Well, the ones that I've argued with would have a hard time with this - they are fond of saying that no advantageous mutation has ever been observed, or could ever occur (despite overwhelming observational data to the contrary).
The fact that some X chromosomes could have an "off green" or "off red" gene sounds like a mutation to me. Whether it is an advantage is debatable. If it in fact allows a person a more acute perception of light, I think it would be an advantage.
Well, if you want to be anal, you'll notice that I never technically called anybody a name. I was just venting.
I argue with them often, though, and it is they who start making personal attacks and spouting nonsense. I don't actually make statements like those to a person when I'm arguing with them.
At this point though, you're walking a fine line between science and philosophy. By the same token, how do I know that everyone else is not a zombie? In other words, I can (or think I can) excercise free will and consciousness and explore my thoughts. But perhaps all these people around me are automations that are physically identical to me but don't have that extra "stuff" that makes you a conscious being.
exactly. His randomness is exactly what makes me laugh a lot of the time. While not razor-sharp, you can see there's a wit back there though. He's not an idiot.
For wickedly funny satire that relentlessly and mercilessly beats its target into a pulp, waits for it to try and get up, and then delivers another sharp kick to take the fight out of it and crush its very soul, I read the Onion. Those people are good;-)
For stuff to really deliver some substance and jar your thinking, there are lots of good, high-profile writers. Read any highbrow literary publication.
What I meant by "the electoral vote is tallied" was to tally the national electoral vote (which could easily, under that system, happen several times). Yeah, it would require changing the constitution.
If Senator Bedfellow does well enough the first time around to win the majority electoral vote, that would end the process right there - there would be no runoff. You're right though - with a runoff and a proxy system, a person's total could change for the worse, state by state.
Dammit.
Well, this is why a person's vote should not count for more or less just because of where they happen to live.
As far as recounts go, I'm imagining a time when we have computer voting booths everywhere (we've got them where I live already) and "recount" means, "do another query with these computers". There'd be some kind of secure protocol by which they could all put the results together a few minutes after the polls close.
I don't know how close we are to that right now.
I don't see why you can't do a runoff system with the states proportionally dividing their electoral votes. It would be like an optimized version of the following:
State X asks all its voters to vote for their honest top choice, assuring them that if that person does not win, and the election does not become a foregone conclusion, they will be able to change their vote.
The state's votes are distributed proportionally, rounding off where necessary.
The electoral vote is tallied. If one candidate has a majority, that's that - because no runoff would change anything.
If not, each state drops off the candidate that received the least votes in that state. The votes that went for that candidate spill over to the second choices marked on those ballots. The results are again tallied and the proportional votes from each state redecided. The electoral vote is again tallied.
Repeat until somebody has a majority of the electoral vote.
The electoral votes here act as nothing more than a proxy, and their function is to keep the balance we have now which weights each state's influence.
A more blatant way to do this would be to give each person a weight based on where they live. Those living in cities would have a smaller number and those on farms would have a larger number. This, of course, exposes plainly the injustice of the electoral college - your vote literally counts for less when you live in a populated area. It's the only reason Gore isn't the president now, and it's what makes liberals cringe. Conservatives justify it by pointing at the county-by-county results that show a country blanketed in red.
Personally, I'd go with a popular vote and ditch the electoral college. But then, I'm liberal. I know it's not gonna happen, so this is my best effort given the constraints.
Ok, this is really stupid. I had bullets in this post, in the form of lowercase o's, but that triggered a "junk repetitive characters" lameness filter. Now I'm wondering if this will get accepted at all, or rejected for being a "repeat". People, these filters are worthless.
Here are some suggestions for federal legislation to avoid some of these things in the future:
Keep the electoral college, but with some changes.
Proponents of the electoral college system point out that it keeps less populated states' interests from being overrun by voting blocs in the heavily populated areas - each state gets proportional representation, plus two extra. Ok, fair enough. That can stay.
What should go is the part about the states electing voters. This is the part that smacks of elitism. We should not be electing "electors" that have discretion. It should be a completely automatic system. Just make that small change in the constitution. It's not like it would even really change things much, but it's the principle of the thing.
Pass a law requiring states to split their votes proportionally.
