The Great Idea Known as Gerrymandering.

"A district or pattern of districts varying greatly in size or population as a result of gerrymandering." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gerrymandering) Most people do not even know what the word Gerrymandering means. To an educated person they would say It is a way of drawing voting districts to help one particular political party. Though many people probably do not agree with Gerrymandering I believe that it is fair and balanced and the political parties have the right to do this. When they are elected into office they are being elected by the people. So it is fair for them to be able to set the district lines for the people. Each side both Democrats, Republicans, and even Independents are allowed to Gerrymander so this is fair seeing as both side are aloud to do this and not that one side is left out.
There are a few thing that I would have Congress consider about setting up laws that would at least restrict and control Gerrymandering.

For the first part I believe that there need to be stricter laws in place that stop state legislatures who create these districts lines from discriminating against people in these districts. Most importantly that State legislatures do not solely create these lines not just from peoples race but also from people's religious views and their income levels. I do not believe that laws should just stop legislatures from solely making district line on people race. I believe that we should also protect people with different religious views and from their income level. We should not just protect from people’s race from being discriminated against but also what they believe in and how much they make. Cause all of those matter are not fair for people to be grouped as, it is unfair and unjust.

Another way that I would consider to help regulate gerrymandering is to stop or at least hinder making of districts that are completely ludicrous in their shape and design.  In searching for solutions to this problem, I have found one good suggestion from a website by Jeffry R Fisher. (http://jeffryfisher.net/Statesman/ElectionLaw/Gerrymander.htm)
He suggested a ratio of perimeter to area that would keep districts from looking like the one in the picture above.  He notes that this potential solution would not stop state legislatures from trying to make districts like those above and gerrymandering, but it will definitely make it more difficult.

hank estep

hankestep.blogspot.com

R. Weeks Blogspot

http://freedomisslaveryignoranceisstrength.blogspot.com/
Hopefully it'll work this time

Lesley Clark

http://actofvoting.blogspot.com/

Joseph Kelly

http://00016594.blogspot.com/

The Art of Voting -  http://thepoliticersgazette.blogspot.com/

Quo or Grow?

http://vbennetta.blogspot.com/2012/12/quo-or-grow.html?m=1

Voting It's Whatever

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=602642912632763336#publishedposts

Drop Out of the Electoral College

http://rehemarocks.blogspot.com/2012/12/ap-gov-is-cool.html

Cordova, Voting... Ain't Nobody Got Time For That

As many of you may know, the entire population of citizens eligible and registered to vote do not vote. Shocking, right? Well, now we must ask why. For most the answer is simple, they're lazy and simply do not care, but for others it's a bit more of a complicated situation. The way the election for the president works, often discourages many Americans to get up and take initiative to vote. Reasons for this include that they do not believe that their vote counts, because they perhaps live in a state opposed to how they would vote, or in a state in which their vote counts for very little, compared to a small state. Other reasons might include that they do not have enough time, are not informed, people don't like either candidate or again just don't care.

Living in a state with limited influence to who the President will be also is discouraging to voters in which they believe that their little state could not swing the overall votes in any way, so they do not bother to vote. Within the states as well, if the potential voter does not truly believe that their vote could make a difference, they do not vote. For example if they lived in South Carolina and were a Democrat, if they believed that no matter if they voted or not the result would remain the same, voting Republican, they also possibly would not vote. Another main issue, that is contributing to the high rates of decreasing voter turnout is the lack of interest on the voter part to any candidate running. This is unfortunate, because most of the time it is the hardest to encourage if the eligible voter has no opinion on the issue at hand.

Americans not voting is a problem because everyone has an opinion. Eventually a group of people who may or may not have voted will complain about something and will want some change or policy. This is not an accurate way of going about getting your way however, especially when you have not voted. Unfortunately, the truth is that people are often selfish and care about themselves foremost. The selfish nature of people causes them to want their own way, most of the time with little or no concern for others. Don't get mad, it's true. This can be avoided however, in some cases, instead of making a group to complain about a certain policy, vote for the person who agrees with the policies or changes you had in mind.  This is truth is clearly an issue however, because they cannot fairly account for your opinion when you chose to not partake in the voting process of who will ultimately be in charge of our country and how you could potentially go about your everyday life.

