Explain that. Only enough states to total 270 EC votes would need to pass a similar law for it to take effect. How do you get the "almost 50" number. How do you continue to fail to understand this rather simple idea?
So the states can choose anyway to assign its electors, except for this?
No, I don't care how they assign electors. I just don't think it's very democratic for the people of Iowa to have very, very, very little say as to how theirs are selected.
Uhhh, if they pass this law, aren't they having as much say as any other way of determining how theirs are selected. I mean, that is "their say". How can you say that their "say" getting effected results in very "little say"? It makes no sense. You make no sense. You can't have it both ways. The states get to decide how they do it. If the decide how to do it, then they've decided how to do it. Full. Fucking. Stop.
I love this thread. Everyone here keeps pointing out the obvious. We all know how the EC works. That's the point of the whole article: how
to hack the EC to do away with the EC. That tactic should resonate with some here. But now we have 1000 comments in this thread thanks to all our enthusiastic friends who just got out of 10th grade civics class to breathlessly tell us how the founding fathers were so wise to set up the present system to make sure that we don't get "tyranny of the majority". When did people forget about "tyranny of the minority"?
The result of the election is *exactly* the same as if people voted directly for the president.
Yes, the result is the same. But, the people of Iowa will have given up essentially all control over how their electors are chosen. Currently, the people of Iowa have complete control over the selection of their electors, through a vote. The new system takes that away. I don't think its ever very democratic to have no say over the people who represent you.
Getting rid of (effectively) the EC is the goal. The Iowa bill does this. You admit that But then you go on to
say, paraphrased, "but they're giving up their part of the EC!". It's like you're arguing with yourself.
So if you supplement your caloric intake to handle the communte by bike or walking with pure meat, then this guy's math says you may burn
more fossil fuels in the process. He seems to be more against meat
than anything else. In any case, that may be true, but I find that
the amount of meat I consume doesn't vary much, when I'm burning
lots of calories for cycling, I eat more fruits and grains.
Interesting, thanks.
Even if it were the language I could count on when all else failed, it wouldn't make me like it. If I liked it, I wouldn't wait until it was a last resort, would I?
Sorry, you don't strike me as a competent programmer.
How do you get that out of what he has written? People that don't like C can't be competent programmers?
You can still get those cheap wire hangers at the dry cleaners. The rest of us like the plastic ones because they don't fuck up your shirts. If hanger durability is more important that clothing durability in your world, then yes, I guess wire hangers were the pinnacle of that technology.
And just putting a guy at 8000 meters and having him start going up would most likely kill him. There's a reason they spend so much time acclimating on their way up.
LOL - you're supposed to say "pals around with", didn't you get that memo? I didn't think anyone was buying that line of bullshit except perhaps party hardliners. But here you come, a fellow independent, and prove me wrong. Well played, sir.
Or, if you define 2 to be 3 the first time it appears in an equation and equal to 2 the second time it appears in an equation, you get the same astonishing and journal-worthy result.
Slashdot Mirror
Just so you know, you can't vote if you've been convicted of a felony.
Just so you know, whether that is true or not depends on the state you live in.
Explain that. Only enough states to total 270 EC votes would need to pass a similar law for it to take effect. How do you get the "almost 50" number. How do you continue to fail to understand this rather simple idea?
So the states can choose anyway to assign its electors, except for this?
No, I don't care how they assign electors. I just don't think it's very democratic for the people of Iowa to have very, very, very little say as to how theirs are selected.
Uhhh, if they pass this law, aren't they having as much say as any other way of determining how theirs are selected. I mean, that is "their say". How can you say that their "say" getting effected results in very "little say"? It makes no sense. You make no sense. You can't have it both ways. The states get to decide how they do it. If the decide how to do it, then they've decided how to do it. Full. Fucking. Stop.
I love this thread. Everyone here keeps pointing out the obvious. We all know how the EC works. That's the point of the whole article: how to hack the EC to do away with the EC. That tactic should resonate with some here. But now we have 1000 comments in this thread thanks to all our enthusiastic friends who just got out of 10th grade civics class to breathlessly tell us how the founding fathers were so wise to set up the present system to make sure that we don't get "tyranny of the majority". When did people forget about "tyranny of the minority"?
The result of the election is *exactly* the same as if people voted directly for the president.
Yes, the result is the same. But, the people of Iowa will have given up essentially all control over how their electors are chosen. Currently, the people of Iowa have complete control over the selection of their electors, through a vote. The new system takes that away. I don't think its ever very democratic to have no say over the people who represent you.
Getting rid of (effectively) the EC is the goal. The Iowa bill does this. You admit that But then you go on to say, paraphrased, "but they're giving up their part of the EC!". It's like you're arguing with yourself.
As opposed to other systems where the sheep gets to outlaw the eating of meat.
If you meant "incompetent" why didn't you just write that instead of the word "ignorant"?
So if you supplement your caloric intake to handle the communte by bike or walking with pure meat, then this guy's math says you may burn more fossil fuels in the process. He seems to be more against meat than anything else. In any case, that may be true, but I find that the amount of meat I consume doesn't vary much, when I'm burning lots of calories for cycling, I eat more fruits and grains. Interesting, thanks.
We're running out of you.
Source / cite for this? I don't believe it, but could be wrong.
Even if it were the language I could count on when all else failed, it wouldn't make me like it. If I liked it, I wouldn't wait until it was a last resort, would I?
Sorry, you don't strike me as a competent programmer.
How do you get that out of what he has written? People that don't like C can't be competent programmers?
Of course you do. That's what makes you bad at math.
Do they have any verbs?
You can still get those cheap wire hangers at the dry cleaners. The rest of us like the plastic ones because they don't fuck up your shirts. If hanger durability is more important that clothing durability in your world, then yes, I guess wire hangers were the pinnacle of that technology.
Try this "formula" on your calculator:
0.9999 ^ 8000
And just putting a guy at 8000 meters and having him start going
up would most likely kill him. There's a reason they spend so
much time acclimating on their way up.
I have the sound track: Lou Reed, Depeche Mode, Martin Gore, Patti Smith, and many others - 1 song by U2. Great soundtrack, though.
The other prediction I saw in that movie - flatpanel, widescreen TVs.
Where do you get the idea that the complexity of the product has to be comparable? Read the quote.
In the context of "any other industry", yes.
Well, sure, substitute the meaning for any of several words in that statement and you can make it more true.
Like 'rare' => 'not very rare' or 'ship' => 'snort' or 'billion' => 'google'.
Fun.
That's because I'm not debating you.
I thought acorn was a voter registration group, not a housing trust fund?
LOL - you're supposed to say "pals around with", didn't you get that memo? I didn't think anyone was buying that line of bullshit except perhaps party hardliners. But here you come, a fellow independent, and prove me wrong. Well played, sir.
Link please.
Or, if you define 2 to be 3 the first time it appears in an equation and equal to 2 the second time it appears in an equation, you get the same astonishing and journal-worthy result.
I believe his point was that neither out of context quotes makes a valid point. Do try to keep up.