On October 29 2012 17:56 feanor1 wrote: Sent in an absentee ballot for the first time yesterday. I still hate the US political system in that my vote for the president essentially doesn't count because I am not in one of the 9 states that have a realistic shot of going either way. I can't think of many logical reasons why we still vote with the electoral college and not just a simple majority. The system was design when it took days for messages to travel between states, now communication is instant. The only reason I voted was because of a state ballot initiative that is very close (Michigan Canada bridge).
The electoral college feels completely out of time indeed. Are there never plans to change this into a simple majority vote? Never hear about that, though would expect the system to change at one point in the future.
Changing to Popular vote is dangerous for both parties as it allows third party candidates to actually gather support
hmm that sounds like a verry good reason. So much for democracy then
Neither of you know why the Electoral Collage was designed. It was put in place originally to give states more power. The founding fathers thought this would lead to lots of regional candidates, leading to Presidential races usually being decided in the HoR. That actually didn't happen (Besides the Dixiecrats in 1948), which led to the situation of today.
As of now, while there are lots of glaring problems to the Electoral College, it has some benifits, namely that smaller states actually have much lower voter to electoral votes ratios due to the fact that each state is guaranteed at least three (one for each senator and HoR)
I find it strange that your house is up for elections every 2 years. If it weren't like that I'd say take a Parliment stance on the issue with a tweak and make the largest party seating in House and Senate vote for their leader, and offer that if they don't have a majority the other group can do a coalition if they don't prefer the party that won the most seats. But since it's 2 years and a 2 year president isn't great, and I can see problems if every 2 years the house change and would want to kick out the President...
It would empower 3rd party candidates since they just to win 1 election seat at a time to gain more power in the federal governement.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
Oo im sorry but i dont follow your logic at all
The unique situation of Wyoming is already of no concern since the President has nothing to do with it. There not campaigning to solve the whatever problem that Wyoming have. There dealing with national issues.
Especially because of the way America is structured with the State and Federal level you can have a President chosen by national popular vote because the problems of a single state are dealt with at a State level.
Also your idea of the majority inflicting its will on the minority is pretty much how democracy works. The majority chooses. Instead you now have a situation where the minority inflicts its will on the majority through things like filibusters. Its a completely upside down system.
On October 29 2012 22:42 paralleluniverse wrote: Romney wants to privatize disaster relief:
I can see it already: "$20,000 or we're not coming to rescue you from this hurricane." Hang up. Thank god for competition, I can just call another company. "$15,000 or GTFO."
Family missing? $10,000 per 24 hours of search. We haven't found your loved one yet, would you like to pay another $10,000 so that we may continue searching for the next 24 hours?
On a side note, what happens if the hurricane prevents voting on election day? Does polling get extended until the storm passes? Or is it just too bad?
Except that's not what he is saying. He isn't saying that private companies go to families and ask for money. I would think he means companies bid to the government for contracts to handle these situations. Much like construction work.
Election Day is Election Day. I am pretty positive there is no change to the schedule for these occurrences.
And yet to me the result is just as frighting. Private disaster relief works for a profit. Any private business does. Therefor they will cut corners where they can to save money and increase profits. Which can lead to loss of life in situations like this.
As a goverment there are a lot of places you can save money but dont do it on Disaster Relief. It doesnt matter that its "inefficient" so long as its fast and saves lives.
I don't think it's a great idea. I just wanted to correct parelleluniverse's post.
I do believe that disaster relief should be moved to state control, but going private is a bit much.
Correct me? Where did Romney say bidding for government contracts? He merely said: "send it back to the private sector".
It was likely just an off the cuff remark, so I don't think he said it with some deep specific meaning backed up by a policy proposal (of course, he doesn't have specifics for any policy). You can interpret those 7 words in a number of ways, there's nothing to suggest that your interpretation is any more correct than having private companies that specifically do disaster relief. How would contract bids even work? Hurricane Sandy has hit, give us your offer and we'll pay you to go help rescue people?
