miércoles, 7 de noviembre de 2012

Resultados Elecciones Generales 2012 - Noche del Evento

Resultados Elecciones Generales 2012 - Noche del Evento

 


Resultados publicados: 7 de noviembre 2012 a las 12:50 PM

Gobernación

  • 47.85%
    873,072 votos
  • 47.04%
    858,361 votos
  • 2.53%
    46,112 votos
  • .96%
    17,545 votos
  • .56%
    10,154 votos
  • .35%
    6,346 votos


*Otros: .72% (13,174 votos)
Total votos: 1,824,764
Gobernador 2012
Comparación 2012 - 2008 Fuente:CEE
 

RESULTADOS DE:

Resultados publicados: 7 de noviembre 2012 a las 12:50 PM

Comisionado Residente

  • 48.38%
    876,901 votos
  • 47.31%
    857,528 votos
  • 2.05%
    37,114 votos
  • .69%
    12,520 votos
  • .61%
    11,099 votos
  • .29%
    5,300 votos


*Otros: .67% (12,181 votos)
Total votos: 1,812,643
PNPPPDPIPMUSPPRPPTOTROS2012200801020304050607080
*OTROS
  • Nominación Directa 380
  • Papeletas En Blanco 4,291
  • Papeletas Protestadas y No Adjudicadas 7,510
DATOS ESTADÍSTICOS
  • Votantes según lista 1,827,021
  • Sobres especiales de papeletas recusadas 234
  • Sobres de electores que votaron añadidos a mano 5,488
  • Electores voto por teléfono 6
========================================================================

Resultados Plebiscito 2012

Consulta sobre el estatus Político de Puerto Rico
6 de noviembre de 2012

¿De acuerdo con mantener la condición política territorial actual?
NoEn BlancoProtestadasSiNoEn BlancoProtestadas
  • Sí: 796,007 votos
  • No: 934,238 votos
  • Total de votos: 1,730,245
  • En blanco: 64,123
  • Protestadas: 12,720
  • Opciones de estatusEstadidadIndependenciaELA SoberanoEn BlancoProtestadasEstadidadIndependenciaELA SoberanoEn BlancoProtestadas
  • Estadidad: 802,179 votos
  • Independencia: 72,551 votos
  • ELA Soberano: 436,997 votos
  • En blanco: 468,478
  • Protestadas: 17,602
=====================================================
 http://resultados.puertoricodecide.com/2012/elecciones-generales/
http://resultados.puertoricodecide.com/2012/elecciones-generales/

Porciento de VotosPNPPPDPIPMUSPPRPPTOTROS2012200801020304050607080

LA ESTADIDAD SALE DERROTADA EN EL PLEBISCITO

7 de noviembre de 2012
9:50 a.m.
El Nuevo Día

Triunfan el NO y la estadidad

(Según opinión del titulista de este artículo. Los resultados muestran otra cosa)

El NO obtuvo 53.99% de los votos y la estadidad el 61.15%

El NO triunfa en los 78 municipios.
Libni Sanjurjo /libni.sanjurjo@gfrmedia.com

Según la consulta de status hecha simultáneamente con las elecciones generales del martes, la mayoría de los puertorriqueños, el 53.99%, favoreció la alternativa de que “No” está de acuerdo con la actual relación territorial entre Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos.
Además, la mayoría, el 61.15%, eligió la opción de la Estadidad por encima del ELA soberano y la independencia, según los más recientes datos oficiales de la Comisión Estatal de Elecciones (CEE).
A las 9:15 a.m., el “NO” tenía 934,238 votos (53.99%) y el “SI” 796,007 votos (46.01%), tras contabilizarse el 95.74% de las unidades reportadas.
La Estadidad reflejaba 802,179 votos (61.15%); le seguía el ELA soberano con 436,997 votos (33.31%) y la Independencia con 72,551 votos (5.53%), con el 95.74% de las unidades reportadas.
Los municipios donde prevaleció el sí son: Rincón, Lajas, Sabana Grande, Guayanilla, Barceloneta, Naranjito, Coamo, Aibonito, Cayey, Maunabo, Humacao y Vieques. Mientras, la estadidad prevaleció en todos los municipios.
Estos son los números vigentes para la hora antes mencionada, luego del receso de conteo de votos parcial, decretado por los comisionados electorales, hasta mañana, jueves, a las 8:00 a.m.; unos 200 funcionarios de la Junta Administrativa de Voto Ausente y Adelantado (JAVA) permanecerían trabajando.
La papeleta preguntaba al electorado en dos ocasiones: en la primera, cuestionaba si estaban de acuerdo en mantener la condición política territorial actual; la segunda, qué alternativa preferían: Estadidad, Independencia o Estado Libre Asociado soberano.
Desde el establecimiento del Estado Libre Asociado en el 1952, el electorado puertorriqueño se ha expresado en tres ocasiones sobre el status político de la Isla (1967, 1993 y 1998), pero este martes fue la primera vez que se hace de forma simultánea con las elecciones generales.