The reason the states have a 'winner-take-all' system right now is to make themselves more attractive to candidates. If Joe Candidate can go to Iowa and get a thousand extra votes that would tip all of the state's electoral votes in his favor, you can bet he'll spend a lot of time in Iowa, which is great for Iowa - he'll pander to their specific concerns. Once one state does this, the others all have to do it too, to make themselves more attractive. Then we get what we have now - 48 states using winner-take-all, and candidates that pander only to the ones that are "In Play".
If they split their electoral votes, the small states would still get that extra little clout, but everything would be "in play" - you could go anywhere and pick up an extra electoral vote.
Finally, a runoff system. At the voting booth, a voter selects his/her first, second, third, and fourth choice. First, the first choices are tallied. If no candidate has a clear majority, the candidate farthest behind drops out and the votes that went for him spill over to the candidates those voters marked as their second choice. This would continue until a candidate has a majority of the vote. Needless to say, this requires a computer-based system.
This has many advantages - a voter can vote third-party and not worry about hurting the similiar-minded candidate that has a better chance of winning. Also, the winner would have at least the grudging support of a majority.
It wouldn't be difficult to mesh this runoff system with the electoral vote - just treat it as a two-tiered election that happens repeatedly until there is a winner. Each state has its runoff election, and divides its electoral vote according to the proportions of the first choices marked on the ballot. The electoral vote is tallied and if there is no winner by majority, the state votes are retallied, with a runoff from the candidates farthest behind to the second choices of their voters. Eventually, a candidate will win a majority of the electoral vote.
There. That's a voting system that should satisfy everyone. Now the question is whether the voters can handle the idea of ranking the candidates.
The twist here is that it's electoral _voters_, not electoral _votes_. These people have all the disgression in the world when they go up there and vote. They can elect CowboyNeal as president and it would stand.
The electoral margin is so slim that just a few of those voters could change thier mind (they've done it many times before, including ones from Florida, though it's never decided an election) and it could swing the other way.
and I was serious. Perhaps the person that modded me down thinks that there was no war until we had gunpowder. Once it has been invented, somebody is going to use it to gain an advantage. You and I may not like the results, but that's reality.
Never was the saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words" more true than on the Internet. Although it often gets in the ten to hundred thousand range:-)
like, huh? I'm confused - I would have maybe marked that as funny, but not interesting or insightful (the two marks it has at the time of this writing). Are you actually serious?
do you actually care if your name is around in a thousand years? I'd hope that the race is still around and that quality of life has improved (or at least not worsened), but I don't care about putting some people with my name into the "competition".
I'm not aware of any great purpose in life. Perhaps you are and would like to share?
Personally, I'd like to see people with a high degree of intelligence and something to contribute and the ability to be a good parent have children, and everyone else get their tubes tied. Therefore, I of course wish the Torvalds family the best.
1. The netscape browser is for the unwashed masses, who are used to such commercialism. Do expect anything else from AOL? You are welcome to use the mozilla browser, which is better anyway.
2. Netscape has taken the mozilla browser and customized it into their own branded version. You can do something similiar if you like. Neither changes the fact that there's a free, customizable mozilla for everyone.
3. Most of the people who work on mozilla are paid netscape employees anyway, despite their effort to recruit helpers for a large-scale volunteer effort. It just never happened.
Well, I trust that the fact that those people are out yelling and waving signs saying they want Gore means they meant to vote Gore. Have you seen a county by county breakdown of buchanan votes in florida? Take a look over here.
Anyone with any understanding of statistics will have to acknowledge that something is amiss. Now let me be clear - I don't think there should be a revote. That would set a horrible precedent. However, I do think the electors representing florida should be mad aware of this glaring statistical anomaly. Say just 10 of those electors decide to switch their vote because of it. Well, that would give Gore the magic 270.
If you think electors violating party lines is unheard of, you are wrong. It's ben done by electors from several states before, including Florida.
Here in Denver, Colorado, we DO use computerized voting booths. You press the buttons of your choice, which all light up. You complete your vote by presing the "cast vote" button at the bottom. You can check and change any choice you make up until then.
I was surprised to learn that there are many places that use paper.
Legally wrong? This is the way the constitution was written - nowhere does it say that they cannot elect who they want to. This is the reality of the electoral college.
Morally wrong? Well, if you ask me, morality is a relative thing.
