No kidding. Hamas is a terrorist group and Israel's occupation of the west bank is illegal (more Israelis than you might think agree with that as well). But why does one imply the other?
A corporation is not an entity? I think you're on your own there. Is it less of an entity than a political party, softball team, boy scout troup, or other group of people organized for a specific purpose?
You were the one claiming that a corporation is a psychopathic person, now it's not even an entity?
I very much doubt corporations would act this appaulingly if the managment and uper echelons could face prison time for these offenses (like a normal legal person).
But if the corporation is a normal legal person, why would only a few managers in the corporation face prison time? We never send part of a person to prison. A corporation cannot be held to the standards of a person because it simply is not one, and no one is really claiming that it is. That is my point, the fact that in certain circumstances we consider a corporation to be a "person" is not that important because we all know it is not a person.
If a corporation were a person it would be a psychopath? Fine. If my computer were a person it would be autistic. What's the point? They aren't people.
since corporations are described as legal people , they could be classified as psychopathic.
Corporations can't digest milk, why don't you also classify them as lactose intolerant.
IANAL but it seems to me that considering corporations to be legal people in some circumstances might be a useful conceit, but using that to mean they are actual people is retarded.
My problem with a federal direct election for president or prime minister is that, without setting the proportional weight for states/provinces beforehand, the incentive for fraud is huge. And not just fraud, voter turnout differences among the states/provinces also change their respective weights. If Canada had a direct election for prime minister, and quebec made voting mandatory under penalty of jail, but no other province did, quebec's influence over the election might be double what it would be if it were limited to their proportion of canada's overall population. Israel actually tried directly electing prime ministers, but it was a mess. They went back to the normal parliamentary system quickly.
The US is not alone in not having a direct election for its head of Government. Britain and Canada do not, their prime ministers are elected by parliaments. Well, technically they're appointed by the queen, but that's another story. No parliamentary democracy directly elects their head of state or head of government.
France does directly elect their president. Although if Le Pen comes in second again, perhaps that will change to add a geographical distribution requirement, like we have with the Electoral College.
By far the most common argument against the EC is that someonce can win the popular vote but lose the election. But this is true in any situation where a legislature is chosen by district, and they in turn elect a head of government. It could happen in Britain, Canada or any other country with a district based parliament. I believe that fixing the proportial weights of districts (or states or provinces) before the election is very important, and this is a worthwhile trade-off.
I'm glad you're consistent in your criticisms of the Senate and the electoral college. You're one of the good ones. But practically, the electoral college can be scrapped or modified pretty easily with an amendment, but the senate cannot by scrapped by amendment. The constitution requires that no state lose its equal representation in the senate without its consent, and that this rule can't be changed by amendment.
I'm for sticking with what we've got. It's pretty good, and we won't know what the unintended consequences of a change are until it's too late. The direct election of senators (17th amendment) must have seemed like a good idea, but without state governments having a veto over federal judges or laws, the result has been the end of federalism. There is no longer a built in check on federal power over the states.
If I HAD to change the electoral college, here's what i would do:
1) The term "electors" would refer to electoral votes for a presidential candidate, not actual people who meet for 1 day to elect the president. The state governments would send to congress a report of who each of their electoral votes are cast for.
2) D.C. would be allowed to have more electoral votes than a state. Right now they are assigned the amount of electors they would have if they were a state, BUT no more than those of the least populous state. If Whyoming wants more electors than DC, they can start screwing more.
3) Assign each state electoral votes equal to the number of representatives they have, not representatives + senators.
4) Require that states choose electoral votes the way they choose representatives. So if states have congressional districts (they all do), then each congressional district gets to vote to assign their electoral vote. Like Maine does, without the extra two votes.
I agree with your last point - the US Senate and electoral college were created as a compromise so that the constitution could exist, not because it's the fairest system (a lesson i was taught in school).