Since the way of the Electoral College cannot be changed I would reform this voting process in order to encourage more eligible and registered voters to vote. There are many ways to go about this process one being an easy, but unsuspecting way is through media. Not just any media though, through celebrities. The media often focuses on just the main candidates during election time and a lot less on other people or Hollywood characters that usually hog the camera during the rest of the year. We use the celebrities to let the eligible voters know that aren't motivated at all, to be motivated. By putting significance on celebrities voting and the importance it plays in their lives could inspire and encourage a lot of people, whether middle aged, old or young. Allowing America to see that the celebrities vote and care about voting too will not only convict and make the American people consider voting, it will also give the celebrities more popularity. Also they will be more liked because of the connection the reader or viewer will have, knowing that they participate in everyday activities and civic duties. Putting more emphasis on the more popular and famous people voting will also encourage the ones who wouldn't have voted before, not only the idea to vote, but to become informed of the candidates running for office.

Another way to increase voter turnout is by making the candidates more relational. People are going to vote for people who they feel a connection with, or someone with whom they share a common interest. Similar to the celebrity idea, the idea of making the President more "average," relating to everyday people will make him more popular and likable to the American public, being able to see that they're just like him. For example  in the 2008 election there was the most diverse group of voters that took part in the voting process than ever before, perhaps because of the connection or similarities they shared. Therefore, making the President seem more like a regular guy and emphasizing his regular "everyday American" activities during the time of his campaign, may in fact increase the voter turnout. 

                                               

sources: http://www.cagle.com/2012/05/voting-for-candidates/
http://cartoonblog.nbcnews.com/_nv/more/section/archive?year=2010&month=11&ct=a&pc=25&sp=25
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnic-voters-presidential-election

Get a Real Job, Mr. Politician

Why Term Limits Should Be Implemented on Congress

When framing our government, the American founding fathers envisioned members of Congress to be a group of average people, representing their respected area, pushing for favorable policy.  While checks and balances and the bicameral legislature were wonderful ideas, the entire system is a failure with one weak part.  Our Congress has become a failure due to an absence of term limits on Congressman and Senators.  No term limits in Congress have created corrupt and selfish members of Congress, a huge incumbency advantage, and a gridlock between Republicans and Democrats due to an increase in partisanship.

When given power for a long period of time, it is human nature to abuse it.  We see this in American politics today, through members of Congress working only to be reelected, and not working in favor of the people they represent.  These members become "lifetime politicians" and seek only to advance in their political careers.  They become extremely corrupt, and are influenced more by interest groups than their constituents.  If term limits were enforced, we would see politicians strive more to serve their constituents, and not to serve themselves.

Non-supporters of term limits in Congress will argue that it is not necessary because the people have the power to vote in a new candidate if the one they previously voted for is not acting favorably.  While this is true, the incumbency advantage makes it very hard for new candidates to get elected into office.  Even with poor approval ratings, at least 90% of incumbent members of the House consistently get reelected while 80% of incumbent members of the Senate consistently get reelected.  If Congress is so poorly rated, why do members keep getting reelected?   Incumbents get reelected for reasons such as being able to raise much more money than challengers, and by living in gerrymandered districts that ensure their seats in Congress are "safe."  With term limits, the incumbency advantage would be diminished, as both voters and politicians would be thinking much more in the short-term than long-term.

(http://www.gallup.com/poll/157475/congress-approval-poised-lowest-election-year.aspx)

Long tenures in Congress have played a direct role in the increase of partisanship in government.  In order to be reelected, many members find it beneficial to become "more" conservative or "more" liberal, to fire up their constituents.  With Republicans and Democrats in office becoming more extreme, we have seen a struggle for members to compromise and enact policy.  Republicans and Democrats seem to despise each other.  Often times, Republican Congresses refuse to work with a Democratic President and Democratic Congresses refuse to work with a Republican President.  This has created a situation in which balancing the federal budget seem almost impossible, an issue that all voters find important.  In order for issues such as the budget to be solved, Republicans and Democrats must be able to compromise.  More than anything, Congress needs new faces and new minds to have their chance at solving the issues of the country.  We can not expect the types of Congresses we have recently elected to all of a sudden reach agreements and move our nation in the right direction.

