福州2节腰椎尾骶椎与脊神经附骨盆半腿骨模型(乌鲁木齐透明头颅骨模型) (今日更新中)

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — As we approach the November election, all eyes are on a handful of battleground states.That’s because of an election procedure that a lot of people have questions about and one that is unique to presidential politics: the Electoral College.When you fill out a ballot for president, you’re not actually voting for the candidate whose name you see. In California, you’re actually voting for 55 people who you may have never heard of, a “slate of electors,” who turn around and cast the real votes from the state Capitol in December. It dates back to 1787. The Founding Fathers were split on the mechanics of how to elect a president, and “this was the thing that they could all agree on,” said UC San Diego political science professor Daniel Butler.The Electoral College was a compromise between the framers who were leery of giving direct power to the masses and others who opposed having Congress elect the president.“It felt a lot like Parliament, a lot like what the British did, which is not what they were going to do,” Butler said.Article II of the Constitution lays out how it works. Each state gets a number of electors equal to the size of their congressional delegation; their senators and U.S. representatives. California has 55 electors, the most of any state.The Founders set up the Electoral College system under one big assumption: that it would be extremely rare for candidates to actually secure a majority, which today is 270 votes. If the contest ended without a majority winner, it would be decided by Congress.The last election decided by Congress was in 1824. The scenario the Founders predicted might happen once or twice a century has unfolded in every election since.“I think what frustrates many people about the Electoral College is that that majority winner in the popular vote isn’t always who captures the majority in the Electoral College,” said UC San Diego political science chair Thad Kousser.In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump became just the fifth person in history to win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote, out of 58 presidential elections. It also happened in 2000 in the contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.The Founders envisioned the Electoral College as a check on the popular vote, able to potentially choose a different candidate than the one favored by the masses, but in practice, electors almost never do that. Most states have laws requiring electors to follow the popular vote.It was big news in 2016 when 10 electors broke ranks in an effort to block candidate Trump, because in every state electors are party loyalists, hand-picked by top leaders. So-called faithless electors have never swung an election.Kousser says for all the recent controversy surrounding the electoral college, there are some major benefits. Because the system empowers states whose electorate is closely divided between the parties, Kousser said it helps mitigate the role of money in politics.“What the electoral college does is it focuses and narrows the playing field to these few battleground states,” he said. “That's where you've got to run ads. That's where you've got to run your campaigns, not in 50 states. If we had to run 50-state campaigns then it would cost billions of dollars to win elections and it would give a huge advantage to whichever side raised the most money.”The other benefit of focusing elections on key swing states is that it pushes the parties more towards the center, Kousser argues. Without the Electoral College, he says candidates would try to “run up the score” and collect as many votes as possible in more populous states like California and Texas that tend to be more politically polarized. 3703

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- As drugmakers race to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus, several legal questions are emerging: could the government require people to get it? Could people who refuse to roll up their sleeves get banned from stores or lose their jobs?The short answer is yes, according to Dov Fox, a law professor and the director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego.“States can compel vaccinations in more or less intrusive ways,” he said in an interview. “They can limit access to schools or services or jobs if people don’t get vaccinated. They could force them to pay a fine or even lock them up in jail.”Fox noted authorities in the United States have never attempted to jail people for refusing to vaccinate, but other countries like France have adopted the aggressive tactic.The legal precedent dates back to 1905. In a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the court ruled Massachusetts had the authority to fine people who refused vaccinations for smallpox.That case formed the legal basis for vaccine requirements at schools, and has been upheld in subsequent decisions.“Courts have found that when medical necessity requires it, the public health outweighs the individual rights and liberties at stake,” Fox said.In 2019, New York City passed an ordinance that fined people who refused a measles vaccination.That said, recent protests over face coverings show there could be significant backlash to a vaccine mandate, Fox said. Just because states have the power to do it, doesn’t mean it’s the best public policy, he added.Although states would have the authority to mandate vaccinations, there’s more doubt about whether Congress could enact a federal requirement.The most likely federal vaccination requirement would come in the form of a tax penalty, but Fox said given the current composition of the Supreme Court, a federal vaccine requirement would likely be found unconstitutional.Opponents of a federal mandate would cite the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision on the Affordable Care Act, Fox said. In that case, the justices ruled that Congress could not use its powers to regulate interstate commerce to require people to buy health insurance, even though the ACA’s individual mandate was ultimately upheld on separate grounds.That means the U.S. could have a patchwork of different vaccine requirements in different states.States that explore a vaccine requirement should only do so if the vaccine is widely and readily available, Fox said.“Otherwise you create an underclass of people who are less safe and without access to the basic means of society,” he said.States would need to allow exemptions for people with legitimate medical risks, like pregnancy, but not exemptions on religious or philosophical grounds, he said.“Religious exemptions are not constitutionally required by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause, provided that the vaccine mandates don’t single out religion; they’re not motivated by a desire to interfere with it,” he said.In the workplace, private employers would have a lot of flexibility to require vaccinations and fire workers who refuse them for anything but legitimate medical concerns.As long as employers show there are significant costs associated with having unvaccinated workers, they would not need to offer religious exemptions to employees, Fox said.Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, employers are not required to accommodate religious employees if doing so would pose more than a “de minimis,” or minimal cost. 3561

