Mason's Post about Capitol Lake vs. Estuary

Pro-Estuary is my vote!! In my opinion an estuary is better for the wildlife and costs.An estuary right now would cost less than to keep cleaning it every year. This will be better for the wildlife because the sediment will wash out allowing the water to rise and to keep it from fish dieing. We need a change from our old lake, even if most people say businesses will go out of business it most likely wont. In my opinion businesses might say the same or be better.Lake fair people i know this may ruin it but their can always be an Estuary fair!!!!!! This will be a big change and maybe later we could change it back to a lake just like we did before in 1951 but this time keep it clean so we can be able to swim in it like before.



AND AS ALWAYS HAVE A NICE DAY. MASON.

Lake vs. Estuary Debate

The debates that we had in my 4th period science class have persuaded me, all of the pro-estuary groups have given good evidence that Capitol lake should be turned into an estuary. They have talked about the sediment builds ups, the low cost of just fixing the lake by turning it into an estuary and the higher cost of keeping it a lake (You'll have to keep paying for it to be dredged a number of times) and the activities people would enjoy better in an estuary (like people that like to do up stream kayaking, fishing, and swimming) Also they said that the salt water would kill half of the population of the New Zealand Mud Snail (one of the invasive species) so, yes the pro-estuary teams have argued well. But the pro-lake groups didn't persuade me enough to have my vote, their only argument was that some citizens would be angry because Lake Fair would be taken away. I wonder if they know that Lake Fair could be held in other parts of Olympia.

  "Capitol Lake reservoir is fundamentally ecologically unhealthy and unsustainable. It's shallow, warm, high-nutrient waters promote the runway growth of algae and aquatic vegetation that decays and leads to low dissolved oxygen levels in lower Budd Inlet."(Green Pages)

MJ MJ's Ha(:

iWant Thesee.<3

The Electoral College

         The election of 2000 was very strange indeed because Gore won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College. So Gore got about  560,000 more votes than Bush, and Bush really benefited from the fact that the electoral vote is not completely based on population size. Each state gets as many electoral votes as they have members in the House of Representatives and the Senate. States’ House delegations are based on population, but each state has two Senators. So every state gets at least three electoral votes, regardless of population, essentially two extra votes not based on population. Bush carried 30 states, while Gore carried only 20 states and the District of Columbia. Thus Bush got a net benefit of 18 electoral votes not based on population from carrying more states than Gore.

So now that, that is in your knowledge I can now say that I think that the Electoral College is a valid way to elect a president because it helps even the littlest states be heard because popular vote doesn’t matter much and the runner ups can actually go to the state to speak and pay attention to them.

The Electoral College has been around for a long time and with that, our technology has become more advanced, travel and communications are no longer a fret, we all have access to every word spoken by all the candidates. And even though there are some CONS like:

1.  When the winner of the Electoral College is not the candidate who received the most votes of the people, the new president will face questions about his legitimacy.

2.  Most Americans believe that the person who receives the most votes should become president.  Direct election is seen as more consistent with democratic principles than the Electoral College system.

 
3.  The Electoral College gives disproportionate weight to the votes of citizens of small states. For example, a vote by a resident of Wyoming counts about four times more, electorally, than a vote by a California resident.

4.  The Electoral College system, especially in a close election, is subject to the mischief that might be caused by disloyal, or even bribed, electors.

But there are also a good amount of PROS like:

1. The Electoral College, in recognizing a role for states in the selection of the president, reminds us of their importance in our federal system.

2. The Electoral College encourages more person-to-person campaigning by candidates, as they spend time in both the big cities and smaller cities in battleground states.

3.  In close, contested elections, recounts will usually be confined to a state or two, rather than an across-the-country recount that might be required if we had direct election of the president.

 
4.  The Electoral College, with its typical winner-take-all allocation of votes, often turns a small percentage margin of victory into one that appears much larger, thus making the victory seem more conclusive and adding to the winner's perceived legitimacy.

So as you can see, there is a bad side and also a good side. The good side is better for the common good and is also a very efficient way to elect a president or vice president.

Japan

Valea Needs To Write Something Quiicckk

Oh Barnicles