Reforming the length of tenures in Congress would be fairly simple.  An amendment to the Constitution would have to be passed, limiting Congressman to five two-year terms, and senators to two six-year terms.  This is an idea both Republican and Democratic voters agree on, and has widespread popularity throughout the country.  According to a Fox News Poll, 78% of Americans are in favor of enacting term limits on members of Congress.  In a democracy, a view shared by 78% of voters should easily become policy.  While it may seem impossible that members of the House and Senate would pursue this policy, members such as Senator Jim Demint and Congressman Paul Ryan have claimed that they are in support of term limits for Congress.  With bipartisanship reaching an all time low and the federal debt rising each year, now is the time to act.  In order to save our country, we must get rid of lifetime politicians and enact term limits to Congress.

It is extremely possible that with Congressional election reform, the public's approval on the federal government would improve over a short period of time.  This in return could spark an interest in politics and increase voter turnout.  A vast majority of Americans would agree that high voter turnout is a good thing, just as they agreed term limits on members of Congress would be beneficial.  To preserve the greatest country in the world, it is imperative that we get lifetime politicians out of office, and protect the interests of their constituents.

Sources

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/03/fox-news-poll-percent-favor-term-limits-congress/
• http://restartcongress.org/revolution/arguments-for-term-limits/

Democracy - You're Doing It Wrong

yeah-murica.blogspot.com

Sam Harner - A New Idea for the Electoral College

http://samgoingham.blogspot.com/

Electoral College: Biggest Joke in America?

I'm going to go with yes to that question.

For any of you nonpolitical junkies out there, I will break down the electoral college for you. It is pretty much a group of people chosen to vote for the president and vice president based on how the state they are from voted.

So what does this really mean? Well for Texas, it means Democrats just shouldn't show up to vote. For California, it means Republicans just shouldn't show up to vote. Very few states actually swing back and forth between a democrat winning or a republican winning. The states that do though are so originally called 'swing states'.


The red states are the states that overwhelmingly vote for Republican and the blue are for the democrats. Yellow states are the swing states. Unless you live in a swing state, your vote only counts if you are voting for the party that is going to win your state. For example, if you live in Georgia, the Republican candidate is almost ALWAYS going to win. Therefore, if you are a democrat, there's truly no point in showing up to vote.

But, if you are in a swing state, such as Ohio, absolutely show up! Your state could swing either way, so you  NEED to show up in support of your party.

Now you may ask, what the big issue about this is? The big issue is we can't all live in Ohio, Iowa, and Florida (swing states). The truth of the matter is that democrats live in the South, and Republicans live on the West Coast. So how is it fair to those people if their vote truly doesn't count? It's not. And of course I'm not saying the system needs to be perfect. That's impossible! But it could be a little more fair.

Not to mention that there is a possibility that the president who didn't win the majority of votes could win the presidency. Is that crazy or what? It doesn't happen very often, but the fact that it even can happen?! That's so absurd. Give the people who they want! And who earned the majority of individual votes to be there.

Let us be real though, people have to go out and vote. Your vote obviously really can't count if you didn't even cast one. So before anybody starts complaining, make sure you stood in line to cast your ballot. What we need to do is create a more accurate system. Yeah, this system is reliable, but is that all we want in the system that picks the leader of our country? We need more. People should want more for this country. This just isn't another job in our economy. It is THE job.

Yet, the Electoral College takes a little bit of that away. Especially with the all or nothing rule. Too many people might not know about Nebraska, but they got it figured out. So does Maine. They section their states off where their electoral votes are chosen by districts. That way, the vote is more narrow. For example, if this were to happen in South Carolina, let's say that district 1's majority voted for a democrat, but district 2's voted for a Republican, each district gets their own electoral votes to be cast the way they voted. This localizes the vote. Which isn't a half bad start to reform.

But, as most humans fear change, the country fears change. The electoral college is not even an issue up for discussion of changing because of more bigger issues at hand. But once the country gets back on a more positive track, it wouldn't hurt anybody to consider a much needed change.

I have an idea for what that much needed change should be. In the ideal world we need to get back to plain and simple individual votes. Sure, counting them is going to take time. But have we really gotten that lazy? Almost all votes are electronic now. And, while they might not be 100% secure, they are much quicker to count. Plus, with technology advancing as much as it is, there will come a day where where it is the safest thing around. Therefore, why can we not just count every single individual vote? With that, it doesn't matter the size of the state because the country is voting as a whole, not seperate entities.