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - Another San Diego driver has come forward, after she got hit with a late fee despite paying her parking ticket early.In early November 2019, Pamela Moes parked on Thomas Avenue in Pacific Beach and went for a walk on the beach. She was parked in a street sweeping zone."A truck blocked the 'No Parking' sign when I parked, but it's no excuse. I knew the rules," said Moes.Moes likes have things taken care of quickly, so she went home and mailed out a check for .50 that afternoon.RELATED: North Park driver hit with late fees after paying parking fine earlyA few weeks later, she got a notice from the city: they hadn't received her payment and she would soon be delinquent. She stopped payment on her first check, drove to the Parking Administration office downtown, and paid for the fine in person."I thought everything was taken care of. Now I really don't have to worry about anything," said Moes.She was wrong. In late December 2019, she got another notice from the city. The ticket was paid, but she had been hit with a late fee of . "I was angry and frustrated because I paid for it in person!" said Moes.Turns out when the processing center in Inglewood couldn't deposit the check she stopped payment on, a late fee was assessed, even though she was already paid in full."How is this happening? They have to be talking to one another. There has to be some communication," said Moes.Moes is hardly alone. Last week 10News reported on a North Park driver named Stacy, who paid her fine early — a week after Moes paid hers — and also got hit with the same late fee. The city at that time blamed delays on processing with new equipment and "connectivity issues" at the Inglewood facility.Moes has since made a final payment for the late fee so she could be done with it.10News reached out to a city spokesperson about Moes' case, along with a list of questions about the overall issues and the number of people impacted. A spokesperson says they've begun looking into it and will release a response.The city released the following statements in the previous story: "Check payments are processed by a third party vendor located in Inglewood, Calif. The average processing time in calendar year 2019 was six days for payments mailed to the vendor. Recently, the vendor encountered delays due to the installation of new remittance processing equipment. The new equipment had connectivity issues which created a backlog of payments.Customers who reached out to the Office of the City Treasurer during the backlog were advised not to stop payment on their checks, the postmark date was considered the legal payment date. When the payments were processed, the postmark date would automatically roll back any late fees if assessed. The Office of the City Treasurer generally advises customers to use the online option as the payments are posted in real-time ..." 2897

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - At St. John The Evangelist's Sunday night service, the pews were packed to hear why their pastoral associate was resigning.Aaron Bianco was asked to come to St. John August of 2016. His work: organizing events, budgets and other behind the scenes tasks. His goal, to build up a more inclusive church.Bianco has been married to his husband for 10 years last month, and once he started at St. John, so did the attacks."They've threatened me from shooting me down across the street, to throwing Molotov cocktails into the church," Bianco said.The hate groups sent emails equating him to a pedophile and threatening him. His tires were slashed, fire thrown at the church doors, the office broken into and spray painted with a gay slur."They're no different from organized crime or a terrorist group. They will continue until they get their way," Bianco said their goal was to force him out. "I'm convinced that the gospel is on my side, and they can spew their hate, but I'm not going to allow them to make me hate them back," Bianco said.Last week his personal information including photos of his family and his home address was published on a conservative Catholic website. Bianco said he saw someone in their yard in the middle of the night  watching the house.Since the threats, he's added security to his home and filed police reports.He realized it was all too much, "My life and those of my family are more important than any job."Bianco addressed the packed church at Sunday night's mass, "when hate rages like a fire, love rains down, and I feel it from so many of you in this room."Bianco told 10News he believes there is more good in the world than bad, explaining he's received encouraging notes from people all over the world.After his speech, the church erupted, "It made me so happy that everybody stood there and clapped for the longest ovation I've ever heard in a church in my life. Letting him know that we love you, we care about you and you're going to be missed," Parishioner Berena Pe?a said.She attended the church a decade prior and stopped coming because she didn't feel welcome as a lesbian. Her friend convinced her to try again two years ago. She said she could feel the difference, and it woke her up.Bianco said this is not the end, and he will keep fighting. He said he will still attend church, hopes these groups stop their attacks and instead come and talk with him. 2524

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- Armed private security guards - and others with nonlethal ways to defend themselves - could soon patrol iconic San Diego locations like Balboa Park and the downtown Central Library.The city of San Diego is officially seeking proposals from security firms that would authorize armed or enhanced safety personnel outside more than 50 places, including community parks, skate parks, and library branches. The guards could either carry guns or non-lethal weapons, such as mace or hand restraints, depending on the arrangement. The city currently has very few armed guards - mostly stationed around public bathrooms downtown. RELATED: City may seek armed guards at Central Library, other parksA firm called Able Patrol and Guard patrols city parks and libraries, However, those guards are unarmed and essentially observe and report. The change comes after guards reported being threatened, spit on, and harassed, namely by a growing homeless population outside the Central Library. The city is now aiming to increase their ability to defend themselves. The details emerged under a new city request for proposals obtained by 10News. The document says guards are still required to defer to police unless the situation calls for self-defense.“Reasonable force is to be used only if Guards are physically threatened or if they feel another person’s safety is in jeopardy,” the document says. “If necessary, Guards are to call the San Diego Police for assistance.”RELATED: City of San Diego adds more armed guards to patrol downtown public restroomsThe document says guards who carry guns must have permanent licenses from the state of California and five years experience in the sector. They can also qualify with substitutes such as two years of military experience or two years as a police officer. "The City is releasing a comprehensive RFP that allows the City to potentially utilize a variety of security services should the need arise," city spokesman Tim Graham said in a statement. "The goal of the RFP is to provide the proper level of security for City facilities as determined by City departments."Graham said a San Diego Police expert reviewed the document for technical soundness. He said the police chief would always be notified in the event of armed security dispatched. The city is seeking responses by Sept. 7. Mayor Kevin Faulconer was not available for an interview. The San Diego Police Department and The San Diego Police Officers Association declined to comment.Click here for a list of proposed locations.  2629

来源：资阳报