promotes and exemplifies democracy, we have not been democratic in the sense that peoples vote doesnt even go to their president, only to another mind that can cast you away as if you were not important. As stated in Par. 7 Source 1 an article by the Office of the Federal Register ""Most states have a winnertakeall system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate."" These are the minds that are sometimes chosen at random, or by other factors to represent you, a choice you werent allowed to make. The winner takes all method only takes away from states like Texas and California who know their vote doesnt matter because these people will always agree on democratic or republican, and what is currently used in our society. This damages thousands of voices, thousands of votes that could have matter, but seemingly don't. Just like how schools have implemented the 'No Child Left Behind' policy, we should transcribe this to leaving no american citizen without a voice, only dependant on what state their in.

Theories on how a single vote doesn't matter have been given, as stated in Par. 23 Source 3 by Richard A. posner ""Voters in the presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election."", who also comes to contradict themselves originally with ""Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43% Percent plurality"". In that instance, that one vote could've made a HUGE difference on our future. On top of that, so many voices in states that arent swing states States that could go democratic or republican, and aren't fixated on only 1 party that have been silenced could add up to be a tremendous amount of 'single votes', changing this nations history drastically.

Furthermore onto this argument one thing is known as a world wide factor that applies to almost everything that we do. Simpler, is better. If you take your precious time and read all Par. 18 in Source 1, what you will gather, is that an extremely overafflictionated method is used when determining our next president. Step by step instructions on selecting, choosing, voting, controling, and nevermind the problems it has already caused from the confusion of all these instructions. Something that can be fixed easily by one thing: overriding, fixing, and changing our way to popular vote. This would furthermore simplify our country way of voting, attracting more voters, and overall satisfying many people.

Some have also stated that this is necessary to providing a more organized form of voting. Key knowledge that must be analyzed is that: just because a service is organized, does NOT mean its correct. Referencing to Par. 11 Source 2 Bradford Plumer describes on how ""The American People should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election in a century the system allows for much worse."" and ""that those elctors could always defy the will of the people."" in Par. 9 ""according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after AlGoreThanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency."" Many problems that would not ocurr if our way of voting were to be simplified into popular vote.

To summarize, and simplify what should be done with our voting ways this letter to you, we should remove the electoral college overall and implement the popular voting, to which our country is based off of. This is the most profound way of fixing the problems that we face: the unsimplicity known as our current voting ways, and the restablishment of our original, and hopefully still true government of Democracy, and Popular Soveriegnty.",0
f2a9ab37,1,"Presidential elections are a big part of the American culture. They decide who will be president for the next 4 years, who will be the one making all the choices. But is our way of chosing that person right? We use electoral colleges to decide for president. Some people believe that we shouldn't have electoral colleges, and that we should let the peoples vote be the one to decide. But electoral colleges are a good way of deciding our future president for many reasons, it allows for a certainty of outcome, avoid runoff elections, and balance out the distribution of votes.

Electoral colleges will allow for a certainty of an outcome. The amount of electoral college votes are 538 this allows for us to see a clear difference in the votes for each party, as oppose to a people votes where you have hundreds of millions of people voting making it impossible to see a clear difference unless you have a blow out. The outcome of a tie is possible but according to the third source ""A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes538is an even number, but it is highly unlikely..."" Also most states use a winnertakeall system where the majority of the votes in a state would win the electoral votes of that state providing a voice for the people. This this shows that having electoral votes decide the president is a good idea because it marks a clear winner.

Having electoral college votes will also allow us to avoid runoff elections. Runoff elections are when no part receives a majority of the votes. Electoral colleges help avoid that because of the fact that they are distributed evenly and mark a clear winner. ""Runoff elections add a huge amount of burden on the candidates, but some of the pressure is reduced by the electoral colleges"" states the third source.

The distribution of votes is balanced out evenly thanks to electoral colleges. If a state is larger then they will have more electoral votes than a smaller state. For example the third passage states that ""The popular vote was very close in Florida in 2012 nevertheless Obama, who won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the winner only 3 electoral votes."" This shows how the state that is larger in population gets more votes pleasing more people.

The electoral college is a great way to determine the future president for many reasons. Some being that it allows for a clearer outcome, avoids runoff elections, and distributes the votes evenly among the states population.",0
f2bb2a2c,1,"Dear State Senator, I am here to inform you that you should change election to a popular vote for the president of the United States. This is due to the fact that as of now Americans vote to elect their president, but what good is that if they don't even receive what they want? What is even the point of voting? Saying this, I agree with source two on its point, ""It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. This is backed up with data from the same article stating that voters can't even control whom their electors vote for. This is clearly why ""60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" Without a doubt if you cared for your people, the people who support you and give you your job opportunity, you would see that you should abolish this electoral college. Even a blind man could see that.

You may be wondering if your people think this is such a bad idea, why would our founding fathers implement something so horindess? As you see ""electoral college was established in the constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens"", says source 1. Although that sounded great at the time, today electoral college is frowned upon because majorly because of its ""winnertakeall"" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. As if that wasn't unfair enough, the electors don't even necessarily have to vote for their states choice. This would be similar to if I was infatuated with a color, I then asked my team what our team color should be and after taking a vote, I chose the color I preferred because I was bias even though my whole team disliked it. This is obviously the wrong way to run our election especially the most important in our country.

On the other hand I do understand that there are some advantages to an electoral college. These include, mentioned in source 3, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaignthan a small state does. This is fair because there are more people in big states then small therefore big states should get more of a voice. Although in popular vote big states would still get the bigger vote because there are more people voting therefore they have more votes. This is why I think the middle man should just be cut out leaving us with a popular vote.

According to the facts it is clear to me that the electoral college should be siezed. I think it is unnecessary as well as unfair. When we think of voting for our president, that is what we want to do. Voting for our president does not include voting for someone who may or may not choose our choice. Also if we chose our President by popular vote all the votes that weren't majority would add up and possibly make the difference between the vote results. This is why it is unfair to simply use majority rule for each state and practically erase the other votes off the table. As you can see State Senator your people vote to elect their ruler. Why deny them of this oppurtunity. It is clear to me that the electoral college may have been a good concept to our founding father but when applyed is not the best decision. This is why I think you should change to an election by popular vote for president of the United States.",0
f2e7f48f,1,"Dear Mr. Senator, To keep the Electoral College or to change the election by popular vote is the question many people are facing today. There are many different reason why we should keep, and same for as why we should change it. I believe we should change the election from the Electoral College to popular vote because, with the Electoral College people are voting for a slate of electors not an actual presidential candidate, it is unfair for our American people, and most people prefer the popular vote.

By voting for a presidential candidate you are actually voting for a slate of electors who vote for the presidential candidate. This means that our votes don't really count for much. It also means that even though we voted for someone the slate could have voted for someone completely different. Also we the people have no idea who the electors are. Who even picks them? The electors that are chosen depends on the state, sometimes it's the state conventions, sometimes the states party's central committee, and sometimes it can be the presidential candidate himself. Some voters didnt even see campaign ads, so how did they chose their presidential caudate? They didn't, the Electoral College did.

America is suppose to be a free state, that is fair, but are we really? The Electoral College is one thing I can point out as unfair. Most states have a ""winnertakeall"" system, that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate, but what if the people didn't want that candidate? Why should he get our way of speaking to the government? How are we even sure that he didn't elect himself? Also candidates don't spend time in the states they know they will have a chance of winning because of biasim. They mainly focus on the tight races in the ""swing"" states.

In reality we all want our way, or our voice and or actions to make an impact, with the Electoral College that's not happening, which is making the people of our country unhapy with the government, which means we all can't get along. Most people prefer elections to be based on popular vote so they know they get what they want, so they know they're actually making an impact.

With this being said, I believe I have made my impact on your thoughts of the question, "" to keep the Electoral College, or change election to popular vote?"". The Electoral College has both it's upsides and it's downside, but I believe it has more flaws than perfections. Yes, it has been around for many decades and is apart of our histroy, maybe it worked then, but it's not working now. And we need to make a change before things get worse.",0
f3242ac2,0,"In cities such as Vauban, Paris, and Bogota, people are getting serious about cutting down on the vast usage of cars. The ""car free"" trend is beginning to spread throughout the world, and even to places in America. By limiting car usage, the state of the environment improves, a more healthy lifestyle is promoted, and opportunities for other innovations are brought into the light.

In Paris, a driving ban was enforced to help clear the air of pollutants. This ban lowered the congestion by 60 percent, and according to reporter Robert Duffer, ""The smog rivaled Bejing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world."" Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gasses in Europe, and up to 50 percent in areas where cars are used more often, such as the United States. The Environmental protection Agency is promoting car reduced communities in America, where even legislators are beginning to act. By eliminating cars from the everyday equation, one also eliminates the greenhouse gasses and other pollutants, which makes the planet a healthier place to live.

With less and less cars being utilized, there are more opportunities for people to get active by biking, walking, and participating in other active means of getting from point A to point B. According to news reporters Andrew Selsky and Elisabeth Rosenthal, ""The swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant moter"", and ""Parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks."" Without cars, citizens are encouraged to get active. Condensed cities allow people to walk to their destination, which drastically improves an individual's heart health, along with aerobic activity such as biking.

An official from Transportation for America says, ""All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change."" Sociologists believe that America has passed peak driving, and cars are no longer the focus of improvement. The Internet makes telecommuting possible, which is much more convenient than using automobiles because people can feel connected without the drive. This and the rise in cellphones implies that while innovations used to be focused on transportation, telecommuting is the new big thing.

With many areas participating in the eventual elimination of automobiles, many are following suit. Sociologists believe that cars will eventually disappear. By cutting down on our usage of cars, we help the enviromnent, promote health, and focus innovations elsewhere.",0
f330a61e,1,"Dear State Senator, The Electoral College is a process where voters select electors who then vote for the President of the United State. But is it really that reliable? Is it better than an election decided by that of popular vote.

The election process should be changed to one decided by popular vote instead of using the process of the Electoral College. First of all source two states that voters can sometimes get confused on the candidate that they actually voted for since they're not directly voting for the President. Another flaw of the Electoral College also stated in source two is that ""... ""faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please...."" That is pure lying. That basically just made that voter vote for the candidate that they did not want. Another critical error is that in the process of the Electoral College is that not all states are equally represented. For example if there is a tie in the Electoral vote the election would be handed to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. This wouldnt be fair because since each state casts only one vote, then the single representative from Wyoming would only represent 500,000 voters. However the single representativee from California would represent 35 million voters. That hardly seems fair.

With Popular vote every American would get their say in a democratic way. As source three states ""... the Electoral College is not democratic in a modern sense. With popular vote everyone would be represented equally.

I understand that ""the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote"" causes less chance of a dispute over the Electoral college than of the popular vote, but not everyone really gets a say. Also i understand that the Electoral College avoids run off elections but that is still very rare.

State Senator it's time to abolish the Electoral college, and switch to the use of popular vote for elections.",0
f33e86b9,0,"Cars are one of the main causes of air pollution is the United States and the world. If everyone would limit their car usage, one would see all the great benefits of not using a car as much. Limiting car usage helps keep our planet clean and people would be a lot happier.

To begin with limiting car usage would help keep our plant clean. In the article, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", the author, Duffer, states ""After days of nearrecord pollution, Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city."" After this ban was enforced Paris' air was cleared in a less than a week. This proves that one doesn't even have to limit their car usage a lot, even just a little bit helps. In the article, ""The End of Car Culture"", the author, Rosenthal, claims that Bill Ford, chairman of the Ford Motor Company, wants to create cities in which ""pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lowers emissions and improve safety."" This shows that even Bill Ford, the chairman of FORD MOTOR COMPANY, even agrees that limiting car usage would help lower global pollution.

On another hand, limiting car usage makes people a lot happier. In the article, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", the author, Rosenthal, states ""when i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two...."" A normal person, a person like everyone else, claims that they're happier without a car, less stressful, imagine what just limiting your car usage would do. In the article, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", the author, Selsky, says ""'It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,' said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as her rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife."" This shows that limiting car usage for just a day, takes away stress and helps the planet. Wouldn't it be nice to have a stressfree day?

In conclusion, limiting car usage, even just a little, reduces pollution and causes happiness. One can help themselves, while also helping the planet.",0
f3665201,1,"I think that we should change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. If we keep the Electoral College, then even if you do earn the most individual votes, you might not be elected president. If you have earned the most individual votes then you should be elected president because you have the majority vote. If we keep the electoral College then if you are elected president but do not receive the majority of the individual votes, the president elected by the Electoral College will not be a popular president to the people who voted against them.

Source 2 says, ""Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" So with the Electoral College, the electors that are chosen might not elect those who they said they would. But with election by popular vote, the person elected will always be who the majority of the country wants as president.

Source 1 states, ""Your state's entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators."" So some states have more votes than others. If someone who is running get more states to vote for them, it does not mean that they will be elected because they have to get more votes overall from the electors.

Source 3 says, ""The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense...it is the electors who elect the president, not the people."" So with the Electoral College, even though the people vote, they are not the ones who are electing the president. Source 3 also says, When you vote for a presidential candidate you're actually voting for a slate of electors."" So whoever you are voting for, you dont know if the slate of electors will vote in that direction.",0
f3914f7c,0,"""All of our development since World War II has been centered around the car, and that will have to change,"" said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America. David Goldberg says this in means of trying to decrease car usage, such as in Vauban, Germany. Car usage after World War II continued increasing for a long period of time until 2005 in the United States the number of miles driven started to decrease. In the year 2013, the miles driven in the United States decreased nearly 9% since 2005 and was equal to the amount of miles driven in 1995. Throughout the whole world people have been experiencing problems with air pollution and due to that many have been trying to decrease the usage of cars in different ways to slow this air pollution.

To start off, pollution from cars has been a large factor of the air pollution today. In the United States, 50 percent of the greenhouse emissions in the United States is caused by passenger cars. Then there is Paris who has been experiencing heavy smog. Recently, it has had days of nearrecord pollution. Reason for such high levels of smog or air pollution can be attributed to a tax policy that favors diesel over gasoline. Diesel makes up 67% of vehicles in France. Then in the rest of Western Europe 53.3% of the vehicles are diesel.

Next, is how some people attempt to slow the car pollution. The first example of a community trying to decrease the usage of cars is Vauban, Germany. In Vaubaun street parking, driveways, and home garages are generally forbidden. For the most part, Vauban is car free. The only way to use cars in Vauban is to carpool because there is only two places to park in the whole city and they are two large parking garages on the edge of development. Then you have to pay 40,000 to keep a spot. 70% of the people in Vaubaun do not own cars. Anoter example is Paris, who is one of the biggest air pollutants next to Beijing. They have been trying to decrease the smog in their area through slowing the amount of cars on the road. What they did is make it so only cars wih evennumbered license plates could drive one day and oddnumbered license plates the next. Almost 4,000 drivers were fined due to this policy, which showed some reluctance in following the plan. This did not matter though because the smog cleared enough to where the polcy only lasted for one day. Another attempt in lowering the usage of cars was Bogota's carfree day. In this program it is quite obvious that it was just a day of no car usage at all. During this event Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work. Even in the rain people of Bogota participated in this event. Then there is one other case of lowering the usage of cars, which is the natural way, having people just grow away from the car. This is currently happening in the United States, one of if not the largest car users. Like I said earlier since 2005 the usage of cars has decreased. Whether this trend stays in motion or not depends on the idealism of the current and future generations.

To conclude, the use of cars is creating problems in air pollution and due to this there have been attempt to slow this usage. Then back to what David Goldberg said the development of the car needs to stop being the center of attention. So instead what we have to do is take our attention away from using the car to ways of finding ways to limit the cars use.",0
f3aeee4f,1,"""Boys and girls of every age, wouldn't you like to see something strange?"" After hundreds of years with the Electoral College working just fine, it would be very strange for Americans to just give it up in the name of convenience. The Electoral College should stay in place because our founding fathers created it, it keeps socialism and communism out, and it is in the constitution.

Our founding fathers did many things that would ensure the United States is in safe position for centuries to come. We have the freedom of speech, religion, press, to bear arms, and of privacy. These are just as important as the Electoral College. The founding fathers of the United States wanted to make sure Americans didn't vote for communist or socialist presidents by popular vote. So they created the Electoral College, a system of voting in which each state has a certain number of points based on the amount of Senators and Congressmen representing tha state. If a presidential candidate has a majority of votes in the state, the candidate wins all the points from the state. According to the first source, there is a current total of 538 points in America and it takes 270 for a candidate to win. There is not one thing the founding fathers did that harmed the United States America should have faith in these men and not charismatic candidates who plan to go against the constitution.

Furthermore, the Electoral college keeps socialism and communism out of our capitalist democracy. Sometimes people don't fully understand politics and vote to simply make their voice count somehow. It may sound illogical, but everyone makes wrong decisions sometimes. The Electoral College is in place to keep people from falling into traps and voting for socialist candidates who plan to rid the U.S. of its freedom. According to the second source, Jimmy Carter, one of the worst presidents America has ever had, and Bob Dole, a presidential candidate who lost to Bill Clinton, were in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College. If popular vote were in place, the one with the most votes overall wins. That would make it a popularity contest and anyone who has witnessed one of those in high school knows they never end well. America has not had a socialist president with the Electoral college who is to say there will not be one without it?

Additionally, the Electoral College is written in the constitution. According to the first source, the Electoral College in the constitution and is briefly mentioned in the 23rd amendment, which allows District of Colombia to participate in the Electoral College and gives it 3 electors. Getting rid of a law, or in this case a system of voting, from the constitution is never a logical decision. For example, the 8th amendment,""no cruel and unusual punishment"", is not a wise choice to get rid of and nor is the 2nd amendment ""the right to bear arms"". Why? Because it would turn America into something it isn't it provides more government control over its citizens. Without the Electoral College, everyone's vote is seen and counted, even the independent ones and the votes of the elderly. The constitution is a guide for the people from those who fought and died for the country and it should never be altered for convinience.

In conclusion, the Electoral College should stay where it is because it was created by the founding fathers, it keeps communism and socialism out, and it is in the constitution. If the United States were to rely on anyone, it should be the founders of the country itself, for they were the ones who fought for the freedom of the country.",0
f3da843e,0,"Cars have been around for ages now, people are constantly making new models to make them better. But what were to happen if we took them away and we only relied on walking or riding bikes. There are three reasons why I believe this would be a benefit for everyone. Picture it, a world without cars.

