The article does take its sweet time getting to the explanation (after some meandering around in the guy's personal background), but the explanation itself is very clear.
It makes a very good case against "winner takes all". I'd be interested in seeing if there is a correspondence between the # of voters in a block (the group officially in charge of electing an elector: a state in "winner takes all" states and a district elsewhere) and voter apathy in the block.
I don't, however, buy his claim that the 50 states are an "ideal" distribution. ---
If we geeks really want no regulation on the internet, then we should vote for the people that are consistently anti-big govt. That would be the Republicans.
Do you really think that a group of people who have dedicated their lives to government actually want to cut it back?
Some of the views of the GOP are a little wacky, but at least they won't be up in Washington making laws to restrict our freedoms.
...other than legislating "family values", mandatory school prayer, that wacky little Communications Decency Act...
I'm not saying the Democrats are angels either, but saying that the Republicans won't make laws to restrict people's freedoms is a sign either of acute misinformation or acute self-delusion.
I think saying socialist==Cathdral and libertarian==Bazaar is a little simplistic. The Open Source community is a heady mix of libertarian and socialist, democracy and anarchy. Which is probably why geeks agree with each other so often;) ---
I don't think this would change a whole lot. Voting for Al Gore as the Green candidate and voting for Al Gore as Democrat are both voting for Al Gore...not a wonderful idea:)
I would like to see a preferential system, where every voter arranges a list of the candidates from most preferred to least preferred. The votes are tallied by preference, assigning a certain number of "vote points" determined by the candidate's position on the voter's list--putting a candidate higher on your list gives them more "vote points". The candidate with the greatest total "vote points" wins. Studies have been done that show that voters are generally happier about the results (sorry, I don't have a reference)
People would be less worried about "throwing their vote away", since they would have a backup.
The only built-in disadvantage I can see (for voters at least) would be the extra effort involved in rating the candidates instead of just circling one, which might discourage some voters.
However, this is pretty unlikely: most politicians wouldn't be interested, and it would probably have to be a constitutional amendment. So I'm not expecting this to get instituted anytime soon. ---
Yeah, that's the essence of the Natural Law Party platform. Solving the world's problems through transcendental meditation. Should be called the New Age Party.
The last thing we need is a President who has to consult his crystals before making a decision, IMHO. Official Presidential Astrologers are pointless enough. ---
Netscape was faltering because of lousy marketing, which had nothing to do with opensourcing the browser. Remember, Netscape didn't make much money off of the browser (it was free, except for that one slipup where they tried to charge for it...a big mistake when your competitor costs $0). Most of their cash came from their server and related products. ---
I don't think the US gives a damn about how other countries regulate their pharmacies. This is all about protecting American consumers from bad drugs (fakes, for example) and to keep people from getting prescription medicines without a valid prescription.
All the regulation is, is saying that online pharmacies must require prescriptions and not sell fake medication...not a stretch, as far as I'm concerned.
The application to interstate commerce in America is obvious. The application to international commerce is not so obvious, and nobody (including the administration) knows how it's going to work. Remember, this isn't policy yet and they're still hammering out the details. It may place some restrictions on imports or it may not. The fines certainly only apply to U.S. firms. ---
Slashdot Mirror
Prefab individuality seems to be the order of the day.
---
Heh. I wonder how Gore and Buchanan would feel, knowing they got the same score on your list!
---
Somebody moderate this up! It's very interesting.
The article does take its sweet time getting to the explanation (after some meandering around in the guy's personal background), but the explanation itself is very clear.
It makes a very good case against "winner takes all". I'd be interested in seeing if there is a correspondence between the # of voters in a block (the group officially in charge of electing an elector: a state in "winner takes all" states and a district elsewhere) and voter apathy in the block.
I don't, however, buy his claim that the 50 states are an "ideal" distribution.
---
Do you really think that a group of people who have dedicated their lives to government actually want to cut it back?
...other than legislating "family values", mandatory school prayer, that wacky little Communications Decency Act...
I'm not saying the Democrats are angels either, but saying that the Republicans won't make laws to restrict people's freedoms is a sign either of acute misinformation or acute self-delusion.
---
I think saying socialist==Cathdral and libertarian==Bazaar is a little simplistic. The Open Source community is a heady mix of libertarian and socialist, democracy and anarchy. Which is probably why geeks agree with each other so often ;)
---
"Winner take all" has got to go. All it does is support the two-party structure, and exacerbate the "my vote doesn't effect anything" syndrome.
---
I don't think this would change a whole lot. Voting for Al Gore as the Green candidate and voting for Al Gore as Democrat are both voting for Al Gore...not a wonderful idea :)
I would like to see a preferential system, where every voter arranges a list of the candidates from most preferred to least preferred. The votes are tallied by preference, assigning a certain number of "vote points" determined by the candidate's position on the voter's list--putting a candidate higher on your list gives them more "vote points". The candidate with the greatest total "vote points" wins. Studies have been done that show that voters are generally happier about the results (sorry, I don't have a reference)
People would be less worried about "throwing their vote away", since they would have a backup.
The only built-in disadvantage I can see (for voters at least) would be the extra effort involved in rating the candidates instead of just circling one, which might discourage some voters.
However, this is pretty unlikely: most politicians wouldn't be interested, and it would probably have to be a constitutional amendment. So I'm not expecting this to get instituted anytime soon.
---
Yeah, that's the essence of the Natural Law Party platform. Solving the world's problems through transcendental meditation. Should be called the New Age Party.
The last thing we need is a President who has to consult his crystals before making a decision, IMHO. Official Presidential Astrologers are pointless enough.
---
Netscape was faltering because of lousy marketing, which had nothing to do with opensourcing the browser. Remember, Netscape didn't make much money off of the browser (it was free, except for that one slipup where they tried to charge for it...a big mistake when your competitor costs $0). Most of their cash came from their server and related products.
---
All the regulation is, is saying that online pharmacies must require prescriptions and not sell fake medication...not a stretch, as far as I'm concerned.
The application to interstate commerce in America is obvious. The application to international commerce is not so obvious, and nobody (including the administration) knows how it's going to work. Remember, this isn't policy yet and they're still hammering out the details. It may place some restrictions on imports or it may not. The fines certainly only apply to U.S. firms.
---