I would say going broke is a negative effect. Also, you say that smoking pot in excess made your life better. How? It didn't help you study, and I guess it could have helped you develop a social life, but you didn't need marijuana to do that. Most likely you would've done these things without marijuana. You just also happened to smoke when you saw these results.
Maintaining good grades doesn't mean you moderated your use of marijuana well. You just said that you're out of money now. That itself proves that you were unable to moderate your spending on marijuana. Some people can smoke 24/7 and get good grades, but that doesn't mean it's not affecting them in other areas of their life.
It's already been posted.
That's only half true though. A candidate has not come along that can change the minds of those states right now. Not too long ago the West Coast was heavily Republican and the East Coast was almost entirely Democratic. Now it's reversed. These things do change. Also, most presidential elections in the US's history have been decided by 1-2% that means that a 3% victory is a landslide. A candidate does not need to change the minds of a lot of people to change their chances of winning an election.
The founding fathers were entirely against the 51% controlling the outcome of ANYTHING. This is a much scarier thing than most people realize. The electoral college system was set up so that even if 51% of the people agree on something it does not mean they should completely control that issue. Just because someone is in the 49% does not mean their opinion should be thrown in the trash. That is the idea behind the electoral college.
I didn't like my comment, but I was too slow editting it. Here's the revised version.
The people in the popular vote control the electoral college votes. Your representative doesn't take your Libertarian vote and cast it for the Democratic party. If a state votes 51% for the Republican party and 49% for the Democratic party, then the Republican party gets 100% of the electoral college votes. Some states to split it up into percentages where in a 51-49% vote both sides would get half the votes and so on, but this is basically a smaller version of the popular vote so almost no one does it.
Yeah, I was way off on that. Sorry about that. Look at my other comment to see what I should have said before.
Sorry, I was just spewing off some things without fact checking myself. Instead of cities I should have said states. California alone has almost 12% of the population. The electoral college is to help balance out states like California who have an overwhelming amount of power in the popular vote.
If the electoral college was not in place no presidential candidate would ever go on a campaign tour to a sparsely populated state if there were no electoral college votes to be had. After all, who wants to waste time on Wyoming's 0.18% population?
Every vote is counted in the popular election. The electoral college does it a bit differently
For example, say there are 10 acres of land in the USA. You own 5 acres and you're the only person who lives there. Then there are 4 people who live on the other part that you don't own. Those 4 people would likely have 1 electoral college vote, but you would also have one since you live away from everyone else and would be the minority. So they could all vote together and win the popular vote, but you would cancel out their electoral college vote all on your own. People who live together are likely going to have similar ways of thinking, but just because someone lives in a smaller community or alone doesn't mean their opinion shouldn't be equally important. That is one of the purposes behind the electoral college.
There are a lot of different ways to weigh a vote. You could do it by land, or you could do it by population, or even by ethnicity. Everyone in a big city has exactly 1 vote for the popular election. The state they live in as a whole will only get a certain amount of electoral college votes (With a minimum of 3). California has 30-50x the population of North Dakota, but California still only gets 55 electoral college votes and North Dakota gets 3. It's far less uneven that way.
Perhaps I'm wording it poorly. Try looking up some information on how the electoral college system works. The candidates would spend all of their time in 10-15 cities because those cities would have all of the population required to decide the outcome of the election.
The founding fathers designed our system to be a Republic, not a Democracy. In the entire writing of the Constitution the only thing that wasn't contested was the electoral college system. Every founding father agreed we could not do without it. Something like 10-15 cities in the US would decide the entire election without the electoral college in place.
The electoral college gives a weighted vote to minorities so they are actually important when it comes to voting. To give an example, North Dakota wouldn't even have half a vote if the voting system went based on population. The minimum is 3 votes though so everyone in North Dakota has a very heavily weighted vote.
Geeze guys, are you trying to fill up my notification inbox? Although I can't say I'm mad. It's interesting to read what you guys are talking about :P...
The problem comes when you have dementia and alzheimer's patients. They're usually unable to live alone even while they're on medication. Once they stop taking their medication then they will quickly become confused/afraid/miserable. It is hard to watch someone with dementia while they're having a really bad day, it's extremely sad and pitiful. Even if they do think they want to go through with it, they won't die quickly. It will take months and possibly years of this horrible quality of life. No one really wants to go through with that.
Everyone has at least one black friend who loves racist jokes though.