Blog #8: Comment on Classmate's Work: Pink Tax

I found Rayroo's "Blog 5" about Pink Tax to be very interesting and unique. This is something I've never given much thought to, but it is something all women should be aware of. Products targeted for woman such as lotions, razors, and shaving creams cost more, and services are also priced higher. I'll use the example of a haircut. My boyfriend pays 15-20 dollars to get a hair cut from pretty much any men's barber--in multiple cities and states. This includes a beard trim as well. I have visited many salons in my life time--in different cities and states and at different "levels" of quality. They all share one thing in common--they are expensive! So while my boyfriend pays 15 dollars, I pay an average of 75 dollar for a simple trim and wash. It doesn't matter the length of hair, thickness, or time it takes. I have gotten a simple trim with no wash, paid 65 dollars, and was out of the chair in less than ten minutes. This specific example only touches the surface of showing the extreme difference between what men and women pay. I particularly found interest when Rayroo wrote, "We spend thousands a year just because of the 'disadvantage' of being a woman. Tampons and pads are charged sales tax because they are considered 'luxury' items and it makes no sense to me." Tampons and pads are not "luxury items." As Rayroo mentioned, speaking up and questioning companies is a way to put a stop to this. Congresswoman Jackie Speier opposes this tax and introduced the Pink Tax Repeal Act to the federal government. I am curious to see if anything changes with this in the future. I really enjoyed reading this blog, and it made me think about this specific topic in greater detail. It seems like such a small thing--complaining about spending more on products and services--but it represents the greater issue of inequality that needs to be addressed. 

Electoral College: Good or Bad?

The more I learn about the Electoral College, the more I believe it should be abolished or refined. I think using the popular vote would make the most sense, but some fear this would lead to parts of the country being politically lost. A realistic approach to fixing the Electoral College is to create a nation-wide system similar to Maine and Nebraska meaning we would eliminate the "winner take all" system that is done in other states. According to a ProCon article, "In Nebraska and Maine, the candidate that wins the state's overall popular vote receives two electors, and one elector from each congressional district is apportioned to the popular vote winner in that district." All states should be doing this because it would establish consistency throughout the country and allow the Electoral College to better represent the American people. Furthermore, this change could encourage eligible voters to vote. This is especially important in states that are strictly always red or blue and currently use a "winner take all" method. People feel their votes may not even matter in states like this--if their vote is on the opposing side of their state's color.

The question of the Electoral College's relevance has become a hot issue in recent years. People seem to have strong opinions supporting each side making this is a difficult issue to address. Even President Trump has been quoted going both ways on the issue. Trump said, "With the Popular Vote, you go to just the large States -- the Cities would end up running the Country. Smaller States & the entire Midwest would end up losing all power -- & we can't let that happen." However, could this statement be because this system is currently benefiting him? Earlier Trump said, "I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win."

I looked into some pro Electoral College arguments. One "pro" of the Electoral College is that the Founding Fathers put it there for a reason. They intended that it would ensure that educated individuals were choosing the president and that an unfit individual would not be put in office. In addition, the Electoral College is suppose to protect people in less populated areas of the country by providing them with representation and importance; after all, we do live in a representative democracy, and both of these "pros" support that.  However, the Constitution has been ratified and will continue to be so why can't we change how the Electoral College works? We do not live in the same time as our Founding Fathers, and we need to stop seeing them as gods. Political education is lacking in our country, but the information is available--unlike it was in the days of our Founding Fathers. Supporters say if the Electoral College goes away, small states and parts of the country will be ignored. But what about our current situation? According to ProCons, in reference to the last election, "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have made more than 90% of their campaign stops in just 11 so-called battleground states. Of those visits, nearly two-thirds took place in the four battlegrounds with the most electoral votes--Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina." This demonstrates that the battle states hold too much power, and others are being ignored.

I am an advocate for change. America has to stop being afraid to change. We need to let go of this idea that the Constitution is a holy document. Respecting our past and where our country has come from is important, but embracing change to make our country better is imperative as we move forward.

If you are interested in learning more about the Electoral College, here are a few interesting and informative articles:
New York Times
ProCon.org
ThoughtCo.