濮阳东方医院收费濮阳东方医院预约挂号,濮阳市东方医院在线免费咨询,濮阳东方医院男科割包皮口碑很好,濮阳东方男科医院割包皮评价很高,濮阳东方医院割包皮口碑好价格低,濮阳东方医院看阳痿收费不高,濮阳东方医院治阳痿很好

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) – Californians voted to pass Proposition 22 – reclassifying rideshare drivers as independent contractors. But, companies like Uber and Lyft are still battling lawsuits from the state claiming billions in wage theft.The legal battle over rideshare drivers did not end with the passing of Prop 22. The California Labor Commissioner is still suing gig companies for not following current law which classifies drivers as employees instead of independent contractors.The Labor Commissioner’s Office is seeking billions for unpaid minimum wage, overtime, sick leave, and business expenses.Nicole Moore with Rideshare Drivers United led the fight against Prop 22. She says since the new law is not retroactive those lawsuits still stand.“This is about back pay that under the law as it was over the last three years, those drivers are still owed that money,” said Moore. “It was .3 billion that were owed to those drivers. Half of that is damages but the other half is just straight pay that under labor law.”Some drivers had to file for unemployment when the pandemic hit, including those with pre-existing conditions hoping to limit exposure to the virus. Others are unable to drive since they have to stay home with kids now out of school for distance learning.Moore says those unemployment protections won’t last once the new law takes over.“If you don’t have unemployment that’s when people become homeless, that’s when kids go hungry. We need that safety net as workers,” said Moore.As San Diego moves into the state’s purple tier, Tonje Ettesvoll says she’ll have to limit hours to reduce her risk of exposure. She says the move for her own safety may prevent her from qualifying for benefits under Prop 22.“I will not be doing my 60 hours a week. I’ll be doing maybe 30 so I may be one of those people who don’t qualify and will have to be on Medi-Cal,” said Ettesvoll. “And that is an expense that’s not Uber’s and Lyft’s. That is an expense that’s the taxpayer’s and I think that’s very unfair.”Uber and Lyft both declined to respond to our inquiry on the pending lawsuits. Uber did send us this statement: 2136

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- Average rainfall and warmer temperatures, that’s what the San Diego office of the National Weather Service is forecasting this winter.With a few windows of opportunity for significant precipitation from December to March, it will be a warm and dry winter with more Santa Ana winds expected, according to City News Service.The National Weather Service predicts that San Diego’s best chance for rain in the near future will be in mid-November.The maps below show what the rest of November is expected to bring as far as rain and temperatures: RELATED: Check today's forecastRecently, winters in Southern California have trended toward fewer rainy days with heavier precipitation.“If we don’t get that rain in mid-November, then we’re talking about severe fire weather conditions again like last year going into December,” National Weather Service meteorologist Alex Tardy said.10News meteorologist Megan Perry said El Nino conditions are starting to develop. “El Nino is favored (70 to 75% chance) to form and continue through the winter. While historically El Nino favors wetter than normal conditions to the Desert Southwest, that doesn't always happen.”More recently, La Nina, or cool equatorial ocean temperatures, has coincided with wet winters in San Diego.The most recent El Nino event in 2015-2016 didn’t bring much rainfall to the region while the La Nino of 2016-2017 brought heavy rain and snow to California, carrying the state out of drought.“At this point, it's a wait and see and hopefully we'll get more rain - we need it after last winter finished as the second driest on record,” Perry said. 1650

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - City Council leaders voted 5-3 to oppose President Donald Trump's executive order to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.The resolution, introduced by Concilmember Georgette Gomez, joins several other cities and states who have also stated their opposition."The border wall is a huge mistake for our region economically and environmentally. I am happy the City Council voted to pass my resolution. Our tax dollars should be spent uplifting the quality of life for all San Diegans, and tackling our issues on road infrastructure, housing, and homelessness," Gomez said following the vote. "Building a wall will do nothing for our families and communities but place a hateful divide between two of the largest cities in Mexico and the United States."RELATED: Councilmember says border wall would hurt San Diego economy, environmentThe resolution allows the San Diego City Attorney, Independent Budget Analyst, and staff to put together a disclosure program for city contractors.Councilmember David Alvarez called the border wall "a stupid idea" and a waste of money in a series of Twitter posts following the vote. 1165

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — As county leaders struggle to control the latest surge of COVID-19 in San Diego, there is an acknowledgment that there are no good options. While many businesses are preparing to ignore public health orders to close or limit operations, public health experts warn the consequences of failure to limit the spread of the virus will be dire.“The reality of it is indoor spaces with people talking without masks are not safe. I think that’s really important to getting this under control,” said Dr. Rebecca Fielding-Miller, an expert in infectious diseases at UC San Diego.She says the county has tried to chart a middle course between allowing businesses to remain open while trying to rein in the virus. “We have been, I’m really sorry to say, doing it in half measures since March," Fielding-Miller said.But to be successful, such a policy requires a great commitment by the public to safety measures such as wearing masks, social distancing, and avoiding gatherings. That commitment has proven vulnerable to the COVID fatigue felt by the public, as adherence to those measures tends to slide with time.Fielding-Miller says some counties in the United States, along with some other countries, have had success with brief but strict lockdowns. However, there may not be public support for such actions here.Others advocate a full reopening of the economy and letting the virus run its course. They argue that the economic, psychological, and educational harm from the public health restrictions are greater than the damage caused by the virus itself. Proponents say the United States should try a “herd immunity” strategy, where attempts are made to protect vulnerable populations, but the virus is otherwise allowed to spread unchecked through the general population. The theory projects that once enough people are infected, the virus has nowhere left to spread and will die out on its own.Most public health experts say that method could prove catastrophic. They point out that it’s not known how many people would have to be infected, but it would have to be a majority. “If we went down this path where we attempt to infect 70% of the population, the very, very likely outcome is we would end up with something like one to two million Americans dying,” said Fielding-Miller. Furthermore, it is also not known how long a person is immune after recovering from COVID-19. There have already been cases of people being infected for a second time. “We would end up with extraordinarily high rates of disability and mortality for no gain at all, for people to just be able to get reinfected in six months. So I understand the attraction, but it's also not viable," Fielding-Miller said.This week, San Diego moved into the purple tier, the most restrictive of California’s COVID-19 tiers. 2811