Maybe one day change will come, but until then, we are stuck on Comedy Central watching The Electoral College.

Sources: http://www.electronic-vote.org/, http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/electoral-map.html, my notes.

Sarai Ramos

http://saraisabelramos.blogspot.com/

The Act of Voting

How come voter turnout has declined in the last 50 years? Voter turnout has become a growing issue in the present day elections.  Our country has some of the most active citizens in every government election except the Presidential elections.  Why do people actively engage in everything but don't participate in the most important election in our country? The long term reasons for the decline are decrease in voter fraud, decline in party machines, and voter registration requirements.  Also, voting eligibility is a partial factor where resident aliens, felons, and mentally disabled are not allowed to vote but as a total number they account for a very large population. Voter registration is decided by the states and there are a number of ways people register depending on what state you live in.  Most states require you to register 30 days prior to election day and if you're late then you just missed out on your vote.  Others you can go and register the day of election day in order to encourage voter turnout.  College students, living away from where they are registered have to use absentee ballots in order to vote and since college students already have enough on their plates they generally end up not voting.  Three other reasons people refuse to vote is apathy, lack of political efficacy, and cost.  The chart below shows the recent decline in voter turnout from 1948 to 2008.  From looking at the chart I think certain rises can be linked to events taking place at the time and people feel like they should get involved in what is going on.  Overall, I think we can only get voter turnout up to a certain point and then it would stop because there will always be people that are uninterested in the election.  Despite recommendations to fix the system even if the process is ridiculously easy.  A huge event would be the only way voter turnout would get past the certain point I stated earlier and that only happens once every 50 years.

In my opinion, I believe we should have voting as simple as possible in order to get max voter turnout out of the American citizens.  From what I've noticed people don't vote because it takes so much time in order to vote and most Americans are too busy or just feel like they have no voice that actually matters in the election.  Resident aliens, felons and the mentally disabled count for a good chunk of the American population.  Resident aliens I believe should be eligible to vote because they are living within the borders and whoever is elected effects them no matter what you do. Also, it could give us a better estimate of how many aliens are living in the country and could help get a better idea on what to do for the Immigration Act Obama said he pass at the start of his presidency.  Felons and mentally disabled are still citizens despite felons losing their rights to live freely in the country.  The government is still affecting them and I believe they have a right to a vote because of that.  Anyone living within the borders of the United States should be allowed to vote because it affects them and could effect them directly and people should think about it from resident aliens, felons, and the mentally disabled's perspective.  My reasoning is because I try to look at every ones perspective and try to give the basic rights to people who don't have them even if it ends up upsetting people.  Voter registration is too complicated and time consuming since most of the time you have to register 30 days before an election and most people aren't thinking of voting at that time.  Instead of having the states determine how you register it should become national because I believe consistency across the nation would be easier to manage as a whole.  To keep it simple we could adopt the Motor Voter Act so people could show up and register the day of the election so the people who forgot to register 30 days prior don't miss out on their vote even though that would probably cause the time in takes to vote to increase greatly.  Either that or another idea I had is to have citizens register with their place of business, students could register with their school, and the unemployed could register the traditional way.  Businesses and schools could send in the peoples registrations making it more convenient and easier for people. These are just my recommendations.


http://andrewgelman.com/2008/11/voter-turnout-in-presidential-elections-1948-2008/
http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm

Election Reform - Term Limits in Congress

http://electionreformblanier.blogspot.com/2012/12/term-limits-in-congress.html

So Not Super- Wyatt

http://sonotsuper.blogspot.com/

Morgan Lewis Does My Vote Even Count?..Probably Not.

Does My Vote Even Count?..Probably Not.

By: Morgan Ranee

Did you know that there are 435 members of the House of Representatives? True story. These seats are divided evenly by population and allotted to each individual state. Every ten years when the census is conducted and the information it provides is used to determine how much each influence each state gets over the entire US Government. What's wrong with this you may ask? 

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment)

California, Texas, New York, and Florida are practically running the country! Four out of fifty states literally make up a third of our country's House of Representatives. When it comes time to pass bills and acts, that's an awful lot of influence that forty-six of us do not have. Sound fair South Dakota? Their one congresswoman probably thinks not. The solution to this is not to have two senates, it's just to not break up directly by population so that small states still have a fighting chance for some influence in Washington. 

