I agree that there is an advantage in allowing less populated states from being pushed around, but it should also go both ways, populated states should not be able to be pushed around by low population states.
The method that the states were formed in the past have a great impact on the electoral college today. The historical reasons for a state don't necessarily apply today. California is a large state because when formed it was assumed that western states would have relatively low populations; but today it has the largest population.
And the notion of sovereign states in a loose federation is an outdated notion here. The states in the US don't have boundaries related to social, cultural, or ethnic divisions, they don't even have good geographic borders. The states are much more like administrative districts today.
But the whole idea of the electoral college and the reasons for it are outdated. The states that have winner-takes-all-electors screws up the results too often. I'd much rather presidential candidates campaign in the entire country rather than playing some political board game.
I have noticed that the documentation for Real ID is pretty extensive. It's more like a passport than for a driver's license.
For myself, i went a couple of decades with an SSN "card". Which is just typing onto card stock, no security measures whatsoever, certainly not "proof" of anything. One job accepted me when I brought in the larger 8x11 paper that the lost ID had been punched out of. When I finally got around to getting a replacement it took a few hours of standing in line. Note especially that a social security number or card is not intended to be used as a means of identification, even though so many places use it as such.
Oh, I'm sure there are fake/exaggerated news stories on Brietbart or Infowars all about this, so it is reasonable to assume that someone who saw that news might think it was legitimate and have trouble looking up the details.
Mostly voter ID seems to be a hot button issue for those who assume that there is rampant piecemeal voter fraud. Of which there is no substantive evidence of this happening. Wholesale voter fraud should be a much more serious concern.
Note that the arrival of busses is not evidence of voting fraud, it is a common occurence to bus in valid registered voters who don't drive and who otherwise wouldn't bother showing up. So a part of "get out the vote" by both parties includes offers to shuttle people over for free. Ie, church buses, vans, etc. Now I'm sure that seeing a stream of black of hispanic voters filing off of a bus frightens some people, but it's not evidence of fraud.
Voters are bused, but both parties. It's a service for many people who can't drive. However the myth is that those ineligible to vote are being bused in to vote fraudently, and no evidence has ever been shown to support this. Especially the arrival of legitimate voters by bus is not evidence of fraud.
They should give those people provisional ballots rather than turn them away. Voting is a right and it should not be removed by a mere volunteer poll worker.
I'm in the center, and I am seeing BOTH sides being ridiculously incalcitrant here. Democrats bitch that any voter ID proposal is bad before even looking at it, and Republicans complain that voter fraud is rampant despite the total lack of evidence. Never mind both sides being hypocritical and creating gerrymandered districts.
I think we should let everyone eligible be able to vote. If they don't have an ID or someone to vouch for them, then create a provisional ballot. It may slow down the counting, but I'd rather it take months to decide the winner than to disenfranchise someone. I also think college students should vote if they're living 2/3rds of the year in the county, and I think that ex convicts should vote also if they've served their time, and I think armed forces serving over time should be allowed to vote.
Voting is every citizens right and duty and no one should stand in the way of it. That's the top priority, and I don't have issues with voter ID if it doesn't get in the way of anyone of any political persuasion from voting.
There is already almost no voter fraud, period. ID checks are ok on their surface - however for some people this is a major inconvenience. The snag is that those people are by and large not republican. They don't drive, they cannot take time out from work to spend all day getting a voter ID. And yes all day, or have you not seen news recently about people spending all day in line because the Real ID act is clogging up the DMVs.
It would be nice if we could meet in the middle. But both parties seem solidly entrenched in their beliefs that the opposite party are treasonous fraudsters. We really can't have a functioning democracy with this level of hatred towards those with differing political views.
In California, I don't have to show ID, but I do have to give my name and address and it has to appear on the rolls. Sure, this can be abused but it is not easy to abuse it. If someone else appears to have voted with my name then I will have a provisional ballot and an investigation will be raised. I have not heard of any widespread voting abuse based on this. Usually though I vote from home with a permanent absentee ballot, which I have to sign.