Resultados Plebiscito 2012

Consulta sobre el estatus Político de Puerto Rico
6 de noviembre de 2012

¿De acuerdo con mantener la condición política territorial actual?
  • Sí: 796,007 votos
  • No: 934,238 votos
  • Total de votos: 1,730,245
  • En blanco: 64,123
  • Protestadas: 12,720
Opciones de estatus
  • Estadidad: 802,179 votos
  • Independencia: 72,551 votos
  • ELA Soberano: 436,997 votos
  • En blanco: 468,478
  • Protestadas: 17,602
Total de papeletas votadas, protestadas o en blanco = 1,797,807

Porciento del voto por la estadidad en relación al total de papeletas = 802,179 / 1,797,807 = 44.6%

¿DONDE ESTA EL TRIUNFO DE LA ESTADIDAD?

sábado, 3 de noviembre de 2012

Bloomberg Aims to Be Gun-Control Counterweight to NRA

Bloomberg Aims to Be Gun-Control Counterweight to NRA

As independent Michael Bloomberg nears his final year as New York City mayor, the billionaire is laying the groundwork to become a one-man counterweight to one of the nation's most powerful lobbies: the National Rifle Association.

In recent days, Bloomberg has used his massive wealth to wade into five House races in five different states, on behalf of candidates on both sides of the aisle. The common thread: Bloomberg is either backing candidates how are supportive of gun control measures, or trying to oust those who aren't, in his view. The late injection of millions in television ads and mailers has dramatically reshaped some of the contests, including one in California where Bloomberg's last-minute spending spree amounts to more than double what both candidates themselves have spent -- combined.

The message the independent mayor wants to send is simple: There is a new, anti-gun-lobby sheriff in town. 
"There has never really been an effective counterweight to the NRA -- at least in terms of dollars, cents and the ability to get a message out," said Stefan Friedman, a spokesman for Bloomberg's new super PAC, Independence USA. "I think the mayor's been clear this is an issue he cares very passionately about and this could very well be a curtain-raiser to the future."

Bloomberg formed his super PAC in mid-October and announced it had a budget of up to $15 million devoted to the 2012 elections. He described three criteria for potential beneficiaries, starting with candidates who "will help protect Americans from the scourge of gun violence." (The others were support for education reform and gay marriage.) So far, he's helping least five House candidates as well as Democratic Pennsylvania attorney general hopeful Kathleen Kane.

In Florida, Bloomberg has spent more than $2 million for Democrat Val Demings, a former police chief in Orlando, whose biography says "thousands of guns were removed from Orlando's streets" during her tenure. In Illinois, Bloomberg has spent about $1 million backing Rep. Robert Dold, a moderate Republican, who has supported Bloomberg's mayoral initiative to curb illegal guns. And in California, Bloomberg has poured nearly $3.3 million into an effort to oust Democratic Rep. Joe Baca, with Bloomberg-funded mailers accusing Baca of voting "to allow sex offenders and suspected terrorists to bring concealed weapons into California."
Bloomberg also has spent $440,000 in a New York House race to oppose Republican Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle and more than $1 million in neighboring Connecticut to support Republican House candidate Andrew Roraback. Bloomberg doesn't necessarily even know personally the candidates he is investing in so heavily. Roraback has never met or spoken with Bloomberg, his spokesman Chris Cooper said.