I never said the Senate is a good model or "fair". I agree that it is more unfair than the electoral college. But you didn't suggest scrapping the senate, just the electoral college. Why is the same flawed model worth scrapping in once case but not the other?
The Canadian example is not on point. Canadians are divided into districts and each district elects 1 member of parliament. No matter how badly a province or district botches its election, it cannot change its proportional weight in parliament. Each province chooses parliamentarians the way way Maine chooses its presidential electors. They do not have a national election for one person - which would allow provinces/states to distort their weight.
And their head of state is chosen in the following way:
"Let the oldest son of the guy in power take over when that guy dies."
Except they also allow girls - the current one is Elizabeth II.
How do you eliminate the electoral college? Right now, each state conducts it's own elections, and if they screw it up, they can only screw up their own electoral votes.
Either this is replaced with an enormous federal system that duplicates the state systems (there will still be state elections) or we continue to let each state conduct it's own election and report it's popular vote total to Washington.
However, if the national popular vote determines the winner, but state governments are conducting the elections, states can skew their weight much more than the electoral college does now. What would we do on election day if the Deleware election officals reported that the state had 300 million votes for Kerry, and 200 million for Bush? Now your vote REALLY doesn't count (unless you live in Deleware.
Also, if you are for abolishing the Electoral College, shouldn't you also be for abolishing (or reforming) the Senate? Every criticism of the EC applies to the senate, only more so. The Senate gives voters in small states disproportionate power (and how, population isn't even a factor).
The leadership of the senate is chosen by the senators, just as the president is chosen by the electoral college. And the popular vote isn't even an afterthought when it comes to chosing the senate's leaders (including all committee chairmen). The Senate "popular vote" in this case means per party sums of all the senate races. If senators were anonymous but the leaders they elected were famous, the electoral college parallels would be clearer.
A minority of people, in the right states, can elect a senate minority that has veto power over the appointment of all federal judges and all federal offices of any importance, including all military officers. But my Senator Clinton, who favors abolishing the electoral college system, does not seem to mind this!
Quote
"If the legal issues in Florida have not been resolved
by Dec. 18, a judge could conceivably grant an order
restraining Gov. Jeb Bush, George W. Bush's
younger brother, from issuing what is known as a
Certificate of Ascertainment, identifying which
slate of electors won on Nov. 7 - Republican or
Democrat. Without that certificate, no Florida
electors could vote in the electoral college ballot
which is to take place that day. As things now
stand, that would mean Mr. Gore would win.
The 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides
that a president is elected by "a majority of the
whole number of electors appointed" - not an
absolute majority of the 538 who are named in
normal circumstances."
End Quote
If there isn't a decisive winner, I think the ONLY fair thing to do, and this may rise to the level of a decision by the Supreme
Court, would be to throw out the ENTIRE 25 electoral votes in Florida as if they had gone to a different candidate. Because
neither man received a majority of the electoral votes(270), the Constitution says it is up to the newly elected House of
Representatives to select the President. It seems the only way to ensure the rule of law is obeyed.
This is wrong. If Florida doesn't choose electors, 270 isn't needed for a a majority. 270 is a majority of 538 electoral votes. But if Florida doesn't participate, there are only 513 electors and thus only 257 are needed for a majority. (Gore wins).
Consider the senate. There are 100 senators, but if only 90 of them vote, then one side needs 46, not 51, votes to win.
The election only goes to the House if no candidate receives a majority of votes cast.
I am 20 years old, so this was actually my first election.
So you skipped the 1998 election? Isn't Congress as important as the President? The entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate was up for election in 1998, as well as many state offices. And you probably had at least some local elections in '99: School boards, etc. School boards decide what children read! That's pretty important.
If you're going to vote, do it every year.
So? How is that different from how we elect congressmen? If the majority of people in your district disagree with you, you're vote is just as "meaningless."
If you are against the electoral college because electors are elected by districts instead of at-large, you should be against the House of Representatives and the Senate, for the same reason. Why use a parliamentary system for electing the Electoral College and not for the Congress? Electing by district is a choice we've made across the board, not just for the presidency.