To affect an election you need a more wholesale approach to this. That means more than a few people here and there getting away with you, you would need to find thousands of people who are registered but who do not actuallly vote and then get thousands of people to engage in pretending to be those people, and then not get caught. Of course, there are those losing politicians who claim this happens, but that's just typical sour grapes since no evidence of this ever turns up.
There is a problem here to be sure, mainly because election commisioners (in every state) are far more concerned that things run smoothly rather than that they run accurately. I wish they did a better job with accuracy, I wish they would not announce the winners before any absentee or provisional ballot has been counted. I wish it was like Australia where you are required to vote by law if you are eligible so that elections aren't decided by the 25% who are the most devoted to their parties.
Some people shop locally, find what they want, then buy on Amazon. I do it the opposite way, I find a product on Amazon, read the reviews, check out the user guide, then do a search to see who has it locally and go there.
Why settle for a common dirt diamond when you can get a top of the line Tiffany's diamond cluster that comes with an authenticated pedigree certificate showing that they came from the most exclusive slave mines, each hand polished on the bosoms of the most highly paid reality TV starlets?
Except that you can't easily resell those heirlooms, even at the current market price! Jewelry stores often buy diamonds on consignment from wholesalers. And the wholesalers don't want your diamond either. So it's already cut, it looks perfect, but you can only sell the thing for about 25% of what seems to be the market price.
The demand for new diamonds is artificially created by marketing, and such a market didn't exist for the average public more than about a century ago. The idea of spending X% of your salary on a wedding ring was made up entirely by DeBeers marketing, along with the idea that it must be diamond and never another gem. Because so much of the diamond's value is entirely based on perception, this is what ruins diamonds for resale or as a commodity.
That's why you save grandma's ring. You save a ton of money for a product that is as good or better than the modern product, and because it's a family heirloom it has more perceived value than getting a used heirloom from someone else.
Both were Desilu productions. They have an interesting history of being an independent production company formed by Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball. Many of their shows had relatively more expensive production values but they also were popular enough that when they went into syndication they turned into good profits.
Yes, when these were on Netflix it had good resolution. A lot of older shows were shot on film. You can often tell shows that were shot direct to video tape because they had a distinctly different look to them. It took awhile to make video cameras that looked decent, so you'd off odd optics, high persistence which smudged whatever was moving, and overall fuzziness. Twilight Zone did a few episodes with video instead of film (they were going over budget) and those really stick out because of the primitive video cameras used. I think video got stuck with an assumption that they were low quality even after they had improved, so shooting to film remained a standard for pre-recorded weekly television for a long time.
Marx is not the authority here, he did not invent or define the word or system. Marxist socialism or Soviet style socialism are not the only types of socialism that exist. Marx's Communist Manifesto specially criticized several existing forms of socialism.
There were the Nordic social democratic governments in Europe that were in no way "communist". Bernie Sanders is not a communist. Of course, for a long time Americans were taught that socialism is a stepping stone to communism, and that trade unions were controlled by communists, and so forth, all propaganda. That's why there's still a knee-jerk response to "socialism" in many older people.
Back when DSL was the main option for those without cable, there were lots of DSL providers all sharing the same physical copper lines. It would be great if congress would declare that cable company cables were common carriers so we could get some real competition again
I have very few options if I want broadband. So dialup and basic DSL are out. I have basically two choices - cable internet, AT&T u-verse internet. Satellite internet isn't very good, I don't know about any good or affordable cellular internet that I can get, certainly you can't get any Google fiber within 50 miles of Google's headquarters.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that there is an advantage in allowing less populated states from being pushed around, but it should also go both ways, populated states should not be able to be pushed around by low population states.
The method that the states were formed in the past have a great impact on the electoral college today. The historical reasons for a state don't necessarily apply today. California is a large state because when formed it was assumed that western states would have relatively low populations; but today it has the largest population.