Here's the thing: they can tally those ballots in palm beach for Buchanan, but you know and I know that those people intended to vote for Gore. Well guess what - the electors from florida will know that too. The moral thing to do, then, is what the people in your state want. This is generally measured by counting their votes, but in this case we have a situation where we know there was an error. We know that Florida meant to vote for Gore (not taking into consideration, of course, the absentee ballots which slant republican, and haven't yet come in).
So why is it that Florida's electors would be legally or morally obligated to vote Bush? This kind of last-minute human disgression in the hands of a few elite, which you call "arrogant", is exactly what the framers of the constitution had in mind. It's the electoral college, and it's the reason Gore hasn't won already.
Did I ever say that bush wouldn't be more able than clinton to get stuff done with congress? um, no, I didn't say that. Clinton, besides facing a congress of the opposite party, has had enough scandal around him that he's lost some clout.
So what's your point?
Anyway, I don't think it's necessarily a good thing when a president and congress are of the same party. Then they'll start imposing their will on everyone else and they'll be much less concerned with what the other party thinks cuz dammit, they have the power...
I apologize, that was below the belt. You were giving me a mental image of an ignorant right-winger.
All I'm trying to say is that you have your terms a bit confused. As it is traditionally used in presidential politics, the word "mandate" translates roughly to "message from the american electorate that they are behind the president and that he represents the voice of the people". It is not the expression of his ability to work with congress, but a factor that contributes to his overall influence - his clout. If you win by a landslide, you can announce to congress, "look how many people voted for me. I represent them, so when I speak to you, that's the voice of the people." That's a mandate. If you get 30% of the vote, but win because there were three other candidates that got under 25, congress doesn't really have to respect you as much.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the ones that I've argued with would have a hard time with this - they are fond of saying that no advantageous mutation has ever been observed, or could ever occur (despite overwhelming observational data to the contrary).
The fact that some X chromosomes could have an "off green" or "off red" gene sounds like a mutation to me. Whether it is an advantage is debatable. If it in fact allows a person a more acute perception of light, I think it would be an advantage.
-------
not so much anymore :-)
-------
that was the starting idea in this thread. I shifted to the zombie thing, and then you brought it back to the color thing.
No big deal, tho
-------
Well, if you want to be anal, you'll notice that I never technically called anybody a name. I was just venting.
I argue with them often, though, and it is they who start making personal attacks and spouting nonsense. I don't actually make statements like those to a person when I'm arguing with them.
-------
boggles the mind.
:-)
At this point though, you're walking a fine line between science and philosophy. By the same token, how do I know that everyone else is not a zombie? In other words, I can (or think I can) excercise free will and consciousness and explore my thoughts. But perhaps all these people around me are automations that are physically identical to me but don't have that extra "stuff" that makes you a conscious being.
Hurts just thinking about it
-------
same thing they say to everything:
*duh*, *snort*...
"you know, the Second Law proves the Bible right..."
hic...
"Are you saying I came from a *shudder* ape?"
scratch...
"So I suppose we're all one big accident, huh?"
I hate those people with my very soul.
-------
exactly. His randomness is exactly what makes me laugh a lot of the time. While not razor-sharp, you can see there's a wit back there though. He's not an idiot.
;-)
For wickedly funny satire that relentlessly and mercilessly beats its target into a pulp, waits for it to try and get up, and then delivers another sharp kick to take the fight out of it and crush its very soul, I read the Onion. Those people are good
For stuff to really deliver some substance and jar your thinking, there are lots of good, high-profile writers. Read any highbrow literary publication.
-------
What I meant by "the electoral vote is tallied" was to tally the national electoral vote (which could easily, under that system, happen several times). Yeah, it would require changing the constitution.
If Senator Bedfellow does well enough the first time around to win the majority electoral vote, that would end the process right there - there would be no runoff. You're right though - with a runoff and a proxy system, a person's total could change for the worse, state by state.
Dammit.
Well, this is why a person's vote should not count for more or less just because of where they happen to live.
-------
As far as recounts go, I'm imagining a time when we have computer voting booths everywhere (we've got them where I live already) and "recount" means, "do another query with these computers". There'd be some kind of secure protocol by which they could all put the results together a few minutes after the polls close.
I don't know how close we are to that right now.
