fullText.csv

every vote will count in whatever state it is cast instead of the campaign focusing on few critical swing states we will have truly national election
the constitution is hard to change there are more urgent priorities the national popular vote will be hard to count with enough accuracy if there is close election we could have long recounts on national basis without the electoral college small towns and rural areas would be ignored and candidates would only campaign where there are big concentrations of voters
it is important for candidates running for office to spend on their campaigns but limits should be set on how much they should be allowed to spend this would level the playing field for all campaigns campaign spending limits will discourage corruptiona the buying and selling of influence
putting limits on campaign spending is violation of every campaign first amendment rights if candidates can raise money they should be able to spend it to advance their cause candidates who are troubled by the cost of campaigns can always choose to observe their own limits if candidates choose not to employ voluntary spending limits that is their right
this system would reduce the danger of polarizing outcomes in party primaries by generating one blanket primary in which all candidates contest this would expand the interest of the electorate in the first round elections and increase voter participation
these is no evidence this electoral system has reduced more extreme outcomes in politics there is no evidence of candidates or their platforms becoming more moderate this method could fragment parties if two candidates from the same party have to compete in an intense second round battle
this would increase the voter turnout in primary elections as it would be closer to election day when voters pay more attention to campaigns with higher turnout in the primaries candidates will have to appeal to broader range of voters and this will lead to more moderate platforms
moving primary elections to after labor day is not realistic as parties need sufficient time to prepare for the general election this will only increase the amount of money spent on primary campaigns this does not guarantee higher turnout among the electorate as those who are not engaged are not likely to participate anyway
this system would reduce the danger of polarizing outcomes in party primaries by generating one blanket primary in which all candidates contest this would expand the interest of the electorate in the first round elections and increase voter participation
these is no evidence this electoral system has reduced more extreme outcomes in politics there is no evidence of candidates or their platforms becoming more moderate this method could fragment parties if two candidates from the same party have to compete in an intense second round battle
more proportional results are often considered fairer as they make the distribution of power better reflect distribution of votes the impact of gerrymandering would be lower as there would be larger multi seat districts
this would encourage more coalition governments meaning instability and excessive influence for those parties that hold the balance of power there would be more gridlock as with more parties it would be more difficult to reach agreements
every vote will count in whatever state it is cast instead of the campaign focusing on few critical swing states we will have truly national election
the constitution is hard to change there are more urgent priorities the national popular vote will be hard to count with enough accuracy if there is close election we could have long recounts on national basis without the electoral college small towns and rural areas would be ignored and candidates would only campaign where there are big concentrations of voters
it is important for candidates running for office to spend on their campaigns but limits should be set on how much they should be allowed to spend this would level the playing field for all campaigns campaign spending limits will discourage corruptiona the buying and selling of influence
putting limits on campaign spending is violation of every campaign first amendment rights if candidates can raise money they should be able to spend it to advance their cause candidates who are troubled by the cost of campaigns can always choose to observe their own limits if candidates choose not to employ voluntary spending limits that is their right
vouchers would force candidates to focus their campaign on the broader population instead of wealthy individuals and groups these vouchers would also encourage the broader public to be more involved in the campaign process and hopefully increase political interest among voters
the vouchers benefit incumbents as they have the highest name recognition and would most likely be the ones to receive the most public financing offering vouchers would not draw in people that were not already interested in the campaign process this would not change the existing campaign process
this would increase the voter turnout in primary elections as it would be closer to election day when voters pay more attention to campaigns with higher turnout in the primaries candidates will have to appeal to broader range of voters and this will lead to more moderate platforms
moving primary elections to after labor day is not realistic as parties need sufficient time to prepare for the general election this will only increase the amount of money spent on primary campaigns this does not guarantee higher turnout among the electorate as those who are not engaged are not likely to participate anyway
more proportional results are often considered fairer as they make the distribution of power better reflect distribution of votes the impact of gerrymandering would be lower as there would be larger multi seat districts
this would encourage more coalition governments meaning instability and excessive influence for those parties that hold the balance of power there would be more gridlock as with more parties it would be more difficult to reach agreements
every vote will count in whatever state it is cast instead of the campaign focusing on few critical swing states we will have truly national election
the constitution is hard to change there are more urgent priorities the national popular vote will be hard to count with enough accuracy if there is close election we could have long recounts on national basis without the electoral college small towns and rural areas would be ignored and candidates would only campaign where there are big concentrations of voters
the congress and the states should set reasonable campaign finance regulations the first amendment is meant to support free speech so that all views and opinions can be considered it should not be used to allow those with huge wealth to drown out the voices of those without
the supreme court generally rules based on precedent therefore the ruling for citizens united upholds the first amendment overturning this ruling may affect our right to free speech in this country citizens united ensures that businesses large or small unions and other membership based organizations may have political voice corporations are people and have rights to speak and act politically