And the notion of sovereign states in a loose federation is an outdated notion here. The states in the US don't have boundaries related to social, cultural, or ethnic divisions, they don't even have good geographic borders. The states are much more like administrative districts today.
But the whole idea of the electoral college and the reasons for it are outdated. The states that have winner-takes-all-electors screws up the results too often. I'd much rather presidential candidates campaign in the entire country rather than playing some political board game.
And being able to vote is one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy. It shouldn't be abridged lightly.
I have noticed that the documentation for Real ID is pretty extensive. It's more like a passport than for a driver's license.
For myself, i went a couple of decades with an SSN "card". Which is just typing onto card stock, no security measures whatsoever, certainly not "proof" of anything. One job accepted me when I brought in the larger 8x11 paper that the lost ID had been punched out of. When I finally got around to getting a replacement it took a few hours of standing in line. Note especially that a social security number or card is not intended to be used as a means of identification, even though so many places use it as such.
Oh, I'm sure there are fake/exaggerated news stories on Brietbart or Infowars all about this, so it is reasonable to assume that someone who saw that news might think it was legitimate and have trouble looking up the details.
Mostly voter ID seems to be a hot button issue for those who assume that there is rampant piecemeal voter fraud. Of which there is no substantive evidence of this happening. Wholesale voter fraud should be a much more serious concern.
Note that the arrival of busses is not evidence of voting fraud, it is a common occurence to bus in valid registered voters who don't drive and who otherwise wouldn't bother showing up. So a part of "get out the vote" by both parties includes offers to shuttle people over for free. Ie, church buses, vans, etc. Now I'm sure that seeing a stream of black of hispanic voters filing off of a bus frightens some people, but it's not evidence of fraud.
Voters are bused, but both parties. It's a service for many people who can't drive. However the myth is that those ineligible to vote are being bused in to vote fraudently, and no evidence has ever been shown to support this. Especially the arrival of legitimate voters by bus is not evidence of fraud.
They should give those people provisional ballots rather than turn them away. Voting is a right and it should not be removed by a mere volunteer poll worker.
I'm in the center, and I am seeing BOTH sides being ridiculously incalcitrant here. Democrats bitch that any voter ID proposal is bad before even looking at it, and Republicans complain that voter fraud is rampant despite the total lack of evidence. Never mind both sides being hypocritical and creating gerrymandered districts.
I think we should let everyone eligible be able to vote. If they don't have an ID or someone to vouch for them, then create a provisional ballot. It may slow down the counting, but I'd rather it take months to decide the winner than to disenfranchise someone. I also think college students should vote if they're living 2/3rds of the year in the county, and I think that ex convicts should vote also if they've served their time, and I think armed forces serving over time should be allowed to vote.
Voting is every citizens right and duty and no one should stand in the way of it. That's the top priority, and I don't have issues with voter ID if it doesn't get in the way of anyone of any political persuasion from voting.
There is already almost no voter fraud, period. ID checks are ok on their surface - however for some people this is a major inconvenience. The snag is that those people are by and large not republican. They don't drive, they cannot take time out from work to spend all day getting a voter ID. And yes all day, or have you not seen news recently about people spending all day in line because the Real ID act is clogging up the DMVs.
It would be nice if we could meet in the middle. But both parties seem solidly entrenched in their beliefs that the opposite party are treasonous fraudsters. We really can't have a functioning democracy with this level of hatred towards those with differing political views.
In California, I don't have to show ID, but I do have to give my name and address and it has to appear on the rolls. Sure, this can be abused but it is not easy to abuse it. If someone else appears to have voted with my name then I will have a provisional ballot and an investigation will be raised. I have not heard of any widespread voting abuse based on this. Usually though I vote from home with a permanent absentee ballot, which I have to sign.