The National Rifle Association is watching the mayor's moves closely. The 4-million-member group is widely viewed as one of the most potent and effective advocacy groups in the country. Still, "we have billions of reasons to take Michael Bloomberg seriously," said Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the gun lobby group. It was a reference to the mayor’s personal fortune, pegged by Forbes at $25 billion.
Arulanandam questioned the timing of Bloomberg's spending deluge in the wake of the recent mega-storm that knocked power out for millions of New Yorkers. "The message that he's sending is he's so obsessed with banning guns that he's trying to influence federal and state races from Pennsylvania to Florida to California instead of helping the victims of Hurricane Sandy," Arulanandam said.

Baca, the congressman who has seen the most Bloomberg money spent against him, held a press conference Friday to call the spending "disgusting" and said the money would be better spent on the hurricane victims. "Mayor Michael Bloomberg should be ashamed of himself," Baca said.
Bloomberg has been much in the news this week, both because his city was hit so hard by superstorm Sandy and because the storm prompted him to reflect on climate change and suddenly endorse President Obama for reelection.
Gun control, however, is a longstanding cause for him. In 2006, he formed a coalition, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, to combat gun violence across the country. In 2011, the group fought a measure in Congress that would have required states that allow concealed gun permits to recognize other states’ permits. 

In July, Bloomberg wrote an op-ed for Bloomberg View (a branch of the media empire he still owns) that offers a window into his thinking. It was entitled, "How to Break NRA’s Grip on Politics." In it, Bloomberg wrote: "More than anything, the NRA is a marketing organization, and its flagship product is fear...There is one particular fear the NRA manufactures with great success: fear of electoral defeat."

Friedman said Bloomberg's new super PAC could change that equation -- at least in the races he's involved in this year. "If the mayor can provide that [counterweight] and help some of the candidates, he's eager to do that," Friedman said. "This is the first time the NRA has faced a significant, equally funded foe in these districts."

In addition to his super PAC activity, Bloomberg recently got involved in the Maine Senate race of former governor and fellow independent Angus King. He donated $500,000 to an outside group that bought ads for King and hosted an October fundraiser for King at his Manhattan home.

In a sign of how heated the rivalry between Bloomberg and the NRA has already become, the same week King was in New York for the fundraiser hosted by Bloomberg, the president of the NRA, David Keene, traveled to Maine to endorse King's Republican rival, Charlie Summers.

viernes, 2 de noviembre de 2012

Researchers develop tea bag filter that cleans water

Researchers develop tea bag filter that cleans water

The water filter that has the shape and size of a tea bag The filter looks like a tea bag but contains material that blocks harmful chemicals
A group of researchers in South Africa has developed a filter that can purify water straight from the bottle.
It sits inside a tube that can be fitted on top of a bottle and purifies water as it is poured on a cup.
The designer behind the filter, Dr Eugene Cloete, from the Stellenbosch University in South Africa, says the filter is only as big as an ordinary tea bag.
He says the product is cost-effective and easy to use.
"We are coming in here at the fraction of the cost of anything else that is currently on the market," says Dr Cloete on BBC World Service.
According to him the filter will not only stop harmful bacteria from getting into the water, it will also kill them.
"We cover the tea bag material with nano-structured fibres, and instead of tea inside the tea bag, we incorporate activated carbon.
"The function of the activated carbon is to remove most of the dangerous chemicals that you would find in water."
He says that the function of the fibres is to create a filter where harmful bacteria is physically filtered out and killed.
Better taste According to the World Health Organisation the number of people who can access clean drinking water has been improving steadily across the globe. But there are millions of people - many in Sub-Saharan Africa - who still do not have access to drinkable water.
The filter will also improve the taste of the water says Dr Cloete. "If you take ordinary tap water that you get in the city," he says, "that is chlorinated for instance."
The water filter can sit on the top of an ordinary bottle The filter will purify water directly from the bottle
But with the new filter, "the activated carbon will remove the chlorine so the water will actually taste better," he says.
Dr Cloete says his team wants to have an impact on 1.2 billion people around the world who do not have access to safe drinking water.
He says there have been extensive interest about the filter since the invention was announced.
"We have had many, many inquiries from aid organisations and from philanthropists who are quite prepared to sponsor these filters to people that need them most," he says.
But there are also commercial potentials, "for those people who go camping and those people who go hiking and so on," he adds.
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11156031