it is important for candidates running for office to spend on their campaigns but limits should be set on how much they should be allowed to spend this would level the playing field for all campaigns campaign spending limits will discourage corruptiona the buying and selling of influence the status quo discourages grassroots and or third party candidates
putting limits on campaign spending is violation of every campaigna first amendment rights if candidates can raise money they should be able to spend it to advance their cause candidates who are troubled by the cost of campaigns can always choose to observe their own limits if candidates choose not to employ voluntary spending limits that is their right
vouchers would force candidates to focus their campaign on the broader population instead of wealthy individuals and groups these vouchers would also encourage the broader public to be more involved in the campaign process and hopefully increase political interest among voters
the vouchers benefit incumbents as they have the highest name recognition and would most likely be the ones to receive the most public financing offering vouchers would not draw in people that were not already interested in the campaign process this would not change the existing campaign process
more and better information provides voters with more of an opportunity to educate them about who is behind each campaign communication this could create more level playing field with wealthy special interests
the lists of donors might not accurately reflect public support only the support of the largest contributors such mandatory disclosures may raise free speech concerns
this modification would limit the type of entities that are able to contribute to campaigns company ownerships are often unclear and companies are often not required to share detailed information especially privately held companies this proposal would ensure that companies contributing have less than foreign ownership
this proposal would not change the status quo rather companies would just form other companies to fall within compliance it does not solve the crux of the issue if foreign entities want to make campaign contributions they will find way to do so this proposal would not limit contributions from foreign entities
some victims are undocumented immigrants and police should not be prohibited from asking and enforcing immigration law if police officer cannot identify the perpetrator of crime domestic violence where victim fights back in self defense and has probable cause that either party is in the country illegally the officer should be allowed to inquire about the immigration status of all parties federal immigration officers are federal authorities and should have cooperation with local police just like any other federal agents
victims of crimes who are undocumented or have family who are undocumented are often afraid of coming forward because the police could ask about their immigration status or that of their family this creates population of silent victims and may discourage the reporting of crimes if victims are afraid to come forward to report the crime it could make it easier for crime to happen in those areas few local law enforcement officers are able to do the work of federal officials or to recognize the specialized documents that provide proof of immigration status
if police officer has reasonable suspicion to believe witness might be undocumented the officer should not be prohibited from checking that she or he is legal in this country offering reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause federal immigration officers are federal authorities and should have cooperation with local police just like any other federal agents even though witness to crime is detained it does not necessarily mean that she or he will be deported deportation proceedings commence only when an individual comes to the attention of immigration authorities and is deemed to be deportable she or he will be detained while the investigation is on going and in some cases where she or he becomes good witness she or he can potentially become legal citizen or paroled while the action is in process
if witness is afraid to come forward to testify it could result in the perpetrator going free and would undermine the justice system few local law enforcement officers are able to do the work of federal officials or to recognize the specialized documents that provide proof of immigration status if local law enforcement officers ask witnesses of crimes about their immigration status it could lead to increased distrust in the legal system witnesses would have less incentive to come forward if they are in fear of being questioned detained and or deported
deportation proceedings often involve complex legal questions that most of undocumented immigrants do not know how to navigate providing legal counsel could help those going through immigration proceedings be granted judicial relief keeping immigrant families together saves money for the statea taxpayers in increased tax revenues and less need for families left behind to draw on the social safety net
undocumented immigrants are here illegally and should not have the same rights as citizens or noncitizens here legally tax dollars should not be spent on court appointed attorneys and translators to defend undocumented immigrants here illegally
without legal assistance many immigrants are often unaware of how their rights can be defended many undocumented immigrants cannot afford legal assistance and without it do not fare well in immigration court and their liberty is at risk not being able to afford legal services in immigration proceedings could result in unnecessary deportation this could split families apart and could place undue burdens on families and even the tax payers should children have to end up as wards of the state
immigration is federal law and should not be up to the states to fund attorneys for undocumented immigrants funds are drawing tax dollars away from american citizens and legal resident aliens in need tax money should be to provide for citizens and legal resident aliens and not to prolong the stay of undocumented immigrants immigration proceedings might be civil matters and no americans who are defending themselves in civil proceedings are entitled to taxpayer funded representation therefore undocumented immigrants should not be entitled to such services
creating legal options for those who have been in the country over long period of time without committing other crimes will put them on path through to citizenship without the fear of being deported providing legal options can help lower poverty among undocumented immigrants legal options would allow them to attain jobs legally pay into the tax system and would allow them to apply for jobs with higher pay it is in the national interest as testified by members of the national security community to determine who is residing in the be it lawfully or unlawfully in order to create database for law enforcement purposes
providing pathways to citizenship and legalization rewards illegal immigrants and disrespects those who have come to the country legally this would incentivize those who come to the country illegally or overstay their visas to stay here as long as possible in order to be eligible to convert their illegal status to legal status although they have not committed any serious crime they already violated the immigration law and can be seen as criminals it does not make sense to grant them legal status just because they do not commit other crimes