I love how you pick an extreme view always. Of course contracts don't work like that. When are contracts ever given out after the fact? Generally contracts are given with 2-3 year time frames. The company would be preparing for a response just like FEMA. I likened it to construction before. My father in law runs a construction supplement business that supplies the state with safety barrels and the like that are used during construction. He bids to the state every other year to win the contract. The state then tells him where construction is happening and for how long. He supplies the material and man power.
There is nothing to suggest in that video that Romney wants companies to bid to families for search and rescues.
Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
What the electoral college does is it gives a disproportionate view to certain states just as a popular vote system would. Wyoming is irrelevent either way as are the 40 states that arent swing states and thats the sad truth of the electoral collge; if you arent in the swing states you dont matter. States like Ohio and Flordia get disproportionate attention already despite having nowhere near population of a larger state. So if you are going to disproportionately favor the issues of certain states then why not just at least favor the opinions of larger areas.
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
What? How would states representing more than 270 electoral votes matter? The Electoral College is in the Constitution, therefore to change it you need an amendment. I don't understand.
And I don't understand the idea of 'States would be losing power.' The minorities in those states would be gaining power because it's winner-take-all, now they actually have a voice. So I guess the 'state' would be losing power, but at the gain of people gaining power. So whatever.
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
I'd hardly conclude that having States representing 132 electoral of a required 270 is "half way there". Without knowing exactly which states you are counting, I don't think it would be a stretch to conclude they are the most supportive. Acquiring the remaining 138 votes would hardly be as easy. Not gonna happen.
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
What? How would states representing more than 270 electoral votes matter? The Electoral College is in the Constitution, therefore to change it you need an amendment. I don't understand.
And I don't understand the idea of 'States would be losing power.' The minorities in those states would be gaining power because it's winner-take-all, now they actually have a voice. So I guess the 'state' would be losing power, but at the gain of people gaining power. So whatever.
There is no requirement in the Constitution dictating how those states vote with there electoral votes. If states totalling 270 electoral college votes say "we will vote for whoever wins popular vote" than nothing else matters because whoever wins popular vote wins election.
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
What? How would states representing more than 270 electoral votes matter? The Electoral College is in the Constitution, therefore to change it you need an amendment. I don't understand.
And I don't understand the idea of 'States would be losing power.' The minorities in those states would be gaining power because it's winner-take-all, now they actually have a voice. So I guess the 'state' would be losing power, but at the gain of people gaining power. So whatever.
There is no requirement in the Constitution dictating how those states vote with there electoral votes. If states totalling 270 electoral college votes say "we will vote for whoever wins popular vote" than nothing else matters because whoever wins popular vote wins election.
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
What? How would states representing more than 270 electoral votes matter? The Electoral College is in the Constitution, therefore to change it you need an amendment. I don't understand.
And I don't understand the idea of 'States would be losing power.' The minorities in those states would be gaining power because it's winner-take-all, now they actually have a voice. So I guess the 'state' would be losing power, but at the gain of people gaining power. So whatever.
Are you referring to the liberals in States like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma ? States like that ? All 53 of those people ?
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
I'd hardly conclude that having States representing 132 electoral of a required 270 is "half way there". Without knowing exactly which states you are counting, I don't think it would be a stretch to conclude they are the most supportive. Acquiring the remaining 138 votes would hardly be as easy. Not gonna happen.
Looking at the states they havn't gotten yet there are a couple big electoral vote states that could very easily sign on not to mention a lot of non swing states that dont have a lot of electoral votes that would have a good reason to jump onboard.
On October 29 2012 17:56 feanor1 wrote: Sent in an absentee ballot for the first time yesterday. I still hate the US political system in that my vote for the president essentially doesn't count because I am not in one of the 9 states that have a realistic shot of going either way. I can't think of many logical reasons why we still vote with the electoral college and not just a simple majority. The system was design when it took days for messages to travel between states, now communication is instant. The only reason I voted was because of a state ballot initiative that is very close (Michigan Canada bridge).