People believe cars to be a necessity, so they will be able to get from place to place but there are advantages to limiting the usage of cars in certain areas. For one it would reduce the amount of greenhouse gas, source 1 tells about a suburban town where there are no cars. It states that only 12 percent of greenhouse gas emits in europe while in america it is up to 50 percent. While Paris bans driving because of all the smog, statistics from source 2 show that Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter.

Following that, limiting the usage of cars can lower stress levels. In Bogota, Colombia they begin their day without cars for the third year straight. The citizens of Bogota were very cooperative of this. The mayor tells how even ""The rain hasn't stopped people from participating"". Source 3 informs how even businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza rode a two seater bicycle with his wife and how he believes ""It's a good way to reduce stress and lower air pollution."", as they continue their newly found tradition other cities in colombia such as Cali and Valledupar join in on the event. Looks like Colombias program is starting to spread for the better.

Finally, bringing it back home to America on the advantages on limiting car usage. President Obama shares his plan to reduce the emission of greenhouse gas. Sources from article 4 tell how Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and how fewer are getting their license as the years go by, statistics show a large drop in the amount of 16 to 39 year olds getting their license. this article also tells how sociologists believe that if this counties it will be beneficial for the enviornment. New York being one of the most populated states has a new bikesharing program as well as carsharing programs to help contribute to lessen the pollution and emission of greenhouse gases.

In Conclusion, while cars have been and are a great asset limiting the use of them could greatly benefit every one by using lessening stress levels, lowering pollution, and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas. Looks like we're already headed in the right direction.",0
f3fd1c22,1,"Dear State Senator, The Electoral College is unfair for voters all around the United States. The Electoral College is a Winnertakeall system in each state, the candidates don't spend time in the states that they know they have no chance of winning. They only focus on the tight races in the swing states. For example during the campaign in 2000, seventeen states did not see the candidates at all. Voters in the twenteyfive of the largest media markets didn't even get to see a single campaign ad!

Further more, ""voters vote for not the president, but a slate of electorss, who in turn elect the president."" Voters cant always control who their electorss vote for. The voters sometimes even get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate. If you lived in Texas and wanted to vote for Bob Smith just an example, you'd vote for a slate of thirtyfour Democratic electorss who are pledged to Bob Smith. If those electorss won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Bob would get 34 electorsal votes toward his presidency. The electorss can be anyone not holding a public office.

Did you know that over 60% of voters would prefer a direct election more tham the kind of election we have now. According to the article "" a gallop poll in 2000, taken shortly after AI Gprethanks to the quirks of the electorsal collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO, in their time, all agreed on one thing, abolishing the Electoral College. This years voters can and will expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could lose the presidency, once again.

The best argument against the electorsal college is called the disaster factor. Americans should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century, but the system allows for worse. "" Consider that the state legislature are technically responsible for picking electorss, and that those electorss, and that those electorss could always defy the will of the people."" In 1960, segregationists in the louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electorss with brand new electors who would go against John F. Kennedy. Some faithless electorss have even refused to vote for their party's candidate and instead they vote for whoever they want.

So its official now, the Electoral College is outdated, unfair, and irrational. The name makes no sense also why is it called the Electoral ""College""? The Electoral College should just be abolished like Bob Dole said.",0
f404b91b,0,"In the world that we live in now, many people use cars to get around like getting to work, schooling, and some just go for fun, or the experience of it. In our world, these vehicles are causing a very big issue in our lives. Cars are not great for our environment, without them we would be able to be more ecofriendly, be healthier, and keep eachother more safe. Cars are not the only way to get around!

Using cars may help up get around more often, but notice how many accidents people get into. Running into someones bumper, not being carefull, and some times even driving under the influence, are all very dangerous ways you can get injured in a car. Vehicles are a way to get around quickly, but imagine being stuck in traffic for hours and only moved a mile because someone was not paying attention and ran into a street light. We were born with feet to walk. Walking short distances to the store, or market, where ever you wish to go is better than being stuck in a pile of reckless drivers. You can get there in a safer mannor than you would if you were to take a car.

There are plenty of way to get around, other than cars suck as bikes, any kind of skateboards, rollerblades, bicycling, there is a whole list. Not only do these help the environment, but they give you a nice workout. Most do it for their health, some to help them achieve a goal. A simple walk to the store, can help with a plethora of thing that are very important to your body. While doing this healthy habit, you get plenty of fresh air, with can reduce stress, and help your body in ways that will give you a feeling a peace in mind.

Lets talk about the world, we know how to stay healthy. Does our world? It cannot take care of itself. The people who live in it are the ones who provide the maintenance. Without using cars, the gas that they realese will not bother our environment. As said in source 1, ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12% of green house gas emissions in Europe, and up to 50% in some carintensive areas in the US."" 50%? Thats half! If these gasses continue to damage our environment, our world will be very unclean.

For generations, cars were known to impress. Even now, people still have cars shows, or gatherings to display their vehicles. The better your car was, the more attention you were receiving. On the other hand, many people have chosen to take the better way out of it and find other ways to get out of using them. Car pooling is another option. Not many people do it, but when its is absolutly needed, that is one option. Keeping everyone happy and healthy, including this planet, is a very important thing that we can do.",0
f404cd3c,0,"Automobiles have been all anyone talks about since the 1950s. With the creation of the Model T, songs that were sung of cars like ""Mustang Sally"", and providing transportation to millions across the globe, how could they not be controversial?. But shortly after 2005, driving has not been the peak of transportation. Many countries are banning the use of motorvehicles for multiple reasons and it may not be such a bad thing.

Recently, countries have been asking their residents to either take a day or two off from driving or give up their cars overall. In Vauban, Germany, 70 percent of the families do not own a car but rather they walk or bike everywhere. Residents say they do not feel stressed out so often and are no longer tense as they were when having a car. In Bogota, the people feel the same way. The Colombian city has had a ""Day Without Cars"" event for three years and most people really enjoy the relaxation you get from not driving a car everywhere you go. More and more countries and cities are implementing this idea.

One of the major priorities right now is air pollution from gas emissions and that is why countries are slowing down motorvehicle usage. In Paris 147 micrograms of particulate matter were found, 114 in Brussels and almost 80 micrograms in London. Most of that is because of driving. With diesel fuel ranking over gasoline, we are not getting anywhere. Countries in Europe and South America have put in fines and days that people are not allowed to drive because of how bad the smog is getting in some of the areas.

The next thing countries are trying to do is increase the number of alternative transportation. How long has it been since you rode a bike? Or walked to the nearest grocery store? With the decreasing amount of people using their cars, the amount of people riding their bike or going for a walk is exploding upwards. Since the 1990s, Bogota has constructed 118 miles worth of bike paths. Sidewalks were made to a higher quality, the parks attendance rates have rapidly increased and the shopping centers are shaped up very nicely now. All because of a few days without driving.

It may seem like a burden or even a bad idea in general but if we cut down the number of motorvehicles, we can save a lot of the beautiful parts of in world and install some new ones while we're at it. The fuel is hurting the environment and everyone should help out.",0
f4574b76,1,"Dear Florida senator, we should keep the Electoral College. The Electoral College has been around for decades, produced by the founding fathers, it was made as a compromise between the two different ways the president should be elected. One way being by a slate of senators, and another by simply popular vote. It was made so that citizens could still have their vote, but more politically advanced senators could make a decision. The Electoral College is not only more efficient but it lets the citizens keep their votes as well. I favor the Electoral College instead of popular vote because it helps avoid runoff elections, it uses the winnertakesall method, and gives equal opportunity to smaller states.

Runoff elections, as known as, the gigantic issue with a popular vote election system. In 1968, Nixon, and in 1992, Clinton, both only had about 43 percent of the popular votes which was not enough. This is a problem because it complicates the presidential election process. This is where the Electoral College comes in hand the outcome of the votes becomes very clear this way. Instead of dealing with tricky numbers and percentages, the electoral college uses the ""winnertakesall"" method. The winnertakesall method is as literal as it sounds the winner takes all. For example if someone was running for president and they got 301 votes and 370 electoral college votes, they would win you only need a majority of 270 votes to be elected.

Lastly, using the Electoral College benefits smaller states. Think of this, you live in Maine, or Hawaii, or somewhere with a smaller population than Florida or California your state would not have really that much of a impact on who wins the election. Although, you cannot choose who your state senators in the end vote for, there's a greater chance of your state having a bigger impact. It naturally balences out some of the more heavier politically impacting states. Even though things are equal, in the long run larger states population wise will get more attention than states with a smaller population.

There are upsides and downsides to the Electoral College, but from a political perspective it is crystal clear that it is a better choice. Citizens for popular vote do believe it is unfair to the voters having a board of senators making the big voteimpact on the president, but those senators are highly trusted people who know what they're doing. I favor the Electoral College over popular vote because it helps avoid runoff elections, it uses the winnertakesall method, and gives equal opportunity to smaller states.",0
f477cd3e,1,"Florida State Senator, The Electoral College is a crucial part of the United state's election process. There are some negatives to the Electoral College but the positives outweigh them by a landslide. The certainty of the outcome and having a president that the majority likes are key beneficial factors to the Electoral College process that would be lost if we changed the election by popular vote for the president of the United States.

With the Electoral College, there is a very rare chance that there would be a tie in the nationwide electoral vote. However, according to In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President by Richard A. Posner, ""A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possibleit happened in 2000but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote."" A clear winner will always be produced with the slight informality of a tie. In 2012's election, Barack Obama received 51.3% of the popular vote compared to the 61.7% of the electoral vote. If the election process was by popular vote, it would have been a much closer race between Obama and rodney.

To win the Electoral College vote, each region must like you. You cannot have a presidential candidate that favors one region and only one region favors that candidate.

In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President by Richard A. Posner states, ""...a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president."" In contrast, The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer claims that even ""at the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the 'swing' states."" What Is the Electoral College?

by the Office of the Federal Register says, ""The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President."" Because of the number of electoral votes each state has is based on population, meaning Texas has more votes than Rhode Island, every presidential candidate focuses on winning over the big states. The big states are a better representation of our nation's opinion. The Electoral College process should not be replaced by the popular vote due to the extremely rare chance of a tie. It should remain because an outcome is certain and majority of the population would like the president.",0
f481569d,0,"Limiting your car usage has a lot of advantages. You can do so many different things with all the space and money you save. You can save money in alot of different ways such as not having to pay car insurance, or pay for tickets, or not having to pay for gas, and lastly not having to pay for you car when it broke down and need to be repaired. With the free sapce theres so many opportunities to build new stuff so that were making good use of it. In source one it says"" In this new approach, stores are place a walk away, on a main streets, rather than in malls arounf distant highways"". This is a good thing because parents wont have to worry about where their children are, and children wont have to worry about asking their parents for rides because everything is within walking distance.

Another advantage to not using your car so much is that it can clear the air and help get rid of pollution. In source two it says""... congestion was down 60 percent"". This is really good because if we did that everywhere there would not be a problem. When you use you car to much the air starts to change. In source two it says"" cold night and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions"", Which as you can tell is not good.

When we are not using are cars we can do alot of things. In souce three it says"" parks and sports centers have bloomed throughout the city ', This its telling us with out the cars people are becoming more active and spending more time with there famililys and this is always a good thing. another example in source three says"" uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaces by broad, smooth sidewalks"", this is good because when you do use your car its more safe on the rode and its creating more jobs. In source three it also says""new resturaunts and upscale shopping districts have cropped up"" which creates more jobs and makes more money for the city so they can betters school and give back to the community. Inconcluson cars are not the worst thing to have because it gets you from point a to point b but in between those two points theres alot of bad things that come with it i think we should just be able to inform people that we should use our cars more wisely and to some times leave the car to be with your family.",0
f4a87fe8,0,"Lots of people in the world use vehicles in their daily lives but do they know what they are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and fifty percent in some car intensive areas in the United States. Thats one of the reasons why limiting car usage would be so great for us. Another great advantage we would have by limiting car usage would be lowering stress and lowering air pollution as well,""said Carlos Arturo Plaza."" Also limiting car usage would make cities denser, and better for walking, those are the advantages of limiting car usage.

First off, limiting car usage would reduce greenhouse gases. Our cars are responsible for twelve percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and fifty percent in car areas in the United States. That is an unbelievable percentage of greenhouse gases in Europe and an unreal percentage here in the United States. Lowering that percent would be great and alot of people would be thankful, and that would be an advantage of limiting car usage around the world.

Another advantage of limiting car usage would be lowering stress and at the same time lowering pollution. If you limit car usage and just stop driving a car, grab your bike and go for a nice bike ride, it would be a good thing if you are stressed out, it will take your mind off of things and allow you to ease the stress and just relax, and while your not even thinking about it, you wouldn't be polluting the air because your on a bicycle. That is another great advantage towards limiting car usage.

Also limiting car usage would make cities denser, and allow more walking room for people to walk around instead of having to dodge vehicles. If we limit car usage, we could probably build and make more parks where people could walk and exercise, but if we have alot of vehicles driving around, how could we do that. So therefore, limiting car usage would allow us to do that and there's another advantage of vehicles being limited.

Now do you understand how limiting car usage has its advantages? Here i'll let you know again. One it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by alot. Two it can even lower stress as well as when your not even thinking about it, lowering pollution. Not driving a car and lets just say you go for a nice bike ride, that will lower your stress, it takes your mind off of things and allows you to relax, and at the same time your lowering pollution. And finally, it will makes cities denser and allow more walking room for people. Those are the advantages of limiting car usage.",0
f4b73d81,1,"Over the years, people have been disputing over the Electoral College. Some people want it abolished while others want it to stay. The Electoral College is not working and and it needs to be abolished. For many reasons, the Electoral College has not worked. It is unfair to the voters, it causes voters to not vote, and it is unfair to the candidates.

The Electoral College is unfair to the voters. According to source 2, :""Voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" The whole point of voting is so that you, along with many people, can decide who will be the next president! Voting for people to elect a president is just not right. It causes voters to not vote because they know that their vote really won't matter. Source 2 also states that candidates don't spend time in small states, ""focusing only on the tight races in the swing states."" That is causing smaller states like Rhode Island and South Carolina to have less knowledge on the candidates. If I didn't know too much about a candidate, I wouldn't vote at all! Even though people in those states did vote, they might not have known a lot about the candidates and voted for the wrong person.

The people running for office want to win. Source 3 says that someone could have a higher popular vote but lose the election. Is that fair to the candidate? Winning the popular vote but losing the election? No, it isn't. Winning the popular vote means that more people want you in office. If the majority of America wants a certain person to be the president of their country, that means that the winner of the election would be the majority vote. The Electoral College deny that basic right of Americans by not letting them choose their president. That alone is unfair to the candidates and to the voters.

Now you might be saying that the Electoral College has worked for a very long time and shouldn't be changed. Although the Electoral College has been working for a long time, that is the only thing that America has tried. If America used the popular vote, it could've changed elections. The Electoral College hasn't been working because it is causing more and more voters to stop voting and it is making it where only the majority vote doesn't matter. Citizens of America should have the right to chose the president by majority vote.

In conclusion, the Electoral College is unfair to the voters, it causes voters to not vote, and it is unfair to the candidates. As an American citizen, you have the right to vote. The Electoral College is taking that away and it needs to be stopped.",0
f4ba4463,0,"Cars have been in use ever since World War II. Yet, more and more people have been limiting their usage of cars. Many take the alternative of bikes or buses, which ultimately creates benefits for not only one's self, but as well as all of the other people within the area. The benefits of limiting car usage are lowering pollution, creating less road and city congestion, and stress relief.

First of all, people have known for years that cars are a large source of air pollution. However, what most don't know is that ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some car intensive area in the United States"" Rosenthal, Elizabeth Paragraph 5. ""Cold nights and warm days caused the warmer layer of air to trap car emissions"" Duffer, Robert Paragraph 15. Therefore, not only do the car emissions go into the atmosphere, but it gets trapped there, so the more cars being used, the more emissions get built up and added. By limiting the usage of cars, the car emissions in the atmosphere that create air pollution can be reduced.

Secondly, many big cities have to deal with cars and traffic contesting the area. ""BOGOTA, ColombiaIn a program that's set to spread to other countries, millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated or took buses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams"" Selsky, Andrew Paragraph 20. This allowed more room for people to move along the roads and without having to worry of being hit by a car. ""Rushhour restrictions have dramatically cut traffic"" Selsky, Andrew Paragraph 28. In doing so has allowed for pedestrians to be safer when crossing roads. A benefit in which prevents a hospital bill.

Lastly, stress relief can come from limiting the usage of cars, including relieving stress. ""'When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked the verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor"" Rosenthal, Elizabeth Paragraph 3. Heidrun isn't the only one who agrees that life without a car is less stressful. ""'It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution,' said businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza as he rode a twoseat bicycle with his wife"" Selsky, Andrew Paragraph 24. Arturo and his wife were participants of the Colombian carfree day program. When you live a stressless life, it is proven that you can live longer, especially when replacing your car with exercise.

In conclusion, the benefits that come with limiting car usage are a healthier world. One, by replacing your car with exercise and relieving stress. Two, by lessening road accidents. Three, by lessening air pollution, which is not only better for the environment, but yourself. By limiting car usage, all of the benefits work out in your personal favor.",0
f4e2f1f1,1,"The Electoral College has been established since the founding of our country. It is a system that has been tried and tested to work over the course of centuries. It should be upheld for it's ability to produce a solid outcome, and though it has the possibility of failing it's faults are not worse than the popular vote system, and that the Electoral College fosters a presidency campaign that appeals to multiple regions of the United States. This fair system allows representation of the people's will, just like the rest of our government does.

Faith in a certain outcome of the presidential election ensures that the vote has as little complications as possible, and is a reason the Electoral College is necessary. According to source one, ""What Is The Electoral College?"", each political party has it's own set of electors that equal the amount of congressional delegates per state. Usually each state has a ""winnertakeall"" method, so the presidential candidate that gets majority in your state will get all of the electors that represent their party, not just most of them. This is beneficial to the outcome of the election because it makes the ability for a candidate to get majority vote much simpler. There is less of a possibility of a tie, or an outcome where no candidate wins. Source 3, ""In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep out despised method of choosing president"", states that ""even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory in that state..."" , therefore allowing the candidate to secure all votes to their side, instead of having the votes divided on the line of majority rule, and causing rifts between Electoral College voters.