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding. Hamas is a terrorist group and Israel's occupation of the west bank is illegal (more Israelis than you might think agree with that as well). But why does one imply the other?
A corporation is not an entity? I think you're on your own there. Is it less of an entity than a political party, softball team, boy scout troup, or other group of people organized for a specific purpose?
You were the one claiming that a corporation is a psychopathic person, now it's not even an entity?
I very much doubt corporations would act this appaulingly if the managment and uper echelons could face prison time for these offenses (like a normal legal person).
But if the corporation is a normal legal person, why would only a few managers in the corporation face prison time? We never send part of a person to prison. A corporation cannot be held to the standards of a person because it simply is not one, and no one is really claiming that it is. That is my point, the fact that in certain circumstances we consider a corporation to be a "person" is not that important because we all know it is not a person.
If a corporation were a person it would be a psychopath? Fine. If my computer were a person it would be autistic. What's the point? They aren't people.
since corporations are described as legal people , they could be classified as psychopathic.
Corporations can't digest milk, why don't you also classify them as lactose intolerant.
IANAL but it seems to me that considering corporations to be legal people in some circumstances might be a useful conceit, but using that to mean they are actual people is retarded.
How else would they know to show me ads for Linux servers?
They'd be happy to pay you. You realize where their money comes from right?
My problem with a federal direct election for president or prime minister is that, without setting the proportional weight for states/provinces beforehand, the incentive for fraud is huge. And not just fraud, voter turnout differences among the states/provinces also change their respective weights. If Canada had a direct election for prime minister, and quebec made voting mandatory under penalty of jail, but no other province did, quebec's influence over the election might be double what it would be if it were limited to their proportion of canada's overall population. Israel actually tried directly electing prime ministers, but it was a mess. They went back to the normal parliamentary system quickly.
The US is not alone in not having a direct election for its head of Government. Britain and Canada do not, their prime ministers are elected by parliaments. Well, technically they're appointed by the queen, but that's another story. No parliamentary democracy directly elects their head of state or head of government.
France does directly elect their president. Although if Le Pen comes in second again, perhaps that will change to add a geographical distribution requirement, like we have with the Electoral College.
By far the most common argument against the EC is that someonce can win the popular vote but lose the election. But this is true in any situation where a legislature is chosen by district, and they in turn elect a head of government. It could happen in Britain, Canada or any other country with a district based parliament. I believe that fixing the proportial weights of districts (or states or provinces) before the election is very important, and this is a worthwhile trade-off.
I'm glad you're consistent in your criticisms of the Senate and the electoral college. You're one of the good ones. But practically, the electoral college can be scrapped or modified pretty easily with an amendment, but the senate cannot by scrapped by amendment. The constitution requires that no state lose its equal representation in the senate without its consent, and that this rule can't be changed by amendment.
I'm for sticking with what we've got. It's pretty good, and we won't know what the unintended consequences of a change are until it's too late. The direct election of senators (17th amendment) must have seemed like a good idea, but without state governments having a veto over federal judges or laws, the result has been the end of federalism. There is no longer a built in check on federal power over the states.
If I HAD to change the electoral college, here's what i would do:
1) The term "electors" would refer to electoral votes for a presidential candidate, not actual people who meet for 1 day to elect the president. The state governments would send to congress a report of who each of their electoral votes are cast for.
2) D.C. would be allowed to have more electoral votes than a state. Right now they are assigned the amount of electors they would have if they were a state, BUT no more than those of the least populous state. If Whyoming wants more electors than DC, they can start screwing more.
3) Assign each state electoral votes equal to the number of representatives they have, not representatives + senators.
4) Require that states choose electoral votes the way they choose representatives. So if states have congressional districts (they all do), then each congressional district gets to vote to assign their electoral vote. Like Maine does, without the extra two votes.