If Washington isn't your main concern than think about from the State's perspective. Is California fifty-three times the size of South Dakota? Absolutely not and just like people in one fifty-third of California than the people of another fifty-third, the people and opinions in South Dakota also vary. South Dakota only gets to voice one opinion because they only have one seat in the house, which means over 40% of South Dakota simply just does not count. You're probably thinking "Oh now I get it".

 Did you vote for your congressman? Maybe you did. Or maybe you didn't and maybe you, like many other Americans, are trying to figure out who in the world did. The fact of the matter is in most congressional districts drawn across the Nation, they know which party will have the seat and there is no fighting that. Ever heard of gerrymandering? Well if not it looks a bit like this:

(source: http://startelegraph.blogspot.com/2011/08/more-texas-political-gerrymandering.html)

State legislatures use demographics to basically discredit each an every vote for a seat in congress. You see they know that you and your neighbors are democrats, so what do they do? One of two things, they either break of your whole democratic area into little pieces and stick it with way more republicans so that your vote doesn't count or they stuff you with all the other democrats so yeah who you want wins, but that's all your gonna get so your few to one little seats don't really hold much influence in comparison to the other party anyway. How do we fix this? We stand up for our voice and our output in our democratic nation. We fight that congressional districts be set solely by dividing states into evenly populated sections and ignore all other demographics. Another solution is to have a bipartisan group from every state appointed for redistricting so that neither party can influence the way each district votes.

Another disadvantage of Gerrymandering is that it gives a colossal unfair advantage to the member of the party that the district is gerrymandered for. This is only one of the incumbency advantages that ensure that your Congressman will be your congressman until they say so. The way things are now there is hardly a reason for reelection. The major advantages that incumbents have are:

1. They don't have to worry about the candidate 

      from the other party because the district is already gerrymandered for their party's success.

2. Everyone in there district knows who they are

and over half voted for them before.        

3. They get to mail stuff for free since apparently

each of their signatures are worth 45 cents.

4. They can travel for free on their State's dime.

These advantages make it impossible for a newbie to try to run an even campaign and certainly impossible to make enough money to financially support an equal campaign. 

(source for both charts: http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/15/throwing-the-bums-out-is-harde)

The obvious solution for the incumbency advantage is to set term limits. Allow new leaders a fighting chance to help improve not only their districts, but also to help improve Congress as a whole. Also by leveling the playing field Americans would inevitably become more involved in the congressional election process because they would have more candidates to choose from and could find someone that better represents their own views.

Tien Ho - Congressional Term Limits

In light of the incumbency advantage and entrenched partisanship in Congress, unlimited Congressional tenure has been one of the most problematic aspects of American politics.  Terms limits, in the same way that they serve to curtail executive abuses of power, are indispensable to prevent potential corruption and dysfunction in Congress.  Today, the Congress proves highly unpopular in public opinion.  According to Gallup statistics, Americans' trust in the legislative branch trails far behind that in the executive branch (1).  Such striking public disapproval of Congress reflects its failure to effectively represent the people's interests, the cause of which is much attributed to the lack of term limits.

There are three main problems associated with unlimited Congressional tenure.  Without fail, the most recognized feature of Congressional elections is the incumbency advantage.  Opponents often argue term limits are unnecessary because voters can simply vote incompetent officials out of office every two years, yet holistically, the percentage of incumbents who win reelection has been over 90 percent (2).  During elections, incumbents can easily crush their challengers in terms of name recognition and campaign finance.  Such incumbency advantage sabotages the very notion of competition so dearly relished in American polity.  The lack of competitiveness in Congress has much to do with the loss of potential leaders who could make outstanding contributions to the commonwealth, but who are denied of the equal opportunities for recognition and achievement.  Another consequence of incumbency is the depression of voter turnout in midterm elections.  Since the 1980s, the percentage of eligible Americans voting for U.S. House has never surpassed 50 percent (3).  Voter turnout is a manifestation of citizens' faith in government, in its ability to promote changes structurally and ideologically, and alas, the entrenched pattern of reelection frustrates voters' political efficacy.  