No system is perfect, and the Electoral College is not exempt from this. ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"", Source 2, argues that a term called disaster factor', or the possibility of imminent disaster due to the Electoral College system, is why the Electoral College system should be abolished. The passage uses individual instances, like the fact that in 1960, segrigationists in louisiana nearly appointed Democratic electors that would vote against their candidate, or that in rare instances, ""faithless"" electoral voters would vote for the other side. These are starman arguments, using specific instances to come to a conclusion that the whole system should be abolished. While the Electoral College system isn't perfect, neither is the popular vote system. The popular vote system has a higher chance of causing a tie between candidates, and it doesn't have a ""winnertakeall"" standard. In a tie, the vote would be given to the House of Representatives, which, according to source 2, ""..can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people.."", as citizens often vote one party in for president and another for Congress.

In addition, the Electoral College fosters a more nationwide appeal for the candidate's campaign. Source 3 brings up the fact that no region in the United States has enough electoral votes to elect a president. The ""winnertakeall"" system further benefits this, because in order to win, candidates have to focus their attention on states where their majority vote is insecure. They will not focus on regions where they have essentially secured the majority rule and therefore secured all the electoral votes. In popular vote, they would have to focus extensively on those regions, as the few that are not in the majority would need convincing. Source 3 goes into detail as to why a regionally picked candidate is not a proper show of the will of the people. It states that ""The residents of other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised to feel that thier votes do not count, that their new preident will have no regard for their interests..."", and so having a transregional appeal is essential to properly representing the will of United States citizens.

Our Electoral College system should be defended and kept. It has the ability to produce a solid outcome, has flaws but ones that are not more disasterous than other systems, and drives candidates to try and present a national appeal. A single vote does not decide an election, the representation of our people should not be split in half, divided. The Electoral College does its best to give the nation the president it deserves.",0
f50c4179,0,"Limiting car usage comes with benefits for everything. It benefits the environment, yourself, and everyone else in the world.

If you use your car less or just use it when you need it, the amount of pollutants in the air from vehicle transportation would drop drastically. Vehicles are the second leading cause of pollution in the world behind factories. Cars are responsible for up to fifty percent of gas emissions in heavy traffic areas in the United States according to Elisabeth Rosenthal's essay ""In German suburb, life goes on without cars"". It is a very simple concept, cars produce gas emission, and using your car less can help protect the environment from pollutants.

The environment is not the only thing benefitted from limited car usage. You become healthier if you choose to totally lose the vehicle. Heidrun Walter stated ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Limiting car usage can also limit stress in a person. Besides being stress free, if you choose to walk to where you need to go, you exercise and do not realize it. Basically, if you want to lower your stress, not be tense, or be healthier, just limit your car usage and walk or ride a bicycle.

Vehicle accidents are a major cause of death in the world. So, if you decide to not use your car as much and just walk or bike, that is one less driver on the road. If the trend of limiting car usage and walking or biking spreads, the threats on the roadways will lower drastically. So in turn, using your car less can help keep everyone safe and help lower the amount of vehicle accidents and save lives.

With more people on the side walks, and less people behind the wheel, everyone can be benefitted. From stress to gas emission, everything can be solved with limiting your car usage.",0
f58c4ca3,1,"Dear State Senator, Electoral Colleges have many resources on why they should still be in favor of keeping but I strongly disagree. Changing to election by popular votes for the president of the United States is way more resourceful because Electoral Colleges do not vote for the president of the United States and not all regions may have an opportunity to vote.

To begin with, Electoral Colleges do not vote for the president. Source 2 ""Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" states "" Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect for the president."" This quote shows that if you vote for a slate of Republicans or Democratic electors pledged the president but those electors won the statewide election, those electors would have to go to Congress and the president would get the amount of electoral votes the people have made. It's a process having Electoral College systems therefore, it's much easier having popular votes for the president.

Furthermore, Source 3 ""Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President"" argues ""No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president."" This quote is stating that not everyone has a saying on who they want their president to be. Like people in the South may have many electoral votes but not other regions like Northeast etc. The entire community should be able vote, everyone should be able to vote. Electoral college systems shouldn't be able to reject no ones vote. Moreover, changing elections to popular votes is better because people have a chance to vote the president they want.

Electoral College systems may be in favor in many ways like the winner takes all method, or each candidate running for president having their own electors. In whatever case it may be it's not fair to people having their own votes being rejected. Like i said in my previous paragraph everyone should have a saying on whom they want their president to be.

In conclusion, I'm in favor of chaging the elections by popular votes for the president of the United States because everyone has the saying on the president they wish to have. Electoral Colleges do not vote for the president of the United states and not all regions pf the United States have an opportunity to vote.",0
f5bcc147,1,"The United States is a government that is ruled by the people through elected representatives, but do the citizens really have power? The Electoral College process does not give the citizens all of the power that they shoud be entitled to. ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" p10 If a United States citizen wanted to vote for a certain candidate, they would vote for electors pledged to that candidate instead of directly voting for them. As a government who is ""run by the people"", the government surely has strict power over things that should be left up to the people to decide. The electoral college is unfair and quite confusing to the citizen of the United States. For example, one candidate beats another by a long shot with popular vote but the other candidate wins by electoral votes, the people still have not chosen the representative. The popular vote would bring honesty to the claim that we have a government who is run by the people.

A change to the election of the president by popular vote might, in fact, cause some differences and tension across the United States but would cause more relief than it would tension. The people are tired of this out dated process and demand power. Many citizens no longer vote because they think their vote does not count, that it is all up to congress and electors in the end. If the way of popular vote were to be set in place, many people would begin to vote again and would be fulfilling their civic duty. More and more people are beginning to have negative feelings towards the government and many feel like their opinions do not matter and that nothing is going to change, that it only gets worse. If enough people come together, we can change this old and unfair way of voting and everyone's opinions could make a difference in our nation.

""Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference..."" p23 The electoral College is not a democratic way of voting because you are not voting for a president, you are voting for electors who in turrn, will vote for the president they want despite the people's vote. The trust that the electors will vote for the party's nominee is rarely betrayed but is still a possibility. The winnertakeall system is in each state and candidates only focus on the ""swing states"". For example, in the 2000 campaign, seventeen states did not see candidates. Voters in 25 media markets did not see campaign ads. Popular voting will erase the unfair quality of our presidential elections and bring democratic ways back to the USA.

In conclusion, ""The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational."" p14 The process in which a president is elected by popular votes is much more feesable and democratic. Many more citizens will be more likely to vote under this process thus partionally bringing the nation closer to where it should be in the modern term of democracy.",0
f5ca1a82,0,"Thick clouds of black smoke, and the smell of gasoline fills the air. overtime you breathe it's like your breathing poison. It's in your lungs and you cant get it out. This is our society today. Some people think that this issue is not a big deal, but in fact it is. But where is all this pollution coming from? The answer is simple, cars! Cars are the second leading polluter, in America. What these cars are doing are releasing a poisonous smog into the atmosphere, and we breathe it. Its not only killing us though, oh no. It is killing our one, our only, Earth. We are killing the only thing the human race has to live on, and for what? So we can save a couple minutes to get to work? This needs to stop. Why continue to use cars when their are so many more advantages not to use them? Without cars, or limiting the number of car usage we would save billions of dollars a year, be much more further into technology, and not only be saving lives, but saving our Earth.

How much money would you say you spend on gas a week? Doesn't seem like all that much right? Now add the same thing again, and again, and again. By now you are probably in the hundreds. Now picture yourself with all of that in your hand. Thats all the money you have spent on something that is gone in almost an instant. Think about all the things you could buy with that money. Sounds nice right? Well why don't you just make it a reality than? You could save hundreds in hundreds of dollars in as little as one month! You could save even more by not even buying a car! than you'd be saving a ton of money. Plus youd be doing yourself a favor. You dont need to pay for gas, insurance, repairs or even the car. This is what people in not only America are doing but also in Columbia, Bogota, and one of the worlds most beautiful cities in the world, Paris. These people are bettering themselves, and their country.

""All of our world development since world war II has been sentered on the car"" In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars. Just think about how much more advanced of a society we could have without cars. So many things could be created that could save lives! A cure for cancer, a solution to end world hunger, new electronics, maybe even ways to reach past the ridges of our galaxy, yet somehow we still put our focus on something that is killing us, and the Earth. Sure theres some cool tech in these new Automobils but, the only reason people by cars are for new features, or better mpg, or as said by Mr. Sivak in The End of Car Culture , ""A car is just a means of getting from A to B"", but thats all people really buy new cars, or use them for. If we wernt so focused on cars we would have new, and improved technology, and a lot more life changing discoveries.

The Earth is dying. We are killing it, and ourselves. How much gasoline can your tank hold? the real question is how much gasoline can we put into the air we breathe? This smog and pollution is destroying some of the most beautiful scenes on earth. Paris, New York, and Bejing. However the usage of these automobils are not only killing us with pollution, but with auto accidents. So many of Americans have lost their lives due to wrecks, crashes, common stupidity, and deffects in the car itself. Whats even more sad is a lot of the time the person who has lost their life is not even at fault. A lot of times when driving people tend to get stressed out. road rage is a dangerous thing. In fact Heidrun Walter exclaimed his opinion on the subject by saying ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" in the article In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars. A very, very effective solution to this problem is to ultimitly rid them from society. A simple distraction, a buzz, beep, ring, or crash, cound end up fatal, to anyone, and everyone who gets behind the wheel. Global warming, cancer, deathes, stress, and injuries, these are all things caused by vehicles. A common thing we all learn at a young age is to eliminate the problem at the source, and change starts with you, the reader, the average civilian can make a higher than life impact on society. Don't under estimate the power each individual holds when making a difference for good.

Simple things like car pooling, walking, riding a bike, or public transportation, can all make a difference, for the better. so lets do it! lets make our environment cleaner. Our futures brighter, and our lives safer. Together we can acomplish this! we would have the advantages of saving billions of dollars a year to use for bigger and better things, be much more further into technology, and not only be saving lives, but saving our Earth, on our side.",0
f6410879,1,"Senator, I believe that voting for the president of the United States should be based off of the popular vote by the people. Not the Electoral College. Voting by the Electoral College does not allow the people to have the final say. It ultimately gives the elector the choice. ""The 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century"" Bradford Plumer, paragraph 14, it was a disaster factor. The electors went against the will of the people and voted the opposite of what they said. Whose to say something like this can't happen again soon?

Some people say that the Electoral College is a good thing. It allows a certainty of outcome and is a fair, reasonable way to vote for a president. But it is based off of trust, that the elector won't betray the candidate's party and people. Trust. Are you really going to put your vote for the president of your country in someone else hand based off of trust?

Having an elector represent your state based off of population is ridiculous. One elector representing 500,000 people in Wyoming. Wouldn't you sleep better at night if you could represent yourself instead of someone representing you and thousands of other people all at once.

In 2000, a candidate had more popular votes, and less electoral votes and lost! Even though the people had more votes! How do you feel knowing that your vote doesn't even count? ""Most states have a winnertakeall' system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate""the Office of the Federal Register,paragraph 7. Because of this system, candidates will not spend time in certain states they know they have no chance in winning in. ""During the 2000 campaign seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all""Bradford Plumer, paragraph 13 Next time you go into that voting booth, remember that you're not voting for a president, you're voting and are supposed to trust an elector.",0
f64490e0,1,"Dear Florida State Senator, I am sorry to announce theat thee unfairness of thee Electoral College to thee Americna people, has come to my attention. As a fifteen year old highschool student, I will not have to worry about voting for quite some time. However, if thee Electoral College continues to be thee nation's way of electing a leader, I'm not so sure I will even have thee desire to vote when thee time comes. Having recently read several articles on the electoral college, withe information and claims bothe supporting and puting down thee Electoral College, I am now aware of what it is, and how it works. When a voter votes for thee president, thee Electoral College makes it so theey are actually voting for an elector, or someone who is supposed to vote for thee candidate chosen. Altheough, according to What Is thee Electoral College issued by thee Office of thee Federal Register, most states have a sort of ""winnertakeall"" system in which all electoral go to thee winning candidate of theat state. Electors can be anyone, according to The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even thee bestlaid defenses of thee system are wrong by Bradford Plumer. How Electors are chosen depends entirely of thee state! Of course, as a senator you should be well aware of how thee Electoral College works. Are you aware of how theis affects thee American people negatively?

In civics class, students are taught thee difference between popular vote and electoral vote. However, seventhe grader do not learn thee entirety of it, seeing as learning about thee Electoral College may affect how theey see thee country theey live in. Popular vote, to my understanding, is thee number of votes a candidate recieves from thee American people. Electoral vote, thee theing theat determines who becomes president, is done by thee Electors determined when voters chose which candidate theey wanted to win. Electoral vote, and popular vote are not thee same theing, for instance one could win thee popular vote, yet lose thee electoral vote. Why is theis? Well, one can not promise theat an elector, will vote for thee same candidate theat thee American people have already chosen. Also, because of theis system, candidates tend to visit only thee ""swing"" states, instead of trying to win over thee majority of thee country, theey focus only on thee states which change periodically from red to blue! When I was younger, i used to ask my parent what would happen if a tie ever occurred during a presidential election. Now I know. In thee case of a tie, thee election is therown into thee House of Representatives, where theey theen vote on thee president. Let me explain why theis is unfair, each state only casts one vote, so a delegate from Wyoming reprents thee vote of 500,000 while a delegate from California is supposed to represent 35 million! theere is no possible way for one person to be able to speak for 500,000, everyone has theeir own opinion. Everyone belongs to a political party not everyone belongs to thee same party.

One may argue theat thee Electoral College is a good theing and must stay for thee benefit of thee American people. Withe large states such as Texas and California, swing states, runoff elections, and certainty of outcome, theey have a valid point. Of course everyone has a valid opinion, but theey would be wrong. The Electoral College is thee easy way to decide who will lead thee country, not thee best way. Today's technology can ensure a more fair way to decide thee fate of thee nation. I prepose theat popular vote be thee only way to vote for president. Withe technological advances, machines can sort therought all thee votes and determine who won. This way, thee American people can rest assured knowing theeir vote wasn't therown away because an Elector voted for thee opposing candidate.",0
f6513b25,1,"The electoral college is seen both hated and favored by many Americans. Some believe that the electoral college is an efficient way of reciving a effective president and should be continued to be utilziled in America, and others In comparsion with me agrees that the electoral college should be thrown out allowing voting to be more of an ""equal chance"". The vote really doesnt count if your electors of the state dont come to the agreement of the president you would want In the electoral college Secondly, who are the electors? And lastly who pics the electors? this is the circumstances of having the electoral college.

First off, the vote really doesnt count if your electors of the state dont come to the agreement of the president you would want. In the electoral college the citizen of that particular state vote for the president of their choice. Afterwards it would be up to the number of electors that pledged for that particular president would earn the runners a number of votes that the state has based on their population. The method used for selecting a president maybe efficient but not correct. It maybe faster and easier to calculate but which would you rather have? An not so good president that was choose by some elector. Or a vote based on what the entire country feels. Not off what a certain side of the country are most likely to do.

Secondly, who are the electors? Although these electors are trusted and rarely betrayed, how would we know if it was betrayed during this certain election? What if almost more than half of the electors in every state was influenced,forced or was to ""betray"" that would be an serious issue the election of that particular presdient. This is one of the many questions in having a electoral college. The electors can be influenced by the other electors. which cannot be good for our country. these type of decisions should be made by everyone in the country not 12, 45, or 44 electoral votes. The electoral votes were in the constitution from long ago. These type of systems worked better because the technology wasnt as advanced, but now it is. Why continue on whats already worn out, and out of date?

Lastly, how are the electors choose? Because of not always being able to control who their electors of the state choose for it really isnt accurate. If electoral college was and ""correct"" way to choose the presdient, then why arent they publicly announced? How do the people who select the electors? which brings up the possibility of the electors have a strong bias belief in democratsrepublicans. all together the electoral college sounds fishy, if everyone voted on their personal opionion there would be less choas on how the president was selected.

Although anachronism may seem like a tradtion in America, that worked when it was created and continues to work now, there are quite of few down falls of this system. things are different now, we America should adjust to the times we are living in. What worked then may not be the best possible choice due to the advancements that we nw have in america. We should be free to vote for our president directly, not through some system that is almost acient. The vote really doesnt count if your electors of the state dont come to the agreement of the president you would want In the electoral college Secondly, who are the electors? And lastly who pics the electors? This is the circumstances of having the electoral college. Maybe soon the country will see the differnce.",0
f71c4319,0,"Limiting car use can help us live better lives. The terrible smog that harms the environment called pollution is caused by the excessive use of vehicles in communities. I believe limiting car use can help us reduce pollution, more accessibility to public transportation, and helps you save money. Reducing the use of vehicles can help the environment. Join in and make the world a better place, literally.

With less cars being used in communities the risk of pollution can be decreased. When you don't use your car you help the environment. People use cars to go to places they can easily walk to, but they don't. Some people don't even care about the environment or if they harm it. By reducing the car use in many communities pollution can be greatly reduced.

Public transportation is cheap and quick. Using more public transportation helps you save money and helps the environment. Pollution can be reduced by just taking the bus instead of your own car. According to ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky more people tend to get the initiative to take public transportation. You don't have to do something extraordinary to help the environment, maybe all you need to do is take the bus.

People tend to buy less cars if you limit car usage. The less cars you buy means the more money you save. According to ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal a study found that driving by young people decreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009. The people who drove less between that time must have saved lot of money on gasoline. When you don't use your car as much it ends up benefiting everybody.

By limiting the usage of cars the environment benefits a great deal. Pollution can be reduced to a point where it causes minimal harm if everybody decides to pitch in. Transportation will receive more funding. You will be able to save plenty of money on gas and use it for whatever other purpose you may need it. In conclusion, car usage should be reduced so that everyone may benefit from it.",0
f73a8f61,1,"For many years people have been debating whether or not to keep the Electoral College or change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. According to source 1, the electoral college was established as ""a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" There are few positive effects of the Electoral College, however, there are many negative effects. I am in favor of changing the United States' election process to election by popular vote because there are many risks with the Electoral College, the Electoral College is outdated, and lastly, the Electoral College is unfair to voters in many states.