The electoral college feels completely out of time indeed. Are there never plans to change this into a simple majority vote? Never hear about that, though would expect the system to change at one point in the future.
Changing to Popular vote is dangerous for both parties as it allows third party candidates to actually gather support
hmm that sounds like a verry good reason. So much for democracy then
As of now, while there are lots of glaring problems to the Electoral College, it has some benifits, namely that smaller states actually have much lower voter to electoral votes ratios due to the fact that each state is guaranteed at least three (one for each senator and HoR)
How is the fact that the voter-to-electoral-vote ratio differs per state a good thing? The vote from someone who happens to live in a state with high population counts for less than a vote from a low-pop-state inhabitant?
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
What? How would states representing more than 270 electoral votes matter? The Electoral College is in the Constitution, therefore to change it you need an amendment. I don't understand.
And I don't understand the idea of 'States would be losing power.' The minorities in those states would be gaining power because it's winner-take-all, now they actually have a voice. So I guess the 'state' would be losing power, but at the gain of people gaining power. So whatever.
Are you referring to the liberals in States like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma ? States like that ? All 53 of those people ?
I'm also referring to conservatives in New York, California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, half of the people in Ohio, Wisconsin, etc. etc....
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
What? How would states representing more than 270 electoral votes matter? The Electoral College is in the Constitution, therefore to change it you need an amendment. I don't understand.
And I don't understand the idea of 'States would be losing power.' The minorities in those states would be gaining power because it's winner-take-all, now they actually have a voice. So I guess the 'state' would be losing power, but at the gain of people gaining power. So whatever.
The thing doesn't actually get rid of the electoral college. All it does is that the states with this bill signed into law bind their electors not to the winner of the state but to the overall numerical winner nationwide. Once you have 270 EV's worth of states that signed this bill, it goes into effect and the 'electoral college', while technically still existant, will just follow the national outcome.
And yes, some states would lose power. Ohio will never ever sign this into law because of the millions the electoral circus brings. The states likely to sign this bill are the states that are always 'safe' for a party, because it increases their overall relevance in the election process.
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
I'd hardly conclude that having States representing 132 electoral of a required 270 is "half way there". Without knowing exactly which states you are counting, I don't think it would be a stretch to conclude they are the most supportive. Acquiring the remaining 138 votes would hardly be as easy. Not gonna happen.
Well duh. The most supportive states signed it first, and numerically speaking they're 50% there. I don't see this happening anytime soon either, but its the most credible alternative at this point because a constitutional amendment is never gonna happen. Imagine a situation where Obama wins the electoral college, Romney wins the popular vote and all of a sudden republicans will be lighting their hair on fire and might just pass this thing while they're at it in some states.
I personally think it would be a great change overall, and would force both parties to improve their terrible, swing state pandering platforms.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
Oo im sorry but i dont follow your logic at all
The unique situation of Wyoming is already of no concern since the President has nothing to do with it. There not campaigning to solve the whatever problem that Wyoming have. There dealing with national issues.
Especially because of the way America is structured with the State and Federal level you can have a President chosen by national popular vote because the problems of a single state are dealt with at a State level.
Also your idea of the majority inflicting its will on the minority is pretty much how democracy works. The majority chooses. Instead you now have a situation where the minority inflicts its will on the majority through things like filibusters. Its a completely upside down system.
This is incredibly naive position. The majority inflicting its will on the minority is the absolute dark side of direct democracy that western culture has been fighting for centuries. It is the entire reason documents like the constitution are held in such high regard. The filibuster is a logistical artifact that stems from a good idea. Similar to the positive element of the EC I mentioned earlier, when liberals are in power we should pass liberal policies but it should never be good politics to completely ignore the concerns of conservatives. The same goes the other way.
In practice the president is a domestic and foreign policy official based both by how he sets the agenda for his party and his veto power. As he addresses national concerns the solutions he chooses to back directly affect the economies and social welfare of the states.