miércoles, 31 de octubre de 2012

Difference Between Nationality and Citizenship

Difference Between Nationality and Citizenship

flagsNationality vs Citizenship
Nationality and citizenship are two terms that are sometimes used interchangeably. Some people even use the two words ‘“ citizenship and nationality — as synonyms. But this is not true and they differ in many aspects.
First of all let’s see what nationality means. In simple words, nationality can be applied to the country where an individual was born. Then what does citizenship stands for? It is a legal status, which means that an individual has been registered with the government in some country.

An individual is a national of a particular country by birth. Nationality is got through inheritance from his parents or it be called a natural phenomenon. On the other hand an individual becomes a citizen of a country only when he is accepted into that country’s political framework through legal terms
.
Elaborating the two words, an individual born in India, will be having Indian Nationality. But he may have an American citizenship once he has registered with that country. 

Well, No one will be able to change his nationality but one can have different citizenship. An Indian can have an American or Canadian citizenship but he cannot change his nationality. Another example is that people of the European Union may have European Union Citizenship but that person’s nationality does not change.
Coming to citizenship, some nations also confer honorary citizenship to individuals. But no country can confer honorary nationality on any one as his birthplace cannot be changed.

Nationality can be described as a term that refers to belonging to a group having same culture, traditions history, language and other general similarities. On the other hand, citizenship may not refer to people of the same group. For example, an Indian and may be having a US citizenship but he will not be belonging to the same group as that of the American nationals.

Summary
1. Nationality can be applied to the country where an individual has been born. Citizenship is a legal status, which means that an individual has been registered with the government in some country.
2. Nationality is got through inheritance from his parents or it be called a natural phenomenon. On the other hand an individual becomes a citizen of a country only when he is accepted into that country’s political framework through legal terms.
3. No one will be able to change his nationality but one can have different citizenship.

Search DifferenceBetween.net :

lunes, 29 de octubre de 2012

HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORKS

How the Electoral College Works

The current workings of the Electoral College are the
result of both design and experience. As it now
operates:

*    Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal
to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the
number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change
each decade according to the size of each State's
population as determined in the Census).
*    The political parties (or independent candidates) in
each State submit to the State's chief election
official a list of individuals pledged to their
candidate for president and equal in number to the
State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political
parties select these individuals either in their State
party conventions or through appointment by their
State party leaders while third parties and
independent candidates merely designate theirs.
*    Members of Congress and employees of the federal
government are prohibited from serving as an Elector
in order to maintain the balance between the
legislative and executive branches of the federal
government.
*    After their caucuses and primaries, the major
parties nominate their candidates for president and
vice president in their national conventions
traditionally held in the summer preceding the
election. (Third parties and independent candidates
follow different procedures according to the
individual State laws). The names of the duly
nominated candidates are then officially submitted to
each State's chief election official so that they
might appear on the general election ballot.