Currently, while using the Electoral College, the United States takes multiple risks. Some of the major risks were stated in source two. One of the major risks included, what of the elector put the vote in for the candidate he wished? Of course no matter what the situation, there will be risks to take. However, when those risks become actions, and happen more than once, people put up a guard and start to question whether or not the process is trustworthy. A sentence in source three declared, ""each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed. Americans are expected to trust a slate of electors whom we know little about personally, and trust is a personal thing. Trust is something that has to be earned. Therefore, when our trust is betrayed more than once because of the process the Electoral College, there is no way to earn that trust back once again. Without the Electoral College, this would not be an issue.

Not only is the Electoral College risky, but it is also outdated. The Electoral College was created by the founding fathers, over a century ago. With new technology, and new systems forming, the election process should be more modern. Also, when it was decided to use the Electoral College, there were fewer people in the United States. Currently, in modern day, the population is much greater. A country with a greater population needs a modern election selection.

The Electoral College is very unfair to states that do not have the ability to make an impact in the election. If the election process were changed to elected by popular vote, smaller states would have the ability to make their vote matter.

The Electoral College needs to be changed immediately in able for citizens to stop worrying about taking major risks, so our country as more of a modern election process, and so every vote counts. Changing to election by popular vote could make the United States a better country.",0
f75aa25f,0,"From Monster trucks to Volkswagen Beetles, all automobiles are created to make life easier for people from all corners of the Earth. Many people start up their cars everyday without a second thought, whether trekking across the street or across the country. Others believe that cars are ruining the Earth, and put effort toward decreasing their car's ""footprint"" on the environment. People everywhere should consider limiting their car usage.

A community with less cars has proven to also be one with less healthy citizens. According to Source Two, Paris, a city known for it's aromatic scents, was covered with the smell and appearance of smog for days they had nearrecord pollution: Paris had 147 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter compared with 114 in Brussels and 79.7 in London. After a day in which all evennumbered license plates were banned from the streets of Paris, the smog cleared up a great amount enough for the city officials to take the ban they had placed for odd numbered license plates the next day. The smog that was affecting the wellbeing of Paris' citizens had mostly disappeared after only one day of limited car use. If a community limits cars, its inhabitants will be almost forced to exercise more. According to Source 3, in Bogota, Colombia, where a ""Day Without Cars"" is held yearly, 118 miles of bike paths have been constructed, the most of any Latin American city. Less cars on the road in this city have led to other means of transportation being more popular, including walking and bicycling. These ways of getting around are much more healthy then their gaspowered alternative. Less traffic on roads will therefore leave cities healthier than otherwise.

There are many more reasons why citizens should limit their personal car use. Owning a car is huge investment. You have to pay for gas and oil refills for any standard car based on how much it is driven. Because of this, limiting car use would also limit the pressure on car owner's wallets. According to Source One, the majority of residents of Vauban, Germany don't have cars. This city is an example of a worldwide effort to make suburbs denser. Because of this there is no need for automobiles to commute across the city. The purchase of a car, which costs thousands to even millions of American dollars for the average buyer, is unecesssary for the residents of this town and therefore can lead to better financial stability.

Cardriving, the catalyst to the wonders of travel, will continue to drive on the pollution of our Earth. Babysitters, doctors, students, and even the retired will thrive from limitations of car usage. Whether by limiting car usage or not, Earth's inhabitants need to ensure their planet is treated right.",0
f7aa848d,1,"Dear senator, I am not in favor of the electoral college. The electoral college may seem helpful in some ways in terms of voting, but not entirely. Think of it this way you vote for a specific candidate, but you are voting without knowing entirely whether or not your votes are making a difference because you have no control over who the electors vote for. I believe this system should make modifications.

Our county has already had many problems, and accusations of having a corrupt government. Hearing about the electoral college system, and the fact that as a nation we have almost no power for who is elected, does not help the case of being called ""corrupt"" or ""incorrect"". The people as a whole in the United States should be able to vote for the candidate of their choice, without worries. People who specifically vote for someone running for president should either be able to do it themselves, without having to vote for a slate of electors, or, the slate of electors should be more reliable. As in paragraph ten, we cannot always control who the electors cast their vote for. ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always."" Either the electors need to be more reliable in carrying out the requests made by the people of the United States, or we must make modifications to possible change or all together cease use of the electoral college system.

In addition to the fact the American people do not hace full control over who our electors vote for, we do not even have control over who our electors are.

In paragraph eleven, it states that ""legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" If you were truly in favor of protecting the rights given to the people of this country, you would notice this system is wrong. No control over our votes, and no control over the electors? Something must change.

Take into consideration how our country is affected every time a new president is elected. Sometimes this effect is good, others not so much. The popular vote should be able to decide who is elected for president because those who are voting will be effected greatly by the change in presidency. Popular vote means the vote cast the most, the vote submitted most, the vote a large majority presented. The popular vote is always at risk of being defied, and there is nothing the common people of the United States can do about it. There is no action we can take to change the election. In paragraph 16 of the article, it states that ""Each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee and that trust is rarely betrayed..."" Yes this trust may rarely be betrayed, but it is entirely possible. Just because it does not happen often, does not mean it is impossible...and who knows? What if the trust is betrayed sometimes without our knowledge?

Finally, unless I have not made it entirely clear, I am not in favor of the electoral college system. Trust can always be betrayed, even if it does not happen often it can still happen without our knowledge. The people residing in the United States and under the laws of our country do not have full control on who is elected as president. I am, however in favor of election by popular vote. This means that a state casts its vote based on who the majority has voted for, and I truly believe this would system would best suit our country.",0
f7e59043,0,"Cars. Everyday the average citizen uses a car to get around wether it be for groceries or just going to their job. It has gotten to the point that many people cannot imagine the idea of living without a car. For those few people who have made the switch to not using a car daily however, have experienced some good things about life without a car. In the passage set it explores the different positive side effects that can come along with not having a car from real life situations. There are many different things that can happen with just this one change and some of these examples you might not have thought about before.

The first two sources talk mostly about the environmental changes that having no cars could bring. Source one focuses on the greenhouse gasses that are produced from car usage. The article states ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" This is a huge deal because greenhouse gasses are believed to be responsible for global warming which could become a huge threat. Source two continues to bring up the air pollution problems that are occurring in places around the world. Air pollution can cause a variety of problems from people having problems breathing to plants dieing. The problem has gotten so bad that ""Paris enforced a partial driving ban to clear the air of the global city"". The problem of smog has gotten so serious that a whole community had to ban driving which is insane that it's gotten that far. Limiting car usage could take car of our Earth the way it takes care of us.

The last two sources, sources 3 and 4, look at the way that limiting car usage could improve our communities. Source three talks about how that cutting back on car usage could benefit different parts of our surroundings. Near the end of the passage it says ""Parks and sports centers also have bloomed throughout the city"". It then continues to list off individual things like rush hour traffic being cut down and sidewalks that were in poor condition are perfect again. The last source talks about the economic benefits that having less cars operating could bring. As a result of the recession people were forced to get creative on how to save money in order to get by. One thing we did was cut back on the amount of gasoline we used which in turn led to us cutting back on the amount of driving we did. This boosted our economy and there in no reason why it can't continue to boost our economy even further if we cut back our car usage even further.

In conclusion cutting back on how much we use our cars has many advantages that will benefit every person living today. There are even more advantages that were not mentioned in the sources above that will improve the world even more. Along with there being a ton of advantages, there are little to no disadvantages. Think to yourself of at least four advantages of increasing the amount of car usage.",0
f81d371d,1,"Dear, senator I believe the electoral college was a useful tool in the past ,but is now an out date system that should be changed. If we continue to use this system we aren't really giving the people a fair chance to vote for who they want. For example in California a more democratic state republicans may be lessen the incentive to vote knowing that there vote will not have an effect. This raise another issue, which is not everybody is voting and it is not all a right but a prestige among US citizens every where. The electoral college was elective in the past because we did not have the technology to count all the votes from each state, but now we do so we can only go by the popular vote.

The popular vote is more effective and I'm not the only one who thinks so over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. Al Gore thanks to the electoral college won the popular vot but lost the electoral, how is it that some one could win more votes from most voters ,but still lose? The answer is the electoral college, the reason is that you are not voting as a indiviual person but as a state. This brings me back to California and how republicans votes don't count because the state voted democrat.

Though the electors should do there job and vote with the state they could always defy the will of the people. In 1960 segregationist nearly succeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. So please take into consideration that your vote may not have an effect on the election if we don't change the system.",0
f837fc25,1,"Dear Senator, The electoral college has existed for many years till now and has been used to elect the presidents of the United States of America, clearly this form of electing a president is outdated. Senator, You must change the electoral college and replace it with popular vote because the electoral college is unfair, and irrational.

Senator you must change the electoral college and replace it with popular vote because it is unfair. This is true because under the electoral college system voters vote not for the president but for a state senator who in turn elects the president. For example a person living in Texas that wanted to vote for John Kerry would have to vote for a slate of 34 democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the offchance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to congress and Kerry would then receive his 34 electoral votes. Because of this system voters cant control who the electors vote for, and sometimes voters get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate. The electoral college isn only unfair to the voters but also to the men and women who are competing in the elections, for example in the 2000 U.S presidential race Al Gore received more individual votes than George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election, receiving 271 electoral votes to Gores 266 electoral votes. This is why you must replace the electoral college Mr. Senator.

At the most basic level, the electoral college is irrational to voters. Because of the winner take all system in each state candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on swing states. Seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didnt get to see a single campaign add. the electoral college is irrational because given that many voters vote one party for president and another for congress, the house of representatives can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people, and if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this senator in 1968 a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election, in 1976 a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The election is only a few swing voters away from a catastrophie. This is why you must replace the electoral college due to its irrationalism.

Its quite clear State senator, the electoral college is unfair and irrational, the best arguements in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. and the arguements against direct elections are spurious at best. This is why you must abolish the electoral college.",0
f851beaf,1,"The Electoral College, established by the Founding Fathers within the Constitution, was meant to serve as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and a popular vote of citizens. What the founding fathers failed to see was the many outstanding flaws within the Electoral College. For many imperative reasons that cannot be avoided, elections must be changed to the method of popular vote, and the Electoral College must not be a part of the United states elections any longer.

The first and foremost reason why the Electoral College should no longer be kept in the U.S is because it will only lead to negative consequences. This has been observed in the past, and it must be prevented from occurring once more. One element of this disaster factor is that electors could defy the will of the people. Source 2 informs readers that state legislators are are technically responsible for picking electors. These electors could very easily decide to vote upon who they would like to see in office, rather than who the citizens want. The impact of this would be treacherous when the wrong person is elected as president. Source two quotes, ""Back in 1960, segregationsists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the democratic electors with new electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy."" This means that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy. How is that for a compromise between Congress and U.S voters? Furthermore, another way in which keeping the Electoral College would be disastrous would be seen in the case of a state sending two states of electors. Bradford Plumer reminded those in favor of the Electoral College that this has happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, enormous downfall was avoided because Vice President Richard Nixon, presided over the Senate, validated his opponent's electors and did so ""without establishing a precedent."" However, America may not be so lucky the next time this may take place. Senators in each and every state must open their eyes and really see what is happening in their country. The U.S must change its elections to the popular vote system, where all of these impacts will be avoided. The Electoral College does nothing for its citizens, and states may send two states of electors to it, and for these reasons, America will face a very unhappy situation if we keep this system.

Popular vote is a much better system than the Electoral College because unlike the Electoral College, it is actually fair for its citizens. America, which has suffered greatly to achieve equality and liberty is held back by one thing the Electoral College. This is suffered by the United states citizens because of the College's winnertakeall system. Through this, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ""swing"" states. Source 2 refers back to the 2000 campaign, saying, ""...seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all...and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad."" How can a president be properly elected with this system in place? Source 3 attempts to discredit this claim, aguing, ""Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign..."" What they fail to realize is that those citizens may not even know who they are voting for! It is lucid that there is simply no valid argument for outting the fate of the presidency into the hands of a couple swing voters in a state. In addition, as far as being unfair goes, there are also unpredicatable scenerios that may occur in elections. These scenerios are far from fair to anybody. For instance, there is always the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. If that were to happen, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives where voting would be handed over to state delegations. Plumer quotes, ""Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to...unfair."" This would not happen if the U.S adopts the popular vote method, where the most popular candidate will win and reflect the citizens who placed him or her into office. The Electoral College is nothing other than unfair to the citizens who rely on it to elect their president.

For many reasons, election methods must be changed to popular vote, and the Electoral College must be disgarded. It will only lead to a profound disaster, and it is also extremely biased and unfair. The United States must take action, one state at a time, to reverse the negative path it is on. This is the only way the U.S can finally reach its long term goal complete prosperity.",0
f8b08dd6,1,"Dear state senator, I write to argue in favor of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is as it says on the 3rd source ""widely regarded as an anchronism, a nondemocratic method of selecting a president that ought to be overruled by declaring the candidates who receives the most popular votes the winner."" That was in my opinion pretty self explanatory. This letter is based on information from article sourses I read.

First of all, I would like to start by saying that the Electoral College is helpful to avoid problems where no candidate got a majority. For example in the 5th part of the source 3 it says ""Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College 301 and 370 electoral votes, respectively"" which backs up my claim. I understand the ""wrong"" part of it like in the 2nd source it says ""If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for John Karry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry."" meaning voters vote for a slate of electors and they choose the president. Honestly I dont see it as that ""wrong"" but thats my opinion.

Second, I agree with the Electoral College despite the lack of ""democratic pedigree"" for five reasons. First, ""Certainty of Outcome"" meaning winning candidate's share of the Electoral College exceeds his share of the popular vote, example, Obama is rodney. Second, in the Everyone's President part it says that no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president, for example, ""rodney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win"". Number 3, ""Swing States"" the ""winner takes all method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidatesas we saw in 2012 electionto focus their campaign efforts on the tossup states"". There is also number 4 where the Electoral College ""restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution"" amnd there is number 5, ""Avoid RunOff Elections"" which is what I used in the second paragraph as a claim.

In summation im in favor with the Electoral College for many reasons. After reading through this side and the opponing side of the argument I can honestly say that I prefer this method as it is. Yes there is a bad side to it but there is a bad side to everything and it shouldn't be big enough for anyone to oppose it. Well thank you for taking the time to read through this.",0
f8c16bbe,1,"To who it may concern, With all the problems affiliated with the Electoral College, I believe that the United States should do away with the process. This process by which the president is elected is unfair to those of us who are old enough to vote and understand politics. Another disadvantage is that the system of Electoral College is very confusing to many people.

The worst thing about the Electoral College is that it is just outright puzzling. Men who are running for a spot as a presidential candidate are not voted for by the citizens of that state. They have to gain supporters who then become the electors. Then the people of that state have to vote for the electors, not the person to become a presidential candidate. Voters can't even directly vote for who they want. What if you vote for a slate of electors, who are supposed to be in favor of the presidential candidate you want, but don't vote for him? What happens then? presidential candidates who should actually get a chance at running for president because they didn't get enough electoral votes. This all leads to the next disadvantage of the Electoral College, unfairness.

As stated in an article by Bradford Plumer, ""... Al Gore thanks to the quirks of the electoral collegewon the popular vote but lost the presidency."" The person running for president should be voted for directly by the voters. Someone, such as Al Gore, can get enough of the popular votes, but not enough of the electoral votes becuase they can't swing the votes in some states. This basically means that the majority of the United States would like to have Al Gore as a president, but couldn't because the majority of people in a state didn't want him as president.

To sum it up, the Electoral College should be eliminated from the presidential voting process. People should just directly vote for who they want as president and see where it goes from there.",0
f8d39454,0,"Automobiles are one of the most dramatic and resourceful products of the Industrial Revolution. They help people commute from one place to another, allow for travel time to decrease, and help citizens carry heavy objects from point A to point B. Only, did we think about the negative effect it could have on our environment? Forests are cut down to build highways, accidents are caused when the driver fails to pay proper attention to what he or she is doing, and greenhouse gases have overridden our atmosphere with choking smog. Many Americans rely on their cars, but have we thought about the positive of limiting our car usage? We as fellow citizens have a substantial amount of advantages if we simply limit our car usage to help create a better environment, for us, for the community, and for those to come.

One advantage of limited car usage is a better quality of life for a person. When a person has the responsibility of a car, they must make sure all of the parts are working properly, know how to operate the car safely, know exactly which routes to take that are safest for the car and for themself, know exactly how to fix the car in case something malfunctions, the list continues. This causes the person to become overwhelmed and stressed due to the needs of their car. Elisabeth Rosenthal states in ""The End of Car Culture"" that, ""people who stopped car commuting as a result of recession find little reason to resume the habit"" Rosenthal, paragraph 8. Basically, people who limited their use of cars were more relaxed and found no good reason to return to their habit of using a car. furthermore, with more people limiting their car usage, the more they use local stores and shops that are walking or biking distance. Rosenthal also states ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"" , ""stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls..."" Rosenthal, paragraph 6. In other words, businesses florish due to their locations and promote citizens to limit their car usage due to their distance to travel. This also allows for more people to acknowledge their cities and allow them to become cleaner and beautiful.

Similar to the first, another advantage is for the betterment of the city. According to ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, ""... Beijing, China which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world"" Duffer, paragraph 5. This is due to Beijing's huge population tourist and regular and their increased use of cars on a daily basis. In other words, smog due to passenger cars in one of the leading causes of pollution in our society. The cars are, literally, choking us and future generation to the point where we won't be able to breathe. Limited car usage allows for the reduction of greenhouse emmisions and smog, allowing for oxygen to circulate and breathe life into us and our children. As a result of reduced greenhouse emmisions, cities become cleaner and more beautiful. As stated by Andrew Selsky in ""Carfree day is Spinning into a Big Hit in Bogota"" , ""Parks and sports senters also have bloomed throughout the city uneven, pitted sidewalks have been replaced by broad, smooth sidewalks and new resturants and upscale shopping districts have croopped up"" Selsky, paragraph 15. Basically, the limited use of cars has allowed the city to florish and reconstruct itself into something beautiful and strong for the community to enjoy.