I don't see why you can't do a runoff system with the states proportionally dividing their electoral votes. It would be like an optimized version of the following:
State X asks all its voters to vote for their honest top choice, assuring them that if that person does not win, and the election does not become a foregone conclusion, they will be able to change their vote.
The state's votes are distributed proportionally, rounding off where necessary.
The electoral vote is tallied. If one candidate has a majority, that's that - because no runoff would change anything.
If not, each state drops off the candidate that received the least votes in that state. The votes that went for that candidate spill over to the second choices marked on those ballots. The results are again tallied and the proportional votes from each state redecided. The electoral vote is again tallied.
Repeat until somebody has a majority of the electoral vote.
The electoral votes here act as nothing more than a proxy, and their function is to keep the balance we have now which weights each state's influence.
A more blatant way to do this would be to give each person a weight based on where they live. Those living in cities would have a smaller number and those on farms would have a larger number. This, of course, exposes plainly the injustice of the electoral college - your vote literally counts for less when you live in a populated area. It's the only reason Gore isn't the president now, and it's what makes liberals cringe. Conservatives justify it by pointing at the county-by-county results that show a country blanketed in red.
Personally, I'd go with a popular vote and ditch the electoral college. But then, I'm liberal. I know it's not gonna happen, so this is my best effort given the constraints.
-------
Ok, this is really stupid. I had bullets in this post, in the form of lowercase o's, but that triggered a "junk repetitive characters" lameness filter. Now I'm wondering if this will get accepted at all, or rejected for being a "repeat". People, these filters are worthless.
Here are some suggestions for federal legislation to avoid some of these things in the future:
Keep the electoral college, but with some changes.
Proponents of the electoral college system point out that it keeps less populated states' interests from being overrun by voting blocs in the heavily populated areas - each state gets proportional representation, plus two extra. Ok, fair enough. That can stay.
What should go is the part about the states electing voters. This is the part that smacks of elitism. We should not be electing "electors" that have discretion. It should be a completely automatic system. Just make that small change in the constitution. It's not like it would even really change things much, but it's the principle of the thing.
Pass a law requiring states to split their votes proportionally.
The reason the states have a 'winner-take-all' system right now is to make themselves more attractive to candidates. If Joe Candidate can go to Iowa and get a thousand extra votes that would tip all of the state's electoral votes in his favor, you can bet he'll spend a lot of time in Iowa, which is great for Iowa - he'll pander to their specific concerns. Once one state does this, the others all have to do it too, to make themselves more attractive. Then we get what we have now - 48 states using winner-take-all, and candidates that pander only to the ones that are "In Play".
If they split their electoral votes, the small states would still get that extra little clout, but everything would be "in play" - you could go anywhere and pick up an extra electoral vote.
Finally, a runoff system. At the voting booth, a voter selects his/her first, second, third, and fourth choice. First, the first choices are tallied. If no candidate has a clear majority, the candidate farthest behind drops out and the votes that went for him spill over to the candidates those voters marked as their second choice. This would continue until a candidate has a majority of the vote. Needless to say, this requires a computer-based system.
This has many advantages - a voter can vote third-party and not worry about hurting the similiar-minded candidate that has a better chance of winning. Also, the winner would have at least the grudging support of a majority.
It wouldn't be difficult to mesh this runoff system with the electoral vote - just treat it as a two-tiered election that happens repeatedly until there is a winner. Each state has its runoff election, and divides its electoral vote according to the proportions of the first choices marked on the ballot. The electoral vote is tallied and if there is no winner by majority, the state votes are retallied, with a runoff from the candidates farthest behind to the second choices of their voters. Eventually, a candidate will win a majority of the electoral vote.
There. That's a voting system that should satisfy everyone. Now the question is whether the voters can handle the idea of ranking the candidates.
-------
McCain should have beat Bush in the primary. I'd have voted for McCain.
-------
The twist here is that it's electoral _voters_, not electoral _votes_. These people have all the disgression in the world when they go up there and vote. They can elect CowboyNeal as president and it would stand.
The electoral margin is so slim that just a few of those voters could change thier mind (they've done it many times before, including ones from Florida, though it's never decided an election) and it could swing the other way.
-------
That's a George Carlin routine, I think
-------
and I was serious. Perhaps the person that modded me down thinks that there was no war until we had gunpowder. Once it has been invented, somebody is going to use it to gain an advantage. You and I may not like the results, but that's reality.