*    On the Tuesday following the first Monday of
November in years divisible by four, the people in
each State cast their ballots for the party slate of
Electors representing their choice for president and
vice president (although as a matter of practice,
general election ballots normally say "Electors for"
each set of candidates rather than list the individual
Electors on each slate).
*    Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in
the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in
effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most
popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that
State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and
Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide
popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote
within each Congressional district].
*    On the Monday following the second Wednesday of
December (as established in federal law) each State's
Electors meet in their respective State capitals and
cast their electoral votes-one for president and one
for vice president.
*    In order to prevent Electors from voting only for
"favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of
their votes must be for a person from outside their
State (though this is seldom a problem since the
parties have consistently nominated presidential and
vice presidential candidates from different States).
*    The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted
from each State to the President of the Senate who, on
the following January 6, opens and reads them before
both houses of the Congress.
*    The candidate for president with the most electoral
votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one
over half of the total), is declared president.
Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the
absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice
president.
*    In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of
electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of
Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people)
selects the president from among the top three
contenders with each State casting only one vote and
an absolute majority of the States being required to
elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute
majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate
makes the selection from among the top two contenders
for that office.
*    At noon on January 20, the duly elected president
and vice president are sworn into office.
Occasionally questions arise about what would happen
if the presidential or vice presidential candidate
died at some point in this process. For answers to
these, as well as to a number of other "what if"
questions, readers are advised to consult a small
volume entitled After the People Vote: Steps in
Choosing the President edited by Walter Berns and
published in 1983 by the American Enterprise
Institute. Similarly, further details on the history
and current functioning of the Electoral College are
available in the second edition of Congressional
Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, a real goldmine
of information, maps, and statistics.




   