The limited use of cars has allowed for the betterment of the community and of cities across the globe and many people are taking advantage of this new era coming into play. The health of people has improved and the pollution that makes up our atmosphere has decreased in a slow, but steady stream. Imagine how much better the environment would be once the use of cars is limited to less than one perent of the population. The future is bright and we only need to strive for it, without headlights.",0
f8d5548a,1,"Voting time is here again and its time to cast your vote for the president, but do you know what really happened when you vote? See the United States Constitution has this process set that the election of a president consists of the selection of electors and each state has electors based on population. Citizens vote for the electors candidate and the electors take the majority of the votes whether it be democratic or Republican and all votes of that states electoral representatives vote for the states winning president. Crazy right? But is that the most effective way to this and if it is not the why shouldnt we change it to something more fare and equal and not leave it up to some special electors. Leave it to the people to decide who we want for our president.

The United states is a fairly new country compared to others around our world yet we have some pretty advanced technologies and some really brilent ideas but when our founding fathers made the Constitution I dont think they made the best choice. Even some of our previous presidents like Nixon, Carter, Dole, Chamber of Commerce and the AFLCIO have said we need a better way to elect our presidents. In 2000 Al Gore had won the popular vote and was set on presidency but did not win thanks to this outrageous system and lost the electoral vote and lost his shot at precedence. If you win the popular vote doesn that mean your the fan favorite and the citizens want you to be president because the majority voted for you. During a pole shortly after Gore lost people were asked if we should keep the system we have now or chang and 60% of the people asked said that we should change. Cant you see the people are cying our for help and asking to change the system so someone like Gore doesn get cheater again.

When campaigning as a president shouldnt you try to visit every state to try and increase yo popularity? Well sadly it really doesn work like that with this current system you see some presidents lets take Obama and rodney as and example. Some states wont see the candidates at all because they ""know"" they will win the electoral votes. Obama in the 2012 election never visited some states like Ohio or rodney and flordia because they knew that the majority would vote for him and he would win that state. Now how is that fair. If it was up to just a popularity vote each president campaigning would go to every stae trying to get as many voters as possible instead they say eh i will skip that state because I will get the majority any ways. On top of the the electoral system makes smaller states less important because it is set up where more population means more votes. That to me is saying well you a small state so everyone in that stae you mean way less that this other state. California, Texas, and Flordia are the most campianed states in the US because they have 55,38,29 votes respectivley. now places like Arizona, Ohio, north and south Dakota have six, three, three, and three respectivley. how is any of these people less important adn less aluable the the ones in California, Texas or Flordia.

I still cant find a reason why we should keep this sytem around and the more I think about it the more I want to get rid of it. The electoral college is taking our power as US citizens our of our hands and defies us from voting for the president and in turn makes us vote for special offece people. I say leave the electoral system and change to a popular vote wins presedency. This puts power where it should belong, in the hands of the citizens. Who else is with me on abanding the old way and taking a new step in the direction of power to the people.",0
f8d57f7a,1,"Dear state senator, Ever since 1776, The United States of America has been a great example of freedom, excellence, and democracy. After all, the U.S. is one of the biggest supporters of democracy, and is all about the rights of their people. So imagine my shock to learn that this country, in fact, does not rely on it's people to vote for their leader. Which, to many people would be the simplest form of freedom out there. Instead, we have the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a number of electors that represent a state. ""Your state's entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators...."" What Is the Electoral College? by the Office of the Federal Register In this quote, it explains that the Electoral College is based on the existing population in your state therefore, the more people you have, the more electors the state receives. However, this sounds great and all, but in my opinion, a direct democracy would work great for this country because it would generate just representation of the people by allowing them to make the vote, encourage voters and remind them that they have a voice, and immediately destroy the chances of a representative to vote for an opposing candidate.

America is all about their people. And of course, the government wants to do what's best for them, right? Voting is a right that American citizens achieve when they reach the matured age of eighteen. It's supposed to feel like a blessing that we get to decide and have a voice in the process of election. But, with the Electoral College, it ""...may turn off potential voters of a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state."" In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President by Richard A. Posner So the citizens of this country are beginning to feel like their say in this decision will have little to no impact. This will affect the amount of voters and will ultimately cause a huge problem in the way people feel about representation.

Enough about the people, how about the electors? ""Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always."" The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer This means that not even when the people vote for all their electors and they should be selecting the correct candidate, they may change their minds. Electors are people too, and people may have their opinions swayed and then the electors could vote for the other candidate. It is scary to think that the candidate everyone chose and was rooting for might not win because someone decided to make a different decision.

And some people might stand up for the Electoral College, say that ""The winnertakeall method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates...to focus their campain efforts on the tossup states."" In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President by Richard A. Posner It later goes on to say that because of this, the citizens in the Swing States become the most thoughtful voters because they receive the most information on the candidates. However, wouldn't we, as a country, prefer all of our potential voters to be informed and wellaware of our candidates? ""Because of the winnertakeall system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states...focusing only on the tight races in the 'swing' states."" The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer Why should the fate of the presidency be laid in the hands of such a small amount of people when our country is meant to be for everybody in the land?

As a concluding statement, senator, I want you to consider my argument that we'd be better off without the Electoral College because citizens should be able to decide who they want to run, they should feel important, they should all be wellinformed, and electors that change their minds wouldn't even be a problem anymore. Thank you for taking the time to consider my letter.",0
f8ebb15e,1,"Dear State Senator, I send you this letter to bring up an issue that is often debated amongst us Americans. Should we kee the Electoral College? No! The electoral college just doesn't work anymore and we have seen that in the past. You probably ask yourself what is wrong with the Electoral College? The problem with the Electoral College is that it is unfair, it doesn't rely on what the people say and it can sometimes really make the public mad.

The Electoral College is really unfair, especially for voters. We vote for who WE want, not for some other guy to say what we want. Voters want THEIR voice to be heard when they vote not someone else's. When we vote for a presidential candidate we want to vote directly for who we are voting, we want to pick who we want directly. In source 2 the article explains how the Electoral College works. The author says ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a state of electors, who in turn elect the president."" What this means is that when you voted for Obama you didn't vote for Obama , you voted for a group of people to vote for who they wanted. So your voice was not heard. Don't you find that unfair to the voters and to the candidates?

overtime one person votes for a certain presidential candidate, they are basically ignored. The President should be chosen by the people! And at the moment the President is being chosen by politicians who will ""represent"" us and repeat what we say although that has been proven to not always be true. Passage 2 reminds us of the incidence in the 2000 election in which Al Gore lost the presidency to George W. Bush by electoral votes, even though he had more individual votes. This proves that our state representatives will not always represent us how we want them to, but how they want to represent us. This is the reason why voters need a direct voice from them to picking their leaders. We should pick what we want not what some politicians want. You are probably saying that these incidents do not happen very often, as said in source 3. The article says ""...it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely. It happened in 2000...but that was the first time since 1888"" This says that situations like this are very rare, yet it is still possible. Even so, wouldn't you rather the people be heard rather than a politician that claims to represent his state?

So many people got mad in 2000 when they just chose the president most people didn't want. There's many ways to make us Americans mad and this is just another one of those ways. In the United States you are supposed to be able to choose what you believe to be right. If you want to choose what you think should be the future's right president then you should be able to pick him and not have to expect anyone's approval or opinion on your vote. You should be able to walk out from the voting center and say I voted for this guy. Eventually keeping the Electoral College will only cause more problems, because as time goes on the human develops its opinion futher and creates and spreads new ideas meaning that there will be more people picking different things. If you think that what you are picking should be picked you should be able to say ""I want that"" and not have to through the bother knowing that a politician may have chosen what you DON'T want. If you want to make Americans mad, then keep the Electoral College.

In conclusion I think that the Electoral College be removed and the use of popular vote be put into effect because the Electoral College is unfair, it does not reply on what the public says and it makes the Americans mad. Please take this letter into consideration.",0
f8f33a50,1,"Dear state senator, I theink thee Electoral College should stay because like most well educated Americans thee people of thee Electoral College know who theey want to lead theis country. Most Americans complain about how theere vote doesn't matter but it really does. Your vote is what's making thee electors decied on who should lead America.

The Electoral College is a group of well educated people theat understand congress better thean thee average American citizen. In order to choose thee right leader we need to have thee highly qualified people for thee job. Most Americans don't know what toppings to put on theeir pizzas, now imagine what kind of trouble theey would have choosing someone to run our country. when you vote you don't vote for thee president or thee secretary of state or thee governor, you vote for a slate of electors theat theen choose who to elect as thee leader of thee country, state, or city. thee Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a nondemocratic metheod of selecting a president theat ought to be overruled by declaring thee candidate who recieves thee most popular votes thee winner. but each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for thee party's nominee and thee trust is rarely betrayed.

There are 5 reasons for retaining thee Electoral College.

A dispute over thee outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible but it is less likely thean a dispute over the popular vote.

2. Everyone's President The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a regional favorite, such as Mitt rodney was in thee southe, has no incentive to campaign heavily in theose states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states theat he knows he's more favorited to win in. theis is a desirable result because a candidate withe only regional appeal is unlikely to become a successful president.

3. Swing States The winnertakeall metheod of awarding electoral votes induces thee candidates to focus theeir campaign efforts on thee tossup states. Voters in tossup states are more likely to pay close attention to thee campaign knowing theat theey're going to decide thee election. They are likely to be thee most theoughtful voters and thee most theoughtful voters are thee ones theat are going to be deciding thee election.

4. Big States A large state usually gets more attention from presidential candidates theen thee smaller states 5. Avoid RunOff Elections There is pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of thee votes cast theat pressure, which would greatly complicate thee presidential election procces, is reduced by thee Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner.

A good precentage of Americans want thee Electoral college to be gone but i theink theat thee Electoral College should keep doing what it is doing because theey know how to choose thee right candidate and theey have a great 5 step procces to choose who should lead thee United States.",0
f92a4a6e,0,"There is a new era in driving. people from all around the contry are either cutting down on driving or getting rid of there cars all together. I think that cutting back on te usage of driving a car will get people to find new ways of travel and also cut down on green house gas emissions.

There are many reasons to cut down on the driving of cars. one of these reasons is to find new ways of traveling. I'm not the only one who feels this way. there are many up and coming communitys enforcing the same idea but actual doing somthing to enforce it. ""70 percent of vaughn's families don not own cars and 57 percent of the family sold there car to move there""source 1as you can see i am not the onlyone with these belifs this neighborhood has set up certain rules and restrictions to make sure that people are either finding a place to store there car and walk and find a new means of transportation or they are selling there cars all together. Another way people like this are preventing people from driving or buying cars is they make it extremely expensive to park and store your car. like it says in source 1""car ownership is aloud but there are only two places to parklarge garages at the edge of the development where car owners buy a space for 40,000 dollars,along with a home""so as you can see even though they are not making driving impossible but they are making it extremely hard to indulge in that process.

Another reason that i think we should cut down or completly get rid of driving and cas is to cut down on green house gas emissions. in the second source it says ""paris had 147 micrograms of particulate mater or PM. compared to other countries in the world that only have 114 or 79 micrograms PM."" source 2 this goes to show that just one of the smaller cities in a smaller contrie is emitting this much pollution into the air imagine how much the U.S is or china is emitting daily. when paris found out abot this they made sure that no one was driving for the next few days to ""clear the air"". and when the driving ban lifted there was already an increase in the clenleness of the air after only a few days of not a lot of people driving. And the people who were caught driving were givin a fine for driving. if we want to stop the green house gas emissions we as a contry and even a world need to find ways like what paris did to ""clear the air"" cars alone make up 12% of the green house gas emissions. now imagine our contry and planet if we were to completly cut out that 12% percent. we can do that as long as we can come up with ways and guide lines and rules to limit the use of cars.

to wrap up,i think as a contry and as a planet we need to come up with new ways and ideas on how to limit the use of cars and the green house gas emissions. and the only way to do that is to give people other options on diffrent ways of travel and to show them the statistics of how bad cars actualy are for the enviroment.",0
f931cc1f,0,"From the early 2000's to the present day, the number of people who own cars throughout Europe and the United States has gone down. Although personal motorized vehicles can be convenient to own and use, there are many advantages to not owning a car, such as a decrease in air pollution, experiencing other sources of transportation, and an overall cultural shift.

Air pollution is a big issue all around the world. Cars are responsible for twelve percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and fifty percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in some highly populated areas in the United States. Cities such as Paris have banned cars for a few days in order to reduce the greenhouse gases emitted into their atmosphere. Congestion of environmentally damaging gases went down by sixty percent in Paris after their cleanse, where as before the cleanse, they were suffering through five straight days of heavy smog. Cars are the second most source for carbon emission in the United States. Lower amounts of cars owned results in less pollution in the air, which creates an all around better environment, a huge advantage.

Without personal cars, people resort to using other new and exciting forms of transportation such as biking, walking, hiking, or using buses, taxis, or the transit. In Vauban, Germany, the residents live a new lifestyle without personal cars. The community is small, and there are just a few streets that are easily accessible. The residents in the community experience a life that is close to the people around them. In Bogota, Columbia, once a year they have a carfree day, where the population must find other ways to get around instead of their personal vehicles. The carfree day is very popular, and as a result, has allowed the city to invest in one hundred and eighteen miles of new bike paths and sidewalks, new parks, and new sports centers. In the United States, some people decide to just set up their life around their home. Everything they have to get to is within walking distance of their home. The number of miles driven peaked in 2005, and then declined heavily afterward. In New York, the bike sharing program and the car pooling programs have allowed for less personal car use. Driving by teenagers all throughout the United States has decreased by twentythree percent between 2001 and 2009.

The decrease in personal vehicle use is leading to a revolutionary cultural change that is crossing borders and making it's way around the world. Since World War II, the development of the world has revolved around the car, but that will soon change. From Vauban, Germany, where there is no car use at all, to the United States, where in 2013, the number of miles driven per person was equal to that of 1995, this cultural change is making it's way into each home. Some explanations for this change are the internet and city centers. The internet allows people to feel connected to family and friends without having to drive to see them. City centers have made the suburbs less populated, which results in less driving back and forth. Some possible results from a cultural shift away from the use of personal cars are less dependence on the car industry, and overall smaller, closer, and more communitydriven cities based around transportation such as biking and walking. In the long run, this cultural shift would be an advantage to the world.

In Europe and the United States, many people have already made the shift away from personal car usage. People of the world can partake in a cultural change of less car usage, experiencing different forms of transportation, and all the while positively affecting their environment.",0
f9748d3d,0,"Driving at times can be a really big issue to deal with. There are so many thing that can go wrong, a crash, then increase in insurance, you might even get your license taken away after that. When you don't drive, the world is an open book just waiting to be read. Walking or riding bikes can relieve stress and make you more fit and in shape. The gasses that come from cars are just aweful for the environment, and there would be such a largly reduced number in traffic jams if people would just get off the road. Once your on the road, anything can happen. It's dangerous, i sometimes even wonder if i really want a license.

When you drive there are so many traffic jams. The idea of never having to worry about traffic again is intriguing. Why worry about having to rush through traffic just to get to work on time, when instead you can simply manage your time correctly and walk at the pace you are comfortable with. Traffic jams cause accidents that put peoples lives at risk. In the article, ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in booga"" by Andrew Selsky, he states, ""...millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during a carfree day...leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams"". The carfree day in Colombia is working to perfection to promote alternative transportation, i don't see why we dont have this in the United States.

driving causes stress and tension and that's never good. A stressed driver is a dangerous driver, when you're stressed you become more careless and less aware of your surroundings and that is very dangerous as a driver it leads to reckless driving and accidents. Being without a car relieves this stress for many people. In the article, ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" by Elisabeth Rosenthal, a quote from the article states, ""When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter. This shows that cars are a lot to handle and that most people just believe it is too much stress for one person to deal with.

The smog and pollution caused by all the cars that are on the road these days is another reason why it is best to stay off the road. In the article, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"" by Robert Duffer, he says, ""The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world"". The cities ban on cars on the road shows a serious concern in the saftey of the people because of all the smog that driving has caused.

Some people might argue that cars would be faster, but if you take a car you are going to be mor at risk of an accident, you're going to be polluting the air, and you'll only be stressing yourself out in the process. I strongly suggest that America does something to change our ways, because if we don't, we'll end up like Beijing and Paris with an extremly high pollution rate.",0
f980c599,0,"You're running late for work, but you still have to drop the kids off at work. Or maybe you overslept and have to get to school soon. You get everything ready for the day, jump into your car, and you drive off. Cars are very important in todays society, but limiting your car usage can have its advantages. Reducing the amount of times you use your car could help the environment, the economy, and the development of the city you are living in.

Pollution is a topic that is heard of everywhere, yet we don't take action to prevent it. Limiting your car usage could help contribute to helping the world get rid of pollution in the air. Paris typically has mor smog than other European capitals due to their usage of diesel fuel. Diesels make up about 67 percent of vehicles in France. Paris has tried to stop people from using their cars so much and is fining them if they are. Eventually, due to so much smog and diesel usage, people will have to stop using their cars so much if they want to be abe to see where they're going when driving.

The economy will benefit from the limited usage of cars. Think about it, if we use our cars less, we don't run out of gas as fast as we usually would. If we don't run out of gas, we don't spend as much money trying to fill the tank. If we don't buy as much gas, the price of gas will decrease due to the amount the pipelines are able to store and generate at the same time. If we limit our usage of vehicles, insurance costs will decrease because people are not driving as often and there aren't as many accidents happening.

The development of the city you live in will change in a good way for you if you limit the usage of your vehicles. It used to be that people in the old days wanted to move out as far as possible from their neighbors for ""space"". The areas and cities just kept on expanding an dit would take longer to get somewhere in town. People wanted to live in suburban and have a job in the city. This increased the usage of cars and other vehicles. Now, people are starting to move back into the city, amking it denser. Once you live in the city, you wouldn't have to use your car to go grocery shopping because there is a public or walmart right across the street from you. People in these dense cities will start to walk or ride their bikes to work.

Parents wouldn't have to worry about being late and still having to drop of their kids. While the parent is able to drive twice toandfrom work, the kids could go toandfrom school by walkin or riding their bikes. This cuts off the usage off the car. Instead of dropping of the kids and then going to work and then going to pick the kids up and then head home, know you won't have to do that.