States are not independent enterprises. If you need any more proof of how much federal policy affects states just look at how much money states get back from the federal government relative to how much they put in.
On October 29 2012 20:53 Rassy wrote: Even as a Bay Area liberal who would benefit tremendously from a popular vote system, it simply has too many glaringly obvious flaws to ever become the rule of law. We all like the idea of simple fixes like popular votes and flat taxes but they dont work
Huh? what are the glaringly obvious flaws of a popular vote system and why does it not work? I cant seem to think of anny good fundamental reason, beside opportunistic ones like that it might help your favorit candidate or not.
The popular vote suffers from the major issue which gave rise to the EC which is that it elects representatives whose sole motivation is providing the best possible life for the majority by inflicting its will on the minority. This is contrary to the true role of government which is to create a functional society for the greatest number of people.
Basically this means that the unique challenges set against a state like Wyoming will be completely drowned out since the entire state has 1/16th the population of New York City. The argument often levied against this is that right now it seems like only swing states matter but the reality is that, while states are currently mostly established along party lines, if they did change their vote then any state would be important.
This is the strength of the EC. It means that even if some states are more important, it is never a legitimate strategy to completely ignore the needs of any state.
Oo im sorry but i dont follow your logic at all
The unique situation of Wyoming is already of no concern since the President has nothing to do with it. There not campaigning to solve the whatever problem that Wyoming have. There dealing with national issues.
Especially because of the way America is structured with the State and Federal level you can have a President chosen by national popular vote because the problems of a single state are dealt with at a State level.
Also your idea of the majority inflicting its will on the minority is pretty much how democracy works. The majority chooses. Instead you now have a situation where the minority inflicts its will on the majority through things like filibusters. Its a completely upside down system.
With the way this country was laid out in the early 19th Century, with a large concentration of urban industry in the northeast and then very sparse farm settlements to the south and to the west, the EC made sense. But now American life has homogenized. You either work a desk job at an office or you do manual labor--but there is really no regional distinction. The fact that the popular vote and the electoral college vote are so close means that the benefit of giving smaller states greater electoral weight is practically irrelevant. Especially when you consider the situation this year--where the urban favorite, Obama, is possibly trailing in the popular vote to the rural/small state favorite, Romney.
On October 30 2012 00:26 Kaitlin wrote: Changing from Electoral College to popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments must be ratified by 3/5 of the States. More than 2/5 of the States would be losing power by ratifying such an Amendment. Good luck eliminating the Electoral College.
Not actually true.
If states representing more than 270 electoral votes sign the national popular vote initiative into law, the presidential election would be a popular vote almost overnight. They're actually half way there with 8 states + DC, totalling 132 electoral votes from states with the National Popular Vote bill on the books.
What? How would states representing more than 270 electoral votes matter? The Electoral College is in the Constitution, therefore to change it you need an amendment. I don't understand.
And I don't understand the idea of 'States would be losing power.' The minorities in those states would be gaining power because it's winner-take-all, now they actually have a voice. So I guess the 'state' would be losing power, but at the gain of people gaining power. So whatever.
Ostensibly the state governments would lose some amount of power, though I feel it would largely be nominal. It would be difficult to gauge precisely how that change would affect state and federal interaction in any case. The states would likely still have exclusive rights on conducting elections, statewide regulations and basically everything else associated with a national election.
There does exist the potential that larger states with more votes might be "less" represented, but I think it would even out representation of states with 3 votes like North and South Dakota. Relative to other states they are actually over represented.
I would be more interested to see how using the popular vote would affect election theory and spending. If the switch were made, it would seem reasonable that states like Ohio, and Florida would receive a lot less attention and spending from national campaigns.
privatizing disaster relief? works fine as long as the disaster hits the hamptons rofl
you already can do private disaster relief, on top of state actions. it's not expanding any 'freedoms' except casting off the cost of helping not even poor people, but people getting fucked over by GOD. i guess that's because they are wicked and must be made to pay the wages of sin.
EPT