To affect an election you need a more wholesale approach to this. That means more than a few people here and there getting away with you, you would need to find thousands of people who are registered but who do not actuallly vote and then get thousands of people to engage in pretending to be those people, and then not get caught. Of course, there are those losing politicians who claim this happens, but that's just typical sour grapes since no evidence of this ever turns up.
There is a problem here to be sure, mainly because election commisioners (in every state) are far more concerned that things run smoothly rather than that they run accurately. I wish they did a better job with accuracy, I wish they would not announce the winners before any absentee or provisional ballot has been counted. I wish it was like Australia where you are required to vote by law if you are eligible so that elections aren't decided by the 25% who are the most devoted to their parties.
Some people shop locally, find what they want, then buy on Amazon. I do it the opposite way, I find a product on Amazon, read the reviews, check out the user guide, then do a search to see who has it locally and go there.
It has only one button, and they press it before it leaves the factory.
You're holding it wrong. Hold it in the freezer compartment.
Why settle for a common dirt diamond when you can get a top of the line Tiffany's diamond cluster that comes with an authenticated pedigree certificate showing that they came from the most exclusive slave mines, each hand polished on the bosoms of the most highly paid reality TV starlets?
Except that you can't easily resell those heirlooms, even at the current market price! Jewelry stores often buy diamonds on consignment from wholesalers. And the wholesalers don't want your diamond either. So it's already cut, it looks perfect, but you can only sell the thing for about 25% of what seems to be the market price.
The demand for new diamonds is artificially created by marketing, and such a market didn't exist for the average public more than about a century ago. The idea of spending X% of your salary on a wedding ring was made up entirely by DeBeers marketing, along with the idea that it must be diamond and never another gem. Because so much of the diamond's value is entirely based on perception, this is what ruins diamonds for resale or as a commodity.
That's why you save grandma's ring. You save a ton of money for a product that is as good or better than the modern product, and because it's a family heirloom it has more perceived value than getting a used heirloom from someone else.
Both were Desilu productions. They have an interesting history of being an independent production company formed by Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball. Many of their shows had relatively more expensive production values but they also were popular enough that when they went into syndication they turned into good profits.
Yes, when these were on Netflix it had good resolution. A lot of older shows were shot on film. You can often tell shows that were shot direct to video tape because they had a distinctly different look to them. It took awhile to make video cameras that looked decent, so you'd off odd optics, high persistence which smudged whatever was moving, and overall fuzziness. Twilight Zone did a few episodes with video instead of film (they were going over budget) and those really stick out because of the primitive video cameras used. I think video got stuck with an assumption that they were low quality even after they had improved, so shooting to film remained a standard for pre-recorded weekly television for a long time.
Marx is not the authority here, he did not invent or define the word or system. Marxist socialism or Soviet style socialism are not the only types of socialism that exist. Marx's Communist Manifesto specially criticized several existing forms of socialism.
There were the Nordic social democratic governments in Europe that were in no way "communist". Bernie Sanders is not a communist. Of course, for a long time Americans were taught that socialism is a stepping stone to communism, and that trade unions were controlled by communists, and so forth, all propaganda. That's why there's still a knee-jerk response to "socialism" in many older people.
That's not so bad, my doctor had a whole bunch of interns come over and take a look.
They could be right, doesn't mean they're not annoying.
I don't like either, if they go toe to toe and both get bruised I won't complain.
Damn jive turkeys!
Back when DSL was the main option for those without cable, there were lots of DSL providers all sharing the same physical copper lines. It would be great if congress would declare that cable company cables were common carriers so we could get some real competition again
What net neutrality does though is stop Comcast from favoring its own services versus the services you actually want to use.
I have very few options if I want broadband. So dialup and basic DSL are out. I have basically two choices - cable internet, AT&T u-verse internet. Satellite internet isn't very good, I don't know about any good or affordable cellular internet that I can get, certainly you can't get any Google fiber within 50 miles of Google's headquarters.