Limiting the amount of time you use your car for can help the world and yourself. You save money, time, and the planet all at once by using your vehicles less. On the outskirts of Freiburg, Germany, residents in a community are forbidden of street parking, driveways, and home garages. Car ownership is allowed, but you would have to park in a large garage at the edge of the development. Along with this, you eould pay 40,000, with a home, to be a car owner. These methods are being used more and more to stop the great and unreasonable usage of cars.",0
fae8be6d,0,"The four passages provided explain that less and less people are buying cars and obtaining licences because of the multiple advantages it provides such as reduced pollution, reduced stress, and reduced traffic.

All, four passages mention that an up side of limiting car usage would reduce pollution around the world. In paragraph five it mentions that ""passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in europe... and up to 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the united states."" By reducing the amount of cars driven in these areas we could reduce the amount of pollution. Due to large amounts of smog created by pollution in France, banning was put on drivers with even license plates for one day. This is shown in paragraph 19, ""The smog cleared enough Monday for the ruling French party to recind the ban for oddnumbered plates on Tuesday."" This shows how much can change in just one carfree day.

Not driving cars can also reduce stress. The families in Vauban, Germany experience less stress when not driving and instead walk or ride a bike. Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two stated in paragraph three, ""when I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way.'"" Even though this is just one opinion, it is safe to say that the other residents in the community are feeling the same way. In Bogota, Columbia a carfree day has been that has been held annually for three years has a businessman named Carlos Arturo Plaza saying in paragraph 24 ""'It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution.'"" Not driving cars obviously is a way of lowering stress.

Finnaly, not driving can reduce traffic in heavly populated areas. In paragraph 14 it shows how not driving can reduce traffic, ""Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France, after five days of intensifying smog."" In just five days traffic was down 60 percent! Imagine what a few carfree weeks or months could do. Again back to Bogota, Columbia, paragraph 20 states ""...Millions of Columbians hiked, biked, skated or took busses to work during a carfree day yesterday, leaving the streets of this capital city eerily devoid of traffic jams."" This shows that carfree days can even be done in large cities.

In the end, even though life without cars would be difficult there are many more pros than cons to living without cars. The pros being less pollution, less stress, and less traffic.",0
fafc5912,0,"Smog, acid rain, high carbondioxide levels, all of these things are due to pollution. In many countries the leaders have put a ban towards cars. Paris France, Vauban Germany, Bogota Colombia, and even the United States of America haveare thinking about putting a ban on cars or other transporting objects. Their are many advantages to limiting car usage limiting pollutians in the air, saving money, and having a healthier life style.

Cars can cost a pretty penny epically if their new, and many lowmiddle class family's have trouble keeping up with the bills that come with a car. Car payments alone can run up to 300 a month. Then theirs insurance, and if your car happends to need a change of oil, or breaks theirs another 200300 dollar payment. That's why people are starting to buy fewer and fewer cars each year. After the peek in 2005 car percheses have droped tremendously, with less people deciding to get a license.

Not getting you license dosn't mean you cant get around, it just means that you have to find other means of transportation. Biking, walking, even riding on your skateboard can get you from point A to point B. Cars are bigining to become obsolete, not being used in large suburbs, or highly populated cities. People have started to walk to work and that has a largee impact on health. With people having privet cars they dont feel the need to have physical activity every day. This could be contributing to obesity. With cars being out of mind people are starting to get exersize just by walking to work. Cars have also contributed to many deaths all over the world. With new technology coming out many drivers get distracted. Wether its talking on their phones, trying to pick up something thats' dropped in the back seat, or even trying to dig something out of your purse. Not all drivers are a fault tho, many other accidents happen because of pedestrians not paying attention. These accidents could be prevented though, by just getting rid of the use of cars.

Passenger cars cause 12% of greenhouse gass additions in europe, and up to 50% in some carintensive areas in the Unites States. If we got rid of most privetly owned cars though, it world bring that pecentige down tremendously. In Paris the record high pollution finally had them pass a partial driving ban untill the thick smog cleard the city streets. congestion was down 60% in the streets of paris, and after 5 days of intensifying smog it had finally cleard.

Cars all over the world are slowly becoming less and less used. This could help the pollution, health and save money. these advantiges to getting rid of cars is going to become a topic thast we will talk alot about for ages, until cars become compleetly and totaly obsolite.",0
fb2d565c,1,"Dear senator, Imagine it being the year for choosing for a new president for the United States of America. You cast your vote, for which president you thought that would be best to run our country. After, you hear the results you become very disappointed , Because the president won not by the popular vote but by the electoral college. You become very angry and frustrated because the president that will now be running for America will not better our country by the things he said. Reasoning, that he won by the electoral college and not by popular vote, and you feel as if you dont feel as if it was not fair because you're not really choosing based on the state laws and how the electors are selected. How would you feel if you were in a situation like this ?

Furthermore, i think we should change the election by popular vote for the president of the United States of America. My reasoning being said is because when the president wins by popular vote it's from what the american citizens want, not what the electors chose. When you choose by popular vote you also avoid many other things from occurring. For example, the electoral college is a method of selecting the president that may turn off voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying for their state. As explained in the text "" voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election."" Moreover, the electoral college is unfair to voters. candidates dont spend as time in states they know they have no chance of winning, and only focusing on the states that they do. As said in the text "" In a 2000 campaign , seventeen states dont see the candidates at all, including in rhode island and south carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didnt get to see a single campaign ad. Making that hard for the people to see what there president wants to do for the country they have no idea because of the candidate too worried on winning and letting the citizens choose.

To elaborat on my claim, the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The disaster factor is what happened in the 2000 fiasco which was the biggest election crisis in a century , which allows the system for much worse. In the electoral college state legislatures are responsible for picking electors, and those electors would effect the will of the citizens. sometimes ""faithless"" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever thet please."" Making another reason why the electoral college should'nt be here to stay.

Although, keeping the electoral college may not be a good thing to do.",0
fb2f4bcf,1,"During my life i have watched many presidential elections on my television. To me the Electoral College on paper should work, Should being the key word. As I read the paragraphs on both why the Electoral College work and does not work I have decides the side with not having the Electoral College.

Historical evidence and evidence from this paragraph piont to not having a Electoral College. One reason for this was when Al Gore lost the presidency but won the popular vote nation wide as stated in Source 2. another piont is that if the people have so munch power over who is voted to be president then how do we have a president that the people did not want the president but the person is still elected, its an outrage! One example of how the Electoral College could be a disaster waiting to happen is that the votes are tied which may seem not likey at first glance but say if the votes are tied the presidency is thrown into the House of Representatives which lets face it, in the end the decision will not be approved by the people and the people will then barely have a say on who gets to be president or not. Another thing is the Electoral College can also be vary bisest towrdes one party or the other. This is evident because if a certain party got more electors than another party which whould led to a canedat from one party have more support then another.

Source 3 talks about how sure thats its possible for their to be a tie in the Electoral College but its unlikely supports what im trying the say in my earlier Paragraph, that even though a tie is unlikely it is still possible to happen the chance is still their. This paragraph also says the everyone is a president but if that is the case then why dose the poeple that ""we"" vote for the electoral College help vote for the president insted vote for the other canadate is an atrosidy on its own. The winnertakeall system is one that only afects the swing states because if thoughs states have already voted then the staes the already votes whould be for not because the numbers for who gets voted whould be already in favor of one state or another. The fact the larger states have a bigger say in who gets voted on is not fair. the is becuase if all the big states vote for someone and about 14 of the smaller states vote on one end of the scale and the other states vote towrdes the other end of the scale then the ballence whould be off and one side would overpower the other side by fact of shear numbers of votes compared to the other side.

After reading over my responce and the evidence that I have profided form the paragraph hear I have with great pride that i have argued my point across to you that the Electoral College in paper is good but in reality is only a crumbleing castle waiting to fall into the tiny bites and pieces that it should be.",0
fb5f8fd3,1,"Dear Senator, I respect and admire your position in office for you are always on your toes and doing work for your people. But one thing I do not admire as a citizen of the U.S., is the Electoral College in which our country goes by. When saying Electoral College I am meaning the process in which the election of the President by a vote is compromised with a popular vote of qualified citizens. By changing to a popular vote, everyone is equal and our location won't restrain us from our vote that we cast. The Electoral College may have suited our countries needs in the past but it is now time to abolish this unequal process.

To get things going, the Electoral College strays to many voters away. In the article ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"", Plumer brought to my attention that many voters are aware that the candidate that they want to serve as president does not stand a chance in their state and because of this they do away with voting. Personally, I feel that voting should be something that everyone partakes in. After all, if you didn't vote you shouldn't complain. But in the boat we are in now, we US Citizens are being taken advantage of and are rights are simply stripped away in this form of voting. In fact, onehalf on eligible American voters did not vote in 2012 and I am sure the voting process we use has a strong influence on these people. If we were to vote, in some cases they won't even matter. This lets our location define us and not our beliefs.

This leads to the next point that it gives too much power to those we elected. Yes, we did elect them and we should have faith in them, but the Electoral College makes it very difficult to do. ""What Is the Electoral College?"" brought it to my attention that the Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes are required to elect the president. So we simply place our votes in the hands of the minimal amount of people. I don't think so!

Lastly, did those serving in office think about the people at the bottom of the todem pole average US citizens rather than those at the top serving in office? ""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong"" states ""over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now"". Because of this, it becomes clear that my opinions and rights are stripped away. It completely disgusts me at the fact our nation is treating our citizens in this manner. It is time for those in office to think about who they are serving. Fiftyfive people shouldn't represent 500,000. We should all be able to cast votes equally with the same credentials.

All in all, there are in fact some limited benefits of an Electoral College, but a direct election or popular vote would suit our nation much better based on our needs in the present. Through Electoral College it is much easier to recognize who won the election and a few more advantages, but it has become very outdated and unequal.",0
fc157f72,1,"out with the old and in with the new. ""The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational."" ""the indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong"" from Mother Jones by Bradford Plumer. The Electoral College needs to be replaced it has too much room for failure, manipulation,and its loose guidelines allow unfair representation.

The Electoral College has too much room for failure considering the only guidelines for electors are those that are not holding office and depending on the state electors are chosen in various ways. the guarantee that electors will vote in favor of majority vote of their state is not guaranteed. ""The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the constitution as a comprise...The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electorswhere they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of electoral votes by congress."" ""What Is the Electoral College?"" by the Office of the Federal Register.

The Electoral College allows room for manipulation and as cited in ""The Indefensible Electoral College:Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong"" as ""the single best argument against the Electoral College"" would be the disaster factor described as the thing that the american people should consider themselves lucky didnt happen. The articles asks the reader to ""consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people."" Citing an event in 1960 where louisiana attempted to replace electors with others that would vote in their favor and John Kennedy would not have won popular vote. In the event of a tie the election will be passed to the House of Representatives, because each state only gives one vote allowing states with meager population to have the same holding as states that represent millions upon millions and given the information that voters may vote one party to president and another for congress, the house's selection can hardly be reminiscent of the choices of the people that each one person represents.

The Electoral College is unfair because the candidatesknow which states will vote for them and which states definately wont and the ones that they might be able to find their way in favor. for example in ""the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all""The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses are wrong. jeopardising the validity of the entire capaign by putting the votes in the hands of swing voters to see who wins favor with visits to poor elementary schools and weak middle school student council campaigning by promising free ice cream and kissing babies.

The Electoral College needs to be thrown out there is no fixing what is already widely regarded as an anachronism.",0
fc323feb,0,"Millions of people use cars in their everyday lives whether its driving to work, school or even the supermarket. With the amount of people on the streets on a daily basis, its not surprising that there is a major traffic issue in Miami. Most people dont realise how big of an issue this truly is because in reality they just need to get to and from work. I'm here to inform you about the beneficial alternatives to driving everywhere you go.

Whether going to work or driving your kids to soccer practice, a way of transportation is a must. Most people choose the ""easy"" way out and just hop in their brand new luxury cars. But what if I told you there is an easier way, a more efficient way? All around Miami, there are metro rail stations. These stations are clean, safe, and not to mention useful. There are busses, troll's, and even metro movers that can take you all around the city. the trains, busses, troll's and metro movers all run on a schedule. An easy way to limit your gas bill, pollution and time wasted in traffic is to simply set up a route to where you need to go and catch the appropriate mose of transportation.

Time is always on peoples mind, whether you have enough time to go shopping for a new dress or maybe stop by grandmas house. all things require time. Everyday millions of Americans spend hours stuck in traffic due to rushhour. This means less time spent with family anymore time bonding with the annoying car horns constantly beeping. If you could switch to another mode of transportation you could cut time commuting in half. The Metro rail avoided all traffic regardless and if more people start thinking like this then the bus might soon be avoidingall traffic too. Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two says ""When i had a car i was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Everyday she walks verdant streets listening to the delightful sound of people chatting and children playing, something she was unable to appreciate with her windows rolled up as she drove around town.

So many fuel consuming vehicles on the street on a daily basis can't be too great for our environment, don't you think? It isnt, all this pollution is causing a nasty smog all over the world, some places more than others. Paris tends to have more smog than Europe but not too long ago, Paris had 147 micrograms or particulate matter per cubic meter compared to 114 in Brussels. This smog makes it difficult for dilivery companies to complete their jobs. This smog isnt good for us either just think about what you are breathing.",0
fc45980a,1,"When election day comes and you finally drop your vote in the ballet box after waiting in line for the past hour, you walk away knowing that you have helped the candidate of your choice to rise to the top of the voting pole. Oh how wrong you are. The United States works on a voting system called the Electoral College. ""Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president."" Plumer 10. This system has stood the test of time, however it has masked its flaws for long enough. ""60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now."" Plumer 9. The people have spoken, now it is time to break down the logistics...

In order to understand the flaws in the electoral college, you need to know what the electoral college is, and how it came to be. ""The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress."" Office of the Federal Register 2. This system was created by the founding fathers as a compromise between the congressional vote and the popular vote. However there was a reason for this new, separated voting system. During their time the founding fathers where among the most educated men in the country. Back then education was not standard and very few people could read or write. The founding fathers did not want uneducated citizens voting on the individual who would lead the country. So they created a system where the uneducated would vote for a group of educated men, who would in turn vote on a president. Thus the electoral college was born. The founding fathers reasons for forging this system where justified in their day and age. However the world has changed since then. These days education is standard and people have enough sense to know what each candidate has to offer, and who can guide our country to prosperity. If United States citizens are well educated, then why leave this barrier up?

Another large issue with the electoral college is its favoritism towards larger states. The United States was founded on federalism and democracy, giving power to the people instead of an overarching central government ruling everything. So any policy that goes against our right to equal say in politics ought to be abbolished, right? The number of electors per state under the Electoral College is determined by the number of representatives the state has in congress. ""... one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your senators..."" Office of the Federal Register 3. Since this system is based on population, bigger states get a emense priority over smaller states. ""The popular vote was very close in Florida in 2012 nevertheless Obama, who won that vote , got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the winner only 3 electoral votes."" Posner 21. This means that presidential candidates are going to focus on appealing to larger swing states that have more electoral votes, rather than smaller ones who only provide a few votes. That is not fair now is it? No matter how small a state may be its population still consists of United States' citizens, and they deserve just as much say as a bigger state. After all, that is the concept our country was founded on, equality and freedom.

If the Electoral College does not seem like a flawed system now, allow me to open your eyes to one last variable in our little Electoral equation. The disaster factor. The disaster factor deals with the will of the people, and them doing anything to get what they want. ""Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. So that the popular vote for Kennedy would not actually gone to Kennedy."" Plumer 11. That kind of scenario could completely change a close call to a landslide victory! The 1960 election is not the only case of this either. It happened again when Hawaii sent two slates of electors to congress, and in other various cases electors did not vote for their designated candidate. Finally there is the case of the 2000 election, where Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College! If just one person decides to go against the grain, everything gets thrown off.

Case and point, the Electoral College is a flawed system. People are educated and can make a smart choice for a president, everyone deserves fair say in the political world, and people need to open their eyes to the corruption that the Electoral College allows for. It may have made sense back in the day of the founding fathers, but it is time to move on and adopt the popular vote system that the people have asked for.",0
fc66a299,0,"There are many advantages today of limiting car usage. This accounts for car usage limits in Europe, United States, and many other places. Limiting car usage around the world isn't just good for society, but also for yourself. Limiting car usage helps to separate suburban life from over usage of autos. It's good for people to separate themselves from cars also because many people get stressed about their gas money, whether or not they will be late for something, and also because many people worry about their own driving, and may think they will injur somebody.

Reasons why limiting car usage has been discussed throughout many people and regions. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States. There has been efforts in the past two decades to make cities more suitable for walking but it's basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation. From the passage, David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America, says, ""All of our development since Wold War Two has been centered on the car, and that will have to change."" Mr. Goldberg describes how everything pertaining to where places are built, how many roads built, and not enough sidewalks is because of the car being the center of everything, that people are not focusing on anything else.

Advantages of limiting car usage varies on different places. Some of these advantages include the ban of driving in Paris to help clear the air of the global city. Congestion was down 60 percent in the capital of France after five days of intensifying smug. In Bogota, Columbia the streets of this capital city, eerily devoid of traffic jams. Banning cars also cause less accidents around the world. Not using a car for one whole day limits stress on people and greatly lowers air pollution. Limiting the usage of cars in Bogota has also helped the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, the most of any Latin American city.

Limiting car usage in many places even for one day has put a good effect on society, people, and the world. Limiting car usage in Germany suburbs opens the streets for tourists on troll's or just people who need to be to work on a certain time who cannot afford cars. It also reduces the air pollution by very much. From the passage Heidrun Walter said, ""When i had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" Opening the streets from cars allows isolation between suburban life and auto use. Greenhouse gas emissions will decrease by decline of car use which is good for the planet. Paris typically has more smog than other European capitals due to their high usage of diesal gas. Causing the decline of car usage will remove smog due to not as much diesal going into the air. In Bogota the Day Without Cars is held to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. The turnout was large, despite the gray clouds that dumped occasional rain showers on Bogota, Antanas Mockus, said, ""The rain hasn't stopped people from participating."" He also stated, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution.