domingo, 28 de octubre de 2012

Más pobres y más PAN en la Isla

28 de octubre de 2012
 

Más pobres y más PAN en la Isla

Llegan a $2,056 millones los fondos del PAN, $400 millones más que los del 2008
 
 (ARCHIVO)
Por José A. Delgado / jdelgado@elnuevodia.com
WASHINGTON - En este cuatrienio, los residentes de Puerto Rico se han hecho más pobres y más dependientes de programas federales de asistencia social, según informes oficiales.
Solo entre enero de 2009 y junio de 2011, el total de beneficiarios del Programa de Asistencia Nutricional (PAN) aumentó en casi 116,000 familias -de 553,172 a 648,870-, de acuerdo con el Departamento de la Familia.
El incremento en los beneficiarios y las asignaciones del PAN coincide con un aumento de casi $3,000 millones en las transferencias federales a individuos entre 2008 y 2011, cuando se elevaron a $15,580 millones, así como con nuevos datos del Censo que indican que el 45.6% de la población vivía bajo el nivel de pobreza federal en 2011, 0.6% más que en 2010.
En 2010, los fondos del PAN distribuidos por el Departamento de la Familia ascendieron a $1,928 millones, $210 millones más que los del 2009, según estadísticas de esa dependencia del Gobierno de Puerto Rico.
Los estimados de la oficina del comisionado residente Pedro Pierluisi, son que las asignaciones del PAN deben haber rondado los $2,056 millones desde 2010, unos $400 millones más que las de 2008, y que el aumento en gran medida se debe a la Ley de Recuperación Económica ARRA.
Tiempo de pobreza y recesión
En tiempos de recesión económica, la tendencia de aumento en la dependencia de asistencia alimentaria se reflejó también en los estados de EE.UU., advirtió Sergio Marxuach, director de Política Pública del Centro para la Nueva Economía (CNE).
En Mississippi, por ejemplo, los fondos del programa de asistencia suplementaria (SNAP) aumentaron de $691 millones en 2009 a $921 millones en 2011. Si tuviera acceso al SNAP, Puerto Rico recibiría $500 millones más al año, según el comisionado Pierluisi.
El exgobernador Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, además, amplió en 2008 la fórmula de elegibilidad para recibir los fondos del PAN, para dar mejor acceso a los que reciben el seguro social y a las personas que tienen bajos ingresos.
Durante este cuatrienio también hubo un aumento en los fondos del programa para familias pobres TANF, que beneficia a muchas madres jefas de familia.
De 2009 a 2010, los fondos de TANF distribuidos por el Departamento de Familia -entidad que no respondió a una petición de El Nuevo Día para actualizar sus informes de 2011 y 2012-, aumentaron de $63.9 millones a $66.7 millones, beneficiando a un promedio de 71,777 personas.
Los datos de la encuesta de la comunidad del Censo federal indican, sin embargo, que el ingreso medio de la familia puertorriqueña -que solo se refiere a salarios- bajó de $19,730 en 2010 a $18,660 en 2011.
Los porcentajes de personas con ingresos menores a los $35,000 anuales tuvieron en 2011 un leve aumento, mientras se reducía el de personas con ingresos mayores que esa cantidad.
Por ejemplo, en el 2010 se calculaba que 12% de las personas tenían ingresos entre $35,000 y $49,999. Ese porcentaje bajó a 11.3% al año siguiente.
Sin embargo, el porcentaje de gente con ingresos menores a los $10,000 tuvo un aumento de 1%, de 28.6% en 2010 a 29.6% en 2011.
La desigualdad económica es otro factor que salta a la vista.
En 2011, “el 20% más pobre en Puerto Rico recibió solo 1.7% de todo el ingreso, mientras el 20% más rico obtuvo 55.3% de todo el ingreso”, indicó Marxuach.
Para Marxuach, el aumento en la pobreza y la dependencia se debe, principalmente, a la recesión en la que entró la economía de Puerto Rico a partir de 2006, “el aumento en la tasa de desempleo y la reducción considerable en la tasa de participación en la fuerza laboral”.
Ya no buscan empleo
Después de que la Isla mostró tener una tasa de desempleo promedio de 11.1% en 2008, el porcentaje de personas desocupadas que estaban buscando trabajo saltó a promedios de 15.1%, 16.1% y 15.7% en los años de 2009, 2010 y 2011, respectivamente.
Aunque la tasa de desempleo estuvo en septiembre en 13.6% (0.1% más que en agosto, tras perderse 3,000 empleos), la tasa de participación se encuentra en uno de sus niveles más bajos de la historia (39.1). “Lo más probable es que se haya registrado un aumento en las personas que han dejado de buscar empleo formalmente. Es muy probable que una porción significativa de esa población se encuentre trabajando en la economía informal”, indicó Marxuach.
El economista José Alameda, profesor del Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez (RUM), sostuvo que en Puerto Rico se da la misma tendencia que en Estados Unidos, donde estudios han indicado que el 93% de los ingresos obtenidos entre 2009 y 2010 se quedó en el 1% de la población. “Por eso, cuando se habla de crecimiento económico, hay que mirar para quién es ese crecimiento”, dijo Alameda.
Aunque el Producto Interno Bruto creció en 0.9% en el año fiscal 2012, la economía se achicó en 14% desde el inicio de la recesión hasta el 2011. Hoy, además, hay 150,000 menos empleos en Puerto Rico que en 2008, según Alameda.
El comisionado Pierluisi advirtió que la “pobreza relativa de Puerto Rico, en comparación con los estados, ha sido constante”.
“En los últimos 40 años, nunca hemos llegado ni a 1/3 del ingreso promedio en Estados Unidos”, sostuvo.
El incremento reciente en los fondos del PAN no solo responde a una recesión económica que Pierluisi considera que está superada, sino a las asignaciones especiales otorgadas por la Ley federal de Recuperación Económica (ARRA) del presidente Barack Obama.
La ayuda de ARRA
Durante todo el cuatrienio, el gobierno de Luis Fortuño ha disfrutado de una inyección económica de sobre $7,000 millones a través de ARRA, que le ha servido de amortiguador durante los peores momentos de la economía.
Al final del cuatrienio, además, el Gobierno de Puerto Rico ha comenzado a tener acceso al aumento de $700 millones en fondos de Medicaid que otorgó la reforma federal de salud (Obamacare) y que ha elevado los fondos federales del programa Mi Salud a unos $1,000 millones anuales, alrededor del 45% del presupuesto del plan de salud público de la Isla.
“Estamos ahora en terreno positivo. Puerto Rico crece a la par con los estados”, sostuvo Pierluisi, quien descarta que la realidad de los últimos años -más pobreza y más dependencia- vaya a ser la norma de los próximos.
Pero Pierluisi también resaltó que mientras la economía avance, la fórmula de distribución de fondos puede reducir algunas de las asignaciones a la Isla.
Como telón de fondo de este debate estarán, además, los duros recortes fiscales que se espera que entren en vigor a partir de 2013, como parte de los esfuerzos republicanos y demócratas por equilibrar las finanzas del Gobierno federal.