it looks pretty close to 50% to me. it's the system we have. If you don't use it you should work to change it one way or the other. But doing nothing but sitting here on Hip bitch does nothing. 2004 221,256,931 174,800,000 * 79.00% 122,295,345 55.27% 2008 230,782,870 TBD TBD 132,645,504 57.48% Voting for me has got me a lot personally. In the last 30 year my industry and done well under a few powerful senators. American T I should of said if we don't vote, sorry for talking in general.
Right, and that isn't registered voters, as you were claiming. That is total, eligible voters. Your original claim was mistaken. So you, apparently like so many of our fellow countrymen, can't see beyond yourself. The bigger picture means nothing to you. This country is fracturing, the divides between its citizens getting deeper. But, hey, you're getting yours....
What do humans really mean when they say 'Save the World' I usually hear it as 'Save Humanity' Because this world will be here long after we are not and does not require saving.
It often also means 'save parts of the world that requires saving because of human interference' like for example elephants, tigers or certain natural environments that would remain pretty much intact if it weren't for industrialisation/exploitation. Some people would be dissappointed if the world that will be long here after us would be without such things if it isn't entirely neccessary to wipe it out (which it isn't)
Then say, 'Save the Animals' or 'Save the Flora and Fauna' Yeah, it's a semantics peeve. As for those who'd be disappointed. That type of world, with or without human intervention, would eventually be changed anyways. While I get that trying to preserve things is 'good' and I get the 'why' in human context, the decided impermanence of any way of life is not a good thing to base expectations on because then you're always going to be disappointed. And then the big asteroid hits. Preventing that, might technically be ok to call 'Saving the World' depending on the size of the 'roid.