In conclusion there's many ways to reduce air pollution. There's also many advantages to banning usage of cars. Not only are people stress free and feeling good, but airpollution decreases and Greenhouse gas emissions stop.",0
fc66f374,1,"The Electoral College was originally established as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. Presidential candidate Al Gore actually won the popular vote done by citizens, but ended up losing the Electoral College voting which caused him to lose his campaign for presidency. To prevent further occurrences such as the fiasco involving Al Gore, the Electoral College must go. Former Presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter both happened to agree on the abolishment of the Electoral College! According to a gallop poll taken in the year 2000, over 60% of voters would prefer a more direct election process. In other words, they want the Electoral College system abolished.

Voters actually don't vote for President they vote for a slate of electors who end up voting for the president. I feel that this system isn't cohesive enough it's easy for people to think that a majority vote for a candidate means an automatic victory when actually the Electoral College votes are what truly matter. What would be the reaction if a certain member of the College decided to vote against his party's candidate? With a system filled to the brim with flaws, it's easy for many upsetting instances to occur in the future. In fact, the state of Louisiana almost succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.

During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad. The Electoral College method is outdated, at best. If seventeen states didn't even get to see the candidates, then something is obviously wrong. Had 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii voted the other way, a tie would've occurred in the 1976 presidential election.

There is one, gaping flaw in the Electoral College voting system the winnertakeall basis. A very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoralvote victory! Another unfair aspect about the Electoral College is the fact that larger states garner more attention and votes! than do smaller ones. Florida netted candidate Obama 29 electoral votes whereas Wyoming snagged him 3 electoral votes. Such a discrepancy can turn off potential voters such as Democrats in Texas or Republicans in California. Overall, the Electoral College is an outdated practice which must be invalidated soon enough.",0
fcb87d59,1,"Dear senator, I think that the presidential election should be settled by popular vote. We people are being run as a country by the president, and we should be able to have more of an impact choosing who our president will be.

The president currently gets chosen in the Electoral College, a process in which the electors vote for President and Vice President after they are selected. This process flows very well and the president is chosen easily, so its good. The Electoral Collage consists of 538 electors. The majority being 270 electoral votes and the first president to get to this number in the race wins. We the people are separated into states and the states get however many electoral votes based on population. So the bigger states get more say on who's President, but I mean that makes sense because more citizens live there. There are also many flaws with this process though, and thats why I think it should be settled by popular vote.

You may think that the people are mainly voting for the President in the Electoral Collage process, but we're not. The people just vote for electors who in turn elect the President. Some of the slates of electors may even vote for who they want to and forget about what the majority of the state wants. At the most basic level, the Electoral college is unfair to voters because of the winnertakesall system in each state. This means that if say Florida has twentynine electoral votes, then all twentynine go to the candidate who wins that state. ""So normaly candidates don't spend time in states they know they have know chance of winning, focusing only on the ""swing states"" and the larger populated states."" ""Swing states"" are states that pay close attention to the campaign and really listen to the competing candidates. This means that the states may pick the republican or democrat. Some states pick the same way every election. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina. I mean what kind of madness is that, how are they supposed to know who to choose. Thats not fair and it shouldn't be settled that way. This all just proves that ""The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irrational."" Therefore the Electoral Collage shouldn't be the way to elect the President and VicePresident and should be either altered or in my opinion scratched. So then they should be elected by popular vote, so we have more control on who runs the country.",0
fcc3f3b4,0,"The limiting of personalcar usage has done wonders for the areas that this policy has be implemented. Strictly enviermentaly speaking in the cites that have limited their residents personal car usage the smog rates went drasicly down. Thoughschanges happened in a matter of days. Imagin the changes that could accoure if limited car usage was implemented on a wider scale for the long term. Not only envirermentaly beneficial but limited car usage also has large and far reaching economic and social upsides. The lack of money being waisted on personal automobeal transportation leads to a surplus of savings for everyday familes to spend or more nessary items. Socialy limited car usage has be proven to be benifal as a whole also. People living in areas that have already been placed under this polices report significant reductions in stress and worrying, leading to much weight off their sholders and a general better aqttude over all.

The first and most obvious advantage of the limed car usage policiy is the massive positive impact the police has the earth. As stated in source one and I quote ""Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe...and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."". Now imagin if thoes percentages just went away. In the city of Vauban Germany, an experimental city already under the policy, it did. Another example if Paris. A city that literly had to force the policy of limited car usage apon it people in a desperate attempt to reverse what the evils of personal car usage was doing to the atmosphere of the city. The personal cars created smog so think the city hit record pollution levels that even rivaled Beijing its self, one of the worlds most poluted citys. As stated in source two, the city put a ban on cars with any license plates that were even numbered on the first day from driving and a ban on odd numbered the second day. The positives of the limited car usage plicy was so instantaneous that the second day of no driving for odd numbered cars was deamed not nessary. The massive environmental advantages of the limited car usage policiy can neiter be denyed or ignored.

The economic advantages of this policy can also not be ignored. To fully grasp the economic upswing that will accure under this policy we must turn our attention the the great city of Bogota, Colombia. In this former Spanish colony turned capital city a program has been set up called the ""carfree day"". On this day no cars are driven and a festable is set up to promote alternate transportaion and reduce smog. This year two other Colombian citys, Cali and Valledupar joned the event citing the obouse advantages of the policy. ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" says buisinessman Carlos Arturo Plaza source 3 quotes. The policy as done economic wonders not only for the people but for the city its self. since the day begin in the mid 1990s over 118 miles of bike path have been created, parksand sports centers have bloomed throughout the city, uneven sidke walks have been leveled out, and new resturants and upscale shopping districts have cropped up as reported by source 3. The limited car usage policy cound be the merical policy for citys in need of an economic boost.

Finaly the social advantages of the policy have also been noted.

The evils of the modern day car culture must be destroyed. As said by Carlos Plaza preveously ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress"". ""When i had a car I was always tense. Im mush happier this way"" said Heidrun Walter resident of Vauban. Two people on two totaly differnt sides of the world both experenced the social advantages of this policy. Even young people are seeing the advantages according to a study last year that found that driving by young people devreased 23 percent between 2001 and 2009 according to source 4.

As one can now clearly see the advantages of limted personal car usage are impossibkle to deny and even harder to ignore. Economicly,socialy, and enviromentaly this policy as done wonders where ever it has been implimented. It has both immeadit and long term positive effects with no odveous negitive effects. Altrnates to personal cars could be things like Bill fords bisiness plan for a world in which personal vehical ownership is replaced witha partnering with the telecommunications industy to create citys in which pedestrians, bicycle, private cars, and public and commerical traffic are woven into a connected netword. The acceptence of limited car usage and the extenciton of modern day car culture is the next step for the advacment of humanity.",0
fcc646a2,0,"The advantages of limiting car usage is incredible because we can actually just get out of the house and hang out with friends and family. Also people could get some exercise at that by walking to work or school or wherever you are going to and the percentage of people with obesity would most likey drop down excessively by just doing this.

You also might actually have a happier life by giving up automobiles for example what this person Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two said ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way."" This evolution of limiting car usage is very beneficial especially for the environment by decreasing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions from cars and all of the bad gasses going into the air by all these automobiles and just maybe get or climate and everything back together they way it should be.

In this new approach, to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation. Stores are placed just a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highways where you need a car to get there.

By doing things like this especially in America would be big in safety because you would have to worry as much about your children being hit or ran over by cars or being kidnapped to because you can only walk or ride bikes, taxis and public buses.

Therefore you can also take time and actually look where you are and where you live and take it all in instead of panicking and being all tense and stressed on having to rush or go somewhere and just being in a calm, peaceful and quiet location. Like in what thisperson Carlos Arturo Plaza, a businessman said "" It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" as he rode on a twoseat bicycle with his wife.

By doing this it would also decrease the amount of congestion in different cities across the globe.

In my opinion, I'd love to try in do this because we would not be on our phones going strait to our cars instead we would be walking or riding our bike or get on a public bus and actually see and meet people instead of just waiting in the traffic and waiting to just go and do whatever we want to and the Internet is a big deal in this to. A sociology professor at Drexel University and director of its Mobilities Research and Policy Center cities various factors like: the Internet makes telecommutung possible and allows people to feel more connected without driving to goo and meet up with friends. The rise in cellphones and carpooling apps has faciliated more flexible commuting arrangments, including the evolution of shared van services from getting to work.",0
fcd93e2d,1,"The electoral college is a group of electors that vote for the president and vicepresident. ""The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."" What Is The Electoral College, 1 They consist of 538 electors and you need a majority of 270 in order to be elected. They are wrong because they take the majority vote from the state's population and turn it into electoral votes which is a ""winnertakeall"" system, and they can be anyone not holding public office which can bring opinions into play, such as segregation.

The first and most important reason the electoral college is wrong is because they are based off of majority vote. This is bad because people who voted for the other party don't even get counted in the electoral votes. For instance, if there is a population of 1,000,000 people in a state and 600,000 of the people vote for one party, the majority goes to that party, but what about the other 400,000 people that voted for their party. And don't forget the 2000 election between Gore and Bush. Al Gore had the popular vote, yet lost the presidency. How does this make any sense? This leads to my final reasoning of why the electoral college is wrong...

The electoral college is wrong because the electors can be anyone not holding public office. Anyone not in public office could be basically anyone, even you or me. This can cause problems such as opinion, racism, etc. They could want somebody to become president because of their skin color or their political party. For example, ""in 1960 segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy."" The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the bestlaid defenses of the system are wrong, 11 What if this happens again? We could have a president that nobody even elected for as president and our government could drastically change.

Even though the electoral college is wrong, there is one good thing about it. This is because the ""certainty of outcome"" In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President, 15. Which mean that usually the electoral votes and the popular votes usually coincide with each other, where both are for the same person. For instance, ""in 2012's election Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote and 51.3 percent of the popular vote"" In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President, 15. So this mean that for both electoral and popular he had the majority of the votes.

All in all, I agree with ""Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFLCIO"" with ""abolishing the electoral college!"" In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President, 15. Especially with the ""winnertakeall"" point of it. I think that the population should choose the president off of their opinions instead of being forgotten if their not in the majority vote. Everyone's vote should count. This would be a lot more fair to everyone.",0
fcebd471,0,"From small town suburbs to largely populated cities, car usage can drastically affect a community. In developed worlds, personal automobiles are an increasingly popular trend, and help people go about their day to day business. Many would rather drive down the street to a grocery store of job instead of walking there even though it is common knowledge that the pollution and other harmful emissions cars create is bad for the environment and the people living there. The question remains, what are the advantages of limiting car usage?

Many believe that automobiles, especially the very popular ""car"", can be very bad for the environment. According to the article, ""Paris bans driving due to smog"", it explains how nearrecord pollution within Paris caused a partial driving ban. This was to help clean the smog infested air in the dense city. Although many delivery companies complained about lost revenue, congestion within the capital lowered by 60 percent. By Monday that week, ""the smog cleared enough for the ruling French party to rescind the ban for oddnumbered plates on tuesday"". In another article called ""Carfree day is spinning into a big hit in Bogota"", this one tells how Bogota, Columbia has also banned cars to promote alternate transportation and reduce smog. The ban is only for one day a year called The Day Without Cars, but it's helped cause the construction of 118 miles of bicycle paths, new, smooth sidewalks, less traffic, and new restaurants and shopping areas. Business man, Carlos Plaza claims ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Both of these articles explain how limiting car usage in a city can be beneficial to both the city and its residents.

In addition, the United States in partaking in this quest for less cars as well. Article ""The End of Car Culture"" by Elizabeth Rosenthal shows us that ""recent studies suggest that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licenses as each year goes by."" It is possible that this is partially because of the recession many Americans could not afford cars. Also, more center cities have made the ""suburbs less appealing and has drawn the empty nesters back in"". If this goes on, scientists believe carbon emissions could greatly reduce and this will be extremely beneficial for the environment. According to the Mr. Sivak's research, less and less people between the age of 1639 have been getting licenses. More studies have concluded the same results, but only time will tell in this trend will continue. No matter the reason behind it, this example also demonstrates how limited car usage is beneficial.

On the other hand, some believe that less cars is NOT beneficial. In source four, it claims that the lowered amount of people driving automobiles will be harmful to the profits of the car industry. To further explain, ""companies like Ford and Mercedes are already rebranding themselves 'mobility' companies with a broader product range beyond the personal vehicle"". This, without a doubt, is to combat the loss of sales and encourage people to continue buying their products. However, thos is pretty much all there is on the negative side of limited car usage. For the rest of the community, this doesn't affect them and is in fact quite beneficial.

Cars, both the rose and the thorns in a community and environment, can be both beneficial and harmful to people, depending on who you are. For most regular pedeastrians and citizens within a city, less cars means less pollution, traffic, and stress. Unless you are a business owner of a car dealership or working for a delivery company, limited car usage means very postive things for social relationships, health, the environment, and general living conditions of a busy city. The less harmful emissions of gases from cars could greatly affect the outcome of our clean, energy efficient future.",0
fcfe84cb,1,"An electoral College compromises between election of the president by vote in congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The electoral College consists of 538 electors, a majority of 270 electoral votes is requires to elect the president. This presidential election is held every 4 years on the tuesday after the first monday in November. Each candidate running for president in your state has his or her own group of electors andare chosen by the candidates political part.

Personally Ibelieve that the presidential election should be based on popular votebecause as citizens of the United States we should be able to help the output of what our futures will look like and be able to choose who we want to lead us. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins and they become the new president of the United States. Not that Electoral college is all bad its just when you vote you vote not for the president but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president of their choice.

Citizens would be more likely to vote for their present if they felt like their vote would actually matter and have an effect on who the future president will be. People are less likely to participate or care if they feel like their vote doesn matter and is taken up and not counted. If people knew that it was over popular vote that will decide the future president then they're going to vote more and be more active when stuff like this takes place because they feel like their vote actually matters and is making a difference.

Electoral College is unfair to voters because ""winnertakeall system"" in each state.

Candidates dont spend much time trying to win the votes of a state they think isnt going to help them in the long run by winning. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all. This included Rhode Island, South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didnt see a single campaign ad. Electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational.

Bob Dole once said ""electoral college should be abolished"" and from the looks of it he's notwrong. Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, the U.S. chamber of commerce, and the AFLCIO arestanding with Dole on this accusation andbothagree on aboloishing this act. A Gallup poll was taken in 2000 and won the popular vote but lost the presidency. Over 60 percent of voters would perfer direct election over the kind we have now which is Electoral College.",0
fd15fd9c,0,"Cars have become a part of everyday life over the years. We depend on them for transportation from one place to the next. Have you ever thought about what it would be like to live without a car? Well, globally, changes are being made. There have been car bans and even a community that completely quit using cars. There are advantages of limiting car usage.

Limiting car usage can lead to a less stressful life. The residents of Vauban, Germany, have taken a huge step. They have given up their cars. As stated in the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"",70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars. A statement from a local resident, also found in the article ""In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"", says, ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"". The limit on car usage has allowed the residents to go back to a simpler life. A life where everyday noises such as children playing and bicycle wheels rollingalong the pavement can be heard.

Limiting car usage impacts the environment greatly in a positive way. The article titled ""The End of Car Culture"" states, ""...transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants"".Cars are a leading cause of air pollution around the world. For example, the smog in Paris, France, had gotten so bad that they had to put a temporary partial ban on driving. Due to this rule, congestion was down 60 percent. Cutting back on the usage of cars would have an incredible impact on global air pollution. A simple step in the right direction can change the environment is a positive way.

Being happier and decreasing air pollution are only two advantages of limiting car usage. There is a lot that can come from taking cars out of our daily routines. It may be hard to adjust at first but the impact it would have on the earth would be worth it. Taking responsibility and care of our earth is a change that needs to happen. Itis a possible and reasonable solution to our pollution problem.",0
fd38dd0b,0,"These sources focus on the advantages of limiting car usage. The usage of cars has been decreasing as the years go by, not only in the United States, but in other countries as well. The residents of certain countries are beginning to use walking or taking a train or a city bus as a means of transportation instead of using their cars, that is if they own one.

The advantages of limiting car usage are endless. One advantage is that it relieves a big amount of stress on people. According to source one, having a car is a big responsibility, sometimes one that certain people are not able to handle. ""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,"" said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two. Not having a car or avoiding having to use a car is becoming easier for people. For people that live in suburban areas, public transportation is going to have a higher demand. This is because there is an attempt to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking. In this new approach, stores are going to be placed a walk away, or on a main street, rather than having them all together in malls along a distant highway. Not only will it make it easier for people to access stores or other necessities, but the money that the public transportation will receive will go to the city, giving them more to use on important things the community needs. Furthermore, it is evident that limiting car usage relieves a big amount of stress on people.

Another advantage of limiting car usage is that it brings people and countries together for a cause. Limiting the use of cars is spreading worldwide and there are many people that agree with this concept. According to the third source, in Bogota, Colombia, a program has been started that is set to lower the rate of care usage and increase the usage of public transportation. Millions of Colombians hiked, biked, skated, or took buses to work during a carfree day, leaving the streets of this capital city empty and unoccupied. The interactions between the community are inevitable with so much people walking and being all in one place at one time. Furthermore, the act of a carfree day is also spreading to other countries. Municipal authorities from other countries came to Bogota to see the event and were extremely enthusiastic. ""These people are generating a revolutionary change, and this is crossing borders,"" said Enrique rivera, the mayor of Asuncin, Paraguay. With this act spreading and moving across borders into other countries, the use of cars will soon begin to decrease even more than it already has. This will help to lower the pollution as well as other economic problems caused by cars.

These sources focus on the advantages of limiting car usage. The usage of cars has been decreasing as the years go by, not only in the United States, but in other countries as well. The residents of certain countries are beginning to use walking or taking a train or a city bus as a means of transportation instead of using their cars, that is if they own one.",0
fdc74a07,0,"Cars are a very big part of our lives, we rely on the to get us from point A to point B. But what if we had no need for cars anymore? What if all we needed was a good source of public transportation. Cities around the world are doing just that, private motor transportation has a lot of cons. Smog in big global cities is building up more and more environmental issues are becoming big problems due to the routine use of cars. Traffic jams and overcrowding of roads is also another big problem. There are many ways us as humans are trying to cut down on our use of private motor transportation that benefit us in so many ways.

When everyone in a big city such as Parris for example uses their own cars to go from place to place they put harmful gasses into the atmosphere. After a while of everyone driving in a big city like paris the gases and smog build up and polute the air. Parris is one of the cities trying to dramatically cut down the use of cars and provide easy to use and affordable public transportation. Public transportation cuts down the amount of people on the road and positively impacts the environment and the air around the city.