-------
Number of bytes is exactly what I meant. I didn't mean as a measure of how informative. That was the whole point of that quip.
-------
If you put HTML tags in Gopher documents linking to gopher and http URLs, a web browser would make them into links, right?
So why on earth can't a Gopher document have links?
-------
Never was the saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words" more true than on the Internet. Although it often gets in the ten to hundred thousand range :-)
-------
like, huh? I'm confused - I would have maybe marked that as funny, but not interesting or insightful (the two marks it has at the time of this writing). Are you actually serious? do you actually care if your name is around in a thousand years? I'd hope that the race is still around and that quality of life has improved (or at least not worsened), but I don't care about putting some people with my name into the "competition". I'm not aware of any great purpose in life. Perhaps you are and would like to share? Personally, I'd like to see people with a high degree of intelligence and something to contribute and the ability to be a good parent have children, and everyone else get their tubes tied. Therefore, I of course wish the Torvalds family the best.
-------
up to no good, she is...
-------
1. The netscape browser is for the unwashed masses, who are used to such commercialism. Do expect anything else from AOL? You are welcome to use the mozilla browser, which is better anyway. 2. Netscape has taken the mozilla browser and customized it into their own branded version. You can do something similiar if you like. Neither changes the fact that there's a free, customizable mozilla for everyone. 3. Most of the people who work on mozilla are paid netscape employees anyway, despite their effort to recruit helpers for a large-scale volunteer effort. It just never happened.
-------
Well, I trust that the fact that those people are out yelling and waving signs saying they want Gore means they meant to vote Gore. Have you seen a county by county breakdown of buchanan votes in florida? Take a look over here.
Anyone with any understanding of statistics will have to acknowledge that something is amiss. Now let me be clear - I don't think there should be a revote. That would set a horrible precedent. However, I do think the electors representing florida should be mad aware of this glaring statistical anomaly. Say just 10 of those electors decide to switch their vote because of it. Well, that would give Gore the magic 270.
If you think electors violating party lines is unheard of, you are wrong. It's ben done by electors from several states before, including Florida.
-------
Here in Denver, Colorado, we DO use computerized voting booths. You press the buttons of your choice, which all light up. You complete your vote by presing the "cast vote" button at the bottom. You can check and change any choice you make up until then.
I was surprised to learn that there are many places that use paper.
-------
Legally wrong? This is the way the constitution was written - nowhere does it say that they cannot elect who they want to. This is the reality of the electoral college.
Morally wrong? Well, if you ask me, morality is a relative thing.
Here's the thing: they can tally those ballots in palm beach for Buchanan, but you know and I know that those people intended to vote for Gore. Well guess what - the electors from florida will know that too. The moral thing to do, then, is what the people in your state want. This is generally measured by counting their votes, but in this case we have a situation where we know there was an error. We know that Florida meant to vote for Gore (not taking into consideration, of course, the absentee ballots which slant republican, and haven't yet come in).
So why is it that Florida's electors would be legally or morally obligated to vote Bush? This kind of last-minute human disgression in the hands of a few elite, which you call "arrogant", is exactly what the framers of the constitution had in mind. It's the electoral college, and it's the reason Gore hasn't won already.
-------
Did I ever say that bush wouldn't be more able than clinton to get stuff done with congress? um, no, I didn't say that. Clinton, besides facing a congress of the opposite party, has had enough scandal around him that he's lost some clout.
So what's your point?
Anyway, I don't think it's necessarily a good thing when a president and congress are of the same party. Then they'll start imposing their will on everyone else and they'll be much less concerned with what the other party thinks cuz dammit, they have the power...
-------
I apologize, that was below the belt. You were giving me a mental image of an ignorant right-winger.
All I'm trying to say is that you have your terms a bit confused. As it is traditionally used in presidential politics, the word "mandate" translates roughly to "message from the american electorate that they are behind the president and that he represents the voice of the people". It is not the expression of his ability to work with congress, but a factor that contributes to his overall influence - his clout. If you win by a landslide, you can announce to congress, "look how many people voted for me. I represent them, so when I speak to you, that's the voice of the people." That's a mandate. If you get 30% of the vote, but win because there were three other candidates that got under 25, congress doesn't really have to respect you as much.
That's all - just a confusion of terms.
-------