Secondly, Congress is heavily rooted in partisan politics because incumbents, in an attempt to secure their party seats, seek to appeal only to certain groups of constituents who can give them the most votes.  As a result, to allow Congressional members to serve for the same gerrymandered districts of people for multiple terms is to risk minority rule at the expense of majority interests.  Instead of creating a representative government of, by, and for the people, unrestricted incumbency remunerates politicians a lifelong settlement in Congress.  In addition, entrenched partisanship in Congress also results in gridlock when it comes to adopting any legislation.  Since incumbents' main focus is to maintain the general approval of their parties and constituents, they tend to adopt a more ideologically extreme position than average Democrats or Republicans, therefore exacerbating the schism between the two parties.

Congressional Gridlock (4)

The third consequence of unlimited Congressional tenures is the growing influence of interest groups in American government.  Thanks to the incumbency advantage, lobbyists are able to manipulate incumbents' cravings for votes and financial support to establish a symbiotic relationship with Congressional members and shape public policy.  Accordingly, the lack of term limits is implicitly unconstitutional because it legitimizes the increased concentration of political power in the hands of the few old Congressmen who alienate public interests and yield to lobbyists' demands for the guaranteed sake of reelection.  There is no wrong to assert that Congress has become increasingly undemocratic provided that incumbents, with the assistance of their gerrymandered districts and special interest groups, continue to restrict the people' political voices to those that truly matter at election time.  The stress of partisanship plus the dominion of interest groups reduce any possibility for change and flexibility, which are the two determining mechanisms of American politics and democracy.

Lobbyists bribe Congressmen to obstruct reforms (5).

Even though there is strong argument that upholds the legitimacy of the existing Congressional tenure, it is important to understand that America was founded on a bastion of liberty, equity, and diversity that reflect the necessity of term limits in dissolving concentrated power and promoting changes.  Admittedly, legitimizing a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits is not an easy task considering the court's disapproval in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (6), yet as democratic laboratories, states are able to exert pressure on the national government by proactively implementing term limits in their local legislatures.  In effect, 15 states have adopted term limits for legislators, as manifested in the following table (7):

		House	Senate
State	Year Enacted	Limit	Limit	% Voted Yes
Maine	1993	8	8	67.6
California	1990	6	8	52.2
Colorado	1990	8	8	71
Arkansas	1992	6	8	59.9
Michigan	1992	6	8	58.8
Florida	1992	8	8	76.8
Ohio	1992	8	8	68.4
South Dakota	1992	8	8	63.5
Montana	1992	8	8	67
Arizona	1992	8	8	74.2
Missouri	1992	8	8	75
Oklahoma	1990	12	12	67.3
Nebraska	2000	n/a	8	56
Louisiana	1995	12	12	76
Nevada	1996	12	12	70.4

Accordingly, there should be two six-year terms for senators and six two-year terms for members of the House of Representatives.  Such twelve-year term limit would be sufficient for Congressional members to deliver their responsibilities but not too long for them to solely serve their local constituents at the expense of national welfare, establish an exclusive cult with interest groups, and crowd out new challengers.  At the same time, Congressional tenure should not be too short that it restricts politicians' political voice.  The intention of term limits is to optimize politicians' concentration on their civic duty by eliminating the pressure of reelection and excuses for delaying work.  Therefore, the more politicians understand the deadline of their service, the better chance they would make commitments to fulfill their responsibilities while in office...

...instead of playing solitaire (8).

After all, Congress is a civic legislature, not a retirement home.


Sources: (1)  http://www.gallup.com/poll/157685/americans-trust-judicial-branch-legislative-least.aspx
              (2) http://www.comprofessor.com/2010/08/anti-anti-incumbency-2010-election-meme.html
              (3) http://www.thedailyaztec.com/2011/10/require-electoral-voting-to-boost-turnout/u-s-voter-turnout-up-slightly-for-midterm-election
              (4) http://dignitas.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341f704253ef0120a6e74025970b-800wi

              (5) https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCIV2Y_0Mm0DmdoQrJsrz5oOcUKwMwGGxP2yheAbwvqoWKnEGnHbK9tNFJd03DtJKNiT24E-oUHGAhq6-uNzkMrOrHlvZcXDQpyzrgTHfWWDpI9nsRdq4JOvX7UlFyZBVQgvSM00-NAnj_/s400/Cartoon-Insurance-Lobby1.jpg
              (6) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1456
              (7) http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/legisdata/chart-of-term-limits-states.aspx
              (8) http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2009/09/connecticut-budget-solitaire-photo.html