Traffic jams and overcrowding of road ways prevents the use of cars to achieve its full potential. For every person that uses public transportation that is on less car on the roads if everyone in a city such as Bogota, Colombia where to stop all usage of private motor vehicles the amount of traffic jams and overcrowding would decrease dramatically. People in Bogota, Colombia are doing that very such thing every year the city bans all non public transportation vehicles and requires all residents to find their own way to comute to where they need to go this has been going on for three straight years now ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution"" says businessman Carlos Arturo Plaza.

We as humans are always on the move but some of the ways we get from place to place may not be beniffical to us overtime. The good thing about this is that governments in cities and countrys around the world are finding bennifical ways to comute other than driving your own vheicle. Since 2005 the amout of people on the road in the U.S has droped significantly and continues to drop every year. Public transportation and better laid out city plans are helping this drop in the usage of cars.

Cars get us from place to place but it would be nice if one day we wouldnt have to worry about the usage of cars i our world. With all of the banifits of not continuisly driving the world would be such a better place. One day this dream for many will become the way we all learn to live. Non reliant on private transportation.",0
fe134dfe,0,"Since World War II we have been heavily dependent on the modern day transportation: the car. Some say the car is an innovative and convenient method of transportation, while others say that it will be the end of the environment. As the evidence indicates, there are advantages to limiting car usage.

Dissenters of the idea claim to say that limiting car usage will negatively impact the car industry, but it doesn't. Limiting car usage doesn't mean that people will have to stop buying cars it simply means that they will have to find a different method of transportation. Source 2 says that in Paris on certain days motorist, who had an odd or even license plate number, had to leave their cars at home and find an alternative method of transportation. Does the evidence demonstrate an impact to car companies? Did they have a financial deficit due to their lack of buyers? The answer is simple: no, because they didn't ban the use of cars. Also, car companies can well benefit from places that limit car usage but allow hybrid cars this allows for an increase in revenue. Most car companies in today's society model hybrid cars that run on primarily electricity and gas. In Paris, they made exceptions ""for plugin cars, hybrids, and cars carrying three or more passengers Source 2"". These exceptions actually promote the buying of hybrid cars! This will boost the economic profit of the car companies, not damage it. Limiting car usage does not affect car companies, but instead supports it.

The limitation of car usage betters the environment. Cars emit greenhouse gases in the atmosphere faster than they can be removed. This causes health problems in living organisms and pollution of ecosystems. Cars are liable for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and 50 percent in areas in the U.S. as Source 1 states. People are playing with the balance of nature and if its not fixed then humans are as good as dead this is why the implementation of limiting car usage benefits people. The effects of this can be seen in Bogota, Colombia, whose goal is to reduce smog and promote alternative transportation Source 3, and Paris, where intense smog covered the enitre city: ""The smog rivaled Beijing, China, which is known as one of the most polluted cities in the world.Source 2"" The source explains that cold nights and warm days trapped in car emissions and after a few days of reducing car usage the air cleared up. This shows the effectiveness of the limiations of car usage.

The limiting of cars also boosts community wellness. The people who experienced this regulation had positive views on the matter and even on rainy days they participated! Bogota, Colombia has gone into its third year of banning cars and the turnouts of the pariticipation were large, with two other Colombian cities joining and municipal authorities from other countries to view the event Source 3. The evidence show that limiting cars wasn't opposed by the people, in fact, other countries were wanting to get in on the action. This limiting of car usage really cuts down on traffic congestion and new community projects have been established to ease the transition to alternative transportation. Heidrun Walter, mentioned in Source 1, syas that when she had her car she always tense and stressed and is happy with the change. The source also mentions that the ""swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor Source 1."" This shows that the limitation of car usage greatly enchances the wellness of the community and promotes a safe and stressfree environment for the people.

In summation, the limitation of car usage doesn't negatively impact car companies, but instead increases hybrid car sale revenue, echances community wellness, betters the environment. The things that can be accomplished with this regulation only has benefits for everyone.",0
fe3724b4,0,"Driving cars can be a danger to humans, but also a threat to the Earth. The usage of cars has plummeted since recent topics of smog, and safety. Using a car to get from point A to point B is getting out of hand and unnecessary. Limiting car usage can help save money, it can also help prevent smog or other pollution, and can make humans live a healthier life style. By limiting car usage, you are changing your life style for the better.

Less car usage can play a major role in the way you live your life. One big part of your life it could change is financial issues. Without a car you wouldnt have to spend thousands of dollars on an overpriced vehicle. Also you could save money from not having to buy overly priced gas, or having to fix any car issues, such as an oil leak. In the passage, Paris bans driving due to smog , the author states,"" Almost 4,000 drivers were fined, according to Reuters."" Without all of your money going down the drain, you could spend your money in a more helpful way. With the money that you don't have to spend with car trouble, someone could by a gym membership, or they could go and renovate their house the way that they have always wanted. Without spending loads of money on a car, gas, and car problems, you could spend your money on more important things such as paying of loans.

Less car usage could also help the environment dramtically. Because of the usage of cars the environment has been hugely effected. Since the environment has been greatly affected, so has the people. Smog has been becoming a result of the pollution that cars cause. In the passage, Paris bans driving due to smog, they state,""Delivery companies complained of lost revenue, while exceptions were made for plugin cars."" Not only is pollution affecting the environment, but it is also affecting the way that we live our lives, and the way that we make our livings. Without the use of cars income will increase rather than decrease. Also the smog is creating a hazard to everyone who has to work, or go to school. Without the use of cars there will be no more smog, or hazardess environments to worry about.

Besides money, and pollution, there are other important reasons why less car usage would be ideal. A main point of less car usage would be for health. The world has grown to be lazy, and as a result obesity is becoming a huge issue. Walking to work, or to school can not only help the environment, but also help your immune system, and weight loss. Instead of walking, another great form of exercise that will help the environment is riding your bike. Using these tips there will be less obesity, and less pollution, and grrenhouse gas in the world.

Even though that driving has decreased 23% in the last 8 years, it is our duty to insure that the world will once again be a safe environment for everyone to live in. To insure a safe environment, the usage of cars must decrease. If the usage of cars does not decrease our money will. Money won't be the only problem though, obesity, and also smog will increase. To help save the Earth humans must cut back on using their cars. The results will be life changing.",0
fe5b0a93,0,"studies have shown that passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and 50 percent in the United States alone. Many people see this as and eye opener to life in the suburbs without motor vehicles. There have been actions on car deduced communities in Europe. Also France banned Driving do to smog. Sounds extreme, but it is very effective.

There have been some countries that have reduced the usage of cars to almost nothing. In Vauban, Germany Residents of this community have given up their cars. This may seem a bit insane, but the way the government did it is varry smart. Street parking, driveways, and home garages are generally forbidden. Their streets are completely "" CarFree "". The government made it that if you still wanted a car you would have to pay an additional 40,000 for a spot when buying your home. The result is 70 percent of vaughn's Families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move there. In the United States, the EPA is promoting "" "" communities. Legislators are starting to act as well. Bogota has a carfree day where the only motor vehicles running are busses and taxis.

Some countries are even going to harsh measures by banning motor vehicles all togather. In France they had so much smog that they banned driveing all togather. France decided that they where going to order evennumbered license plates owners to leave their cars at home or suffer a 22euro fine 31. Same for oddnumbered cars the following day. almost 4,000 drivers were fined, and 27 had their cars impounded because of their reaction to the fine. But congestion was down 60 percent in the capital. In Bogota, Colombia they have had three straight years where cars have been banned with only buses and tavis permitted in a capital of 7 million. Their goal is to promote alternative transportation and reduce smog. Violators faced 25 fines. A businessman Carols Arturo Plaza said, ""It's a good opportunity to take away stress and lower air pollution."" Based on all of the previous information givin, we can conclude that driving bans, and carfree campaigns have helped our environment. These countries have reduces the smog in their air. They have goten people to participate in their community. Also They have gotten other countries to get involved in this cause. Diffrent countries have Made their own style of these programs to their advantage. This idea of carfree suburbs is changing the way the population reacts in the community.",0
fe6ff9a5,1,"There has been a fuss about the Elector College. Many people get confused about how it works and if they're satisfied with the whole process. Show we ""abolish"" the Elector College? Should we keep it? Honestly we should keep it. We the peope have more then enough control on who is chosen for the president of the United States Of America. We don't really vote for the president but our vote impacts the decision.

Many citizens of the United States Of America think their vote doesn matter, it does. Why? Well, first the government is runned by the people. Its very rare to not get the president that has the most popular votes, the last time when the president wasn't chosen was in 1888. It's less likely for the president with the most votes to lose the election. For example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the elector votes compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and rodney. Plus, almost all states award elector votes on a winnertakeitall basis.

Perhaps, there was no system. Would it be simpler? Yes it would but we have to also be fair, there is 538 electors and a majority of 270 elector votes is required to elect the president. When you are voting for the president ypu want to win,you are actually voting for your canidate's elector. How does the system work? First it's the process that has the selection of the electors , the meeting of the electors where they vote for the president and vice president , and last but not least the counting of electoral votes by congress. Obviously it is kind of confusing because it would be much simpler if the winner would be the one with the most popular votes.

Did you know that the Elector College avoids the problem of elections? They do due to how much pressure the candidte can go through. It can easily complicate the presidential process. For instance, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Elector College 301 and 370 elector votes exactly. When avoiding the elections and campaigns , there a better chance of clear winner.

So there you have it,three main reason's why we should keep the Elector College. We have why the process is important and why we have it. How the process work's because it was confusing to many people , so it's defined and hopefully you'll like to stay and support the Elector College. Your vote does matter.",0
ff669174,0,"Limiting car usage has many advantages. Such as putting a lot less pollution in the air and having your stress level go down letting you spend time with your family and friends. When we put pollution in the air it ruins our beautiful ecosystem. When driving a car you have to stress about how much gas you have or you stress about if you are going over the speed limit.

The first advantage to not having cars is we limit the amount of pollution in the air. Did you know that in Europe you cause up to twelve percent of its greenhouse gas, and in the US you cause up to fifty percent of that gas, that just goes in the air causing the air that we breath to become polluted. Some ways to prevent this is to carpool with someone or just to walk there and not drive, you get to help the environment and you get your daily workout as well. Some countries have taking the role of taxing anyone who wants to use a car. Like in France, who has a tax policy that makes people choose diesel instead of regular gasoline. France has over sixtyseven percent of cars that run on diesel fuel. Paris has banned the use of cars do to the huge amount of smog they are having.

The second advantage for limiting the usage of cars is lowering your stress level and being able to spend time with family and friends. To help with this some countries have programs that provide people with bikes and other forms of transportation in order for people to get to work. When people don't drive cars and walk with their kids to drop them off at school then go to work it keeps the traffic and all the stress that comes with it down to an all time low. When summer time comes around teens can organize what they do and who they hang out with based on where they are and how far they want to walk to get there.

So limiting the usage of cars has many significant advantages like less pollution and being able to spend time with family and friends while lowering your stress level. So before you get in your car and drive to wherever you are going just take a second and think, can I walk there instead.",0
ffa247e0,0,"There's a new trend that has been developing for years now, and soon will be in full throttle affect. The mass amount of pollution being produced worldwide over the years has been at terrifying levels, up until the last five to ten years. Although not the first cause of the pollution, gases emitted from transportation is the second largest contributed to this ""green house gas"" issue going on, according to source 4. An idea to hinder this growing issue and potentially put the pollution levels at a decline is the effort to limit personal car usage. By doing this, we inhabitants of the world are able to help clear the air, reduce congestion on the streets, and live a simpler, more cost efficient lifestyle.

Polution, as we know, is an ongoing trend that is proving lethal to our environment. Factories and power plants are the number one cause of pollution in the world. This is almost inevitable, since we have yet to develop a way to produce in mass amounts in a clean way. However, what we can have a part in is limiting the personal car usage to promote cleaner air. Public transportation, carpooling, and hybridelectric cars have been seen as the alternative to owning personal cars. Those options are also seen as the solution, considering their contribution to the act since ""the number of miles driven per person was nearly 9 percent below the peak of 2005"" source 4. Reducing the amout of miles driven links to the amout of dangerous gases emitted into the air, therefor ""having cleaner air."" Rush hour traffic is obnoxious and is the least fun part of driving. Encouraging people to drive less and either walk, bike, or use public transportation will help end the long waits sitting bumpertobumper on the roads. In France, a study was done where fines were placed on people who drove by themselves or with only one passenger excluding hybrids and ""plug in"" cars. According to the source, ""congestion was down 60 percent."" Just a week of not driving with personal gasoline or diesel cars proved to be extremely beneficial in clearing out the streets, making for easier courses to work. The concept is truly simple. We use less cars, there's less people on the street, and you can get to and fro much faster and without hassle. Reducing the number of cars on the street is also a goodway to inspire motor companies to be inventive. Losing business will ultimately result in extermination of the business, unless the corporation is able to come up with new products to satisfy the consumer. Mitsubishi is a automotive company that also makes air conditioners. According to source 4, Ford and Mercedes are ""rebranding"" themselves to comply with the new trend.

Almost everyone wants to live a clean, healthy and simple lifestyle and participation in limiting the number of cars driven daily is a very easy way to do so. Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, said,""When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way"" source 1. This refers to the successful suburban trial in Vauban, Germany to no longer own cars. Parking on the street, personal garages, and driveways in general are seen as taboo in the living district near France and Switzerland's border source 1. Very few people own cars, let alone drive them. Not only does lowering the usage of cars help the environment and make the journey to wherever you're going much less complicated, it also initiates the restoration of things considered not as important such as sidewalks, parks, and public transport systems. The more people using the utilities, the more cities will fund them and make the experience more enjoyable. In Bogata, the ""day without cars"" campaign has led to 118 miles of bycle paths being constructed source 3. The chain of events will lead to more and more people utilizing their bikes and feet to get around, instead of cars.

Driving used to be considered the most popular way to get around town from point A to point B and back. But now, with a push to limit personal car usage, a positive switch is happening to where more and more people are no longer relying on their vehicles to move aboutinstead bikes, subways and buses, and even just our own two feet are our means of transportation. This ""smart planning"" reduces green house gases along with traffic congestion, and also promotes a simpler, healthier lifestyle.",0
ffc237e9,0,"As we all know cars are a big part of our society today. However cars have a bigger impact than we think. Some people can't live without there car. Some people can go their whole life without a car. We may not think about it however there are multiple advantages to not using a car. When we limit our car use it saves the earth also it i said that it takes away a heap load of stress and it saves people money. Just think about it, one day without the use of cars. How would that be?

We we think of saving the earth we think of recycling, reusing things, and reducing. Did you know that passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gases and up to 50 percent in some car intensive areas in the United States.According to ""In German suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars"" By: Elisabeth Rosenthal. In Paris there pollution was almost record setting and so they ordered that evennumbered license plates leave their cars at home or pay a fine of 31. Almost 4000 drivers were fined that day and 27 got their cars impounded. Most of the cars in Paris are diesel ran so the smog is worse. If they would cut down on their car use it would lower the smog.

You might not think of it but if we limited the use of cars it relieves stress. According to ""In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars"", In Vauban, Germany they have given up their cars. Vaubans streets are completly car free. 70 percent of vaughn's families do not own cars and 57 percent sold a car to move there. Heidrun Walter said""When I had a car I was always tense. Im much happierthis way"". According to ""Carfree dat in spinning into a big hit in Bogota"" by Andrew Selsky in Bogota,Columbia they have been without cars for 3 years. Also Carlos Arturo Plaza said ""It's a good opportunit totake awat stresss and lower the air pollution"".

According to ""The End of Car Culture"" by: Elisabeth Rosenthal recent studies show that Americans are buying fewer cars, driving less and getting fewer licences as each year goes by. The number of miles driven in the United States peaked in 2005 and dropped steadily afterwards, according to an analysis by Doug Short of Adivor Perspectives. People who stopped driving there cars as a result of hard times may not find a reason to go back to driving if they are saving money.

So I believe that they're many reason to have a car. However they're many advantages to limiting your car use. You can think of yourself as doing a good deed to the earth when walking somewhere or riding your bike are catching the bus. You can have a clear mind and seize stressing so much. Also you can save money I think that everybody likes to save money one way or another. Instead of drivng your car to the mall you can save that money and catch the bus to the mall and buy that new purse that you have been dying to get.",0
ffe1ca0d,0,"Cars have been around since the 1800's and have been popular ever since. Although, in recent years the number of cars bought and licenses attained have been dropping. Car usage has also dropped, which is a good thing. Because of limited car usage, people are helping the environment and benefiting themselves.

Cars emit pollution which harm our health and the environment's health.

""...Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe... and up to 50 percent in some carintensive areas in the United States."" Cars make up a large amount of the emissions that do harm to the environment. When car usage is limited, less people drive, which in turn limits pollution. ""... but also in the developing world, where emissions from an increasing number of private cars are owned by the burgeoning middle class are choking cities."" Again we see that cars are polluting our world, and it's caused by us. "" it will have beneficial implications for carbon emissions and the environment, since transportation is the second largest source of America's emissions, just behind power plants."" Cars and other transportation are releasing emissions which are harming the environment. Limited car usage clears up the pollution which helps us and the environment stay healthy.

Many people are taking up new ways of transportation due to bans and such which are due to limits on car usage. They are taking public transportation, walking, carpooling, and so on. All of these methods of alternative transportation are beneficial. ""They organize their summer jobs and social life around where they can walk or take public transportation or carpool with friends."" It is better to limit car usage because not only are you helping the environment, but you're also saving money and helping yourself out. Due to the lower amount of people who buy cars because of limited car usage, car corporations are also changing. ""He proposed partnering with the telecommunications industry to create cities in which pedestrian, bicycle, private cars, commercial and public transportation traffic are woven into a connected network to save time, conserve resources, lower emissions and improve safety.' "" The way people live will benefit from lower car usage. Our lifes will be much safer. Although some people may be upset if they can't drive their cars when they want, in the long run it benefits all of the community.

As bans continued to be passed and people are choosing to walk or take the bus instead, limted car usage continues. We can see that it is beneficial to us and will help our environment in the long run. Limited car usage is truely a good thing for us and will hopefully continue.",0