I agree with your last point - the US Senate and electoral college were created as a compromise so that the constitution could exist, not because it's the fairest system (a lesson i was taught in school).
I never said the Senate is a good model or "fair". I agree that it is more unfair than the electoral college. But you didn't suggest scrapping the senate, just the electoral college. Why is the same flawed model worth scrapping in once case but not the other?
The Canadian example is not on point. Canadians are divided into districts and each district elects 1 member of parliament. No matter how badly a province or district botches its election, it cannot change its proportional weight in parliament. Each province chooses parliamentarians the way way Maine chooses its presidential electors. They do not have a national election for one person - which would allow provinces/states to distort their weight.
And their head of state is chosen in the following way:
"Let the oldest son of the guy in power take over when that guy dies."
Except they also allow girls - the current one is Elizabeth II.
How do you eliminate the electoral college? Right now, each state conducts it's own elections, and if they screw it up, they can only screw up their own electoral votes.
Either this is replaced with an enormous federal system that duplicates the state systems (there will still be state elections) or we continue to let each state conduct it's own election and report it's popular vote total to Washington.
However, if the national popular vote determines the winner, but state governments are conducting the elections, states can skew their weight much more than the electoral college does now. What would we do on election day if the Deleware election officals reported that the state had 300 million votes for Kerry, and 200 million for Bush? Now your vote REALLY doesn't count (unless you live in Deleware.
Also, if you are for abolishing the Electoral College, shouldn't you also be for abolishing (or reforming) the Senate? Every criticism of the EC applies to the senate, only more so. The Senate gives voters in small states disproportionate power (and how, population isn't even a factor).
The leadership of the senate is chosen by the senators, just as the president is chosen by the electoral college. And the popular vote isn't even an afterthought when it comes to chosing the senate's leaders (including all committee chairmen). The Senate "popular vote" in this case means per party sums of all the senate races. If senators were anonymous but the leaders they elected were famous, the electoral college parallels would be clearer.
A minority of people, in the right states, can elect a senate minority that has veto power over the appointment of all federal judges and all federal offices of any importance, including all military officers. But my Senator Clinton, who favors abolishing the electoral college system, does not seem to mind this!
What hypocrites, arresting people planning to blow up the united states?
How dare the U.S. fight a war against people fighting a war against the U.S.? After all, doesn't the U.S. fight wars too?
Quote "If the legal issues in Florida have not been resolved by Dec. 18, a judge could conceivably grant an order restraining Gov. Jeb Bush, George W. Bush's younger brother, from issuing what is known as a Certificate of Ascertainment, identifying which slate of electors won on Nov. 7 - Republican or Democrat. Without that certificate, no Florida electors could vote in the electoral college ballot which is to take place that day. As things now stand, that would mean Mr. Gore would win.
The 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides that a president is elected by "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed" - not an absolute majority of the 538 who are named in normal circumstances." End Quote
This is wrong. If Florida doesn't choose electors, 270 isn't needed for a a majority. 270 is a majority of 538 electoral votes. But if Florida doesn't participate, there are only 513 electors and thus only 257 are needed for a majority. (Gore wins).
Consider the senate. There are 100 senators, but if only 90 of them vote, then one side needs 46, not 51, votes to win.
The election only goes to the House if no candidate receives a majority of votes cast.
So you skipped the 1998 election? Isn't Congress as important as the President? The entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate was up for election in 1998, as well as many state offices. And you probably had at least some local elections in '99: School boards, etc. School boards decide what children read! That's pretty important. If you're going to vote, do it every year.
So? How is that different from how we elect congressmen? If the majority of people in your district disagree with you, you're vote is just as "meaningless." If you are against the electoral college because electors are elected by districts instead of at-large, you should be against the House of Representatives and the Senate, for the same reason. Why use a parliamentary system for electing the Electoral College and not for the Congress? Electing by district is a choice we've made across the board, not just for the presidency.