Regulating the color of firearms probably could pass constitutional muster, and it could immediately make it clear that a particular firearm was not legal. I think it would also have a huge impact on sales to the "macho" crowd. I think cops would look cute with pink firearms. And "gang bangers" might just look silly.
Worth a try I say.
No, if only for the reason that bureaucratic & judicial gun control precedent would suggest that simply owning a can of black Krylon spray paint could be a felony under "constructive possession" theory. Yes, it's very kafkaesque.
Here's just one example case. Note that the man was charged for simply having the method by which to violate a rather arbitrary law, and he wasn't selling an illegal gun (it just had the potential to be changed into an illegal configuration).
The ATF also banned, years ago, all semiautomatic rifles that fire from an open bolt by reclassifying them as machineguns. Not because they could fire automatically, but rather because the ATF decided it was "too easy" for someone to hack their rifle to fire multiple rounds.
Logic and reason rarely dictates what the ATF does.
You don't have to buy the new Xbox either, which will be equally restrictive.
Absolutely true. Personally, I got so annoyed with Microsoft's antics and hobbling of my ability to play my games that I legitimately purchased that I gave away my XBox 360, all its hardware, and all my games. I washed my hands of the whole debacle.
Sony is abysmal as well.
The happy days of the PS, PS2, and Xbox are but a distant memory. I just don't want to deal with the frustrating nickel and diming in modern games and the deliberate hamstringing of hardware in order to squeeze the last possible cent from me—that's the antithesis of my definition of "fun".
More power to anyone who doesn't mind these issues, but unless the industry drastically changes course I imagine my days of console gaming are over.
If this is anything like previous petitions, I expect the response to be farmed out to an cell phone carrier exec who will ignore the petition's content and instead talk about how much they are spending on building out their network. Bonus points if they end on a riff about how the DMCA protects consumer rights and why ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA would be great for the American public (if we could only get them passed... contact your congressperson!).
Personally, I think that living beings and the universe form a symbiotic relationship. We can't exist without a universe, equally, a universe without an observer might as well not exist. By this logic, it makes sense that a universe that wants to exist needs to creates observers in addition to itself.
I am a supporter of the concept of the electoral college, as it represents the states as well as the population. Historically, the concept of the electoral college wasn't so much about lack of telegraphs as it was about the mixed representation that the electoral college represents. This is reflected in the legislative branch in that the Senate has equal representation and the House has proportional. And, as everyone knows, that is the breakdown of the electoral college as well (plus 3 more electors for DC).
Your point that no one even knows who their electors are resonates with me. I am not attached to the concept of selecting people to go "vote their conscience" (*cough*) in a subsequent, ceremonial "official" election. I am, however, attached to the mixed representation effects of the electoral college; therefore, I wouldn't really mind if the electoral college electors were replaced by state legislatures/governors sending an official electoral ballot in to be counted in a joint session of Congress (or whatever).
I, too, appreciate the localism of the House districts. I think there may have been a subconscious attachment to this in the US from the start (cf. the antipathy that "virtual representation" evinced). Any system of representative democracy is inherently "flawed" insofar as such a government can never truly mirror the will of the people; however, that "flaw" can also yield benefits provided the elected officials choose to exercise leadership rather than demagoguery.
Gerrymandering is a serious problem—likely a problem that can never have a perfect solution. Any human-based system is subject to bias. An algorithm is subject to parameters, which again, would be controlled by people subject to the temptation to game the system. That doesn't mean I think we should give up combating abuses or trying to reduce inequities, just that there will always be people upset by the outcome of redistricting and there will always be people trying to skew the outcome for their benefit. Furthermore, there is no objective arbiter for these decisions because no faction will trust another to be fair. Even putting the redistricting plan to a popular, statewide vote leads to the population at large becoming responsible for the gerrymandering.
An interesting thought experiment about the ultimate implementation of direct democracy is the Demarchist faction in the Revelation Space universe.
This is possibly banging my head against a brick wall, but it ought to be obvious that I was referring to the system that was proposed, rather than a system that is already operating.
I read your other reply earlier, and I appreciate your civil, interesting responses that contrast strongly with the AC I was conversing with earlier.
In case it wasn't, then let me make it clear I was referring to the proposal that were being kicked around
True, but your original post neglected to mention the Nebraska counterexample and made an unqualified statement. I agree that it may be a rather fine distinction, and I think we have both communicated our point.
If you believe that the fact that these changes, if implemented, have the completely unintentional, but happy, side-effect of nullifying the Democrat vote in states that are increasingly leaning blue, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Yes, it does seem rather self-serving. That's unfortunate, because I actually prefer the proposed system. I am consistent about this: I was pleased when I heard several years ago that Nebraska defeated the Republican attempts to repeal their electoral vote splitting system, even though it benefits the Democrats. I honestly would be in favor of this proposal for *all* states, even if the projected results were in favor of Democrats. Would you be similarly opposed to implementing this if Democrats stood to gain an advantage?
Now, I agree with you that gerrymandering happens (and as your link explained, both parties engage in it). However, I'm more interested in your opinion about the proposal in in the abstract. In some theoretical world where districting were somehow performed in a neutral, "fair" fashion would your objections still stand? As I mentioned earlier, this system is considered fair when choosing the legislative branch, so why is it unfair for the executive branch?
In Nebraska, the Congressional districts are not gerrymandered and this split electoral system *prevents* the disenfranchisement of the urban population at the electoral college level. Your point about Nebraska being insignificant notwithstanding, do you believe Nebraska's system is unfair?
The only time a politician proposes a change in the way people vote is when it advantages them.
True: one person's electoral system "fairness improvement" is another person's disenfranchisement plot. It always tweaks the sense of equitability to change the rules while a "game" is in play. Unfortunately, politics is always in play (hell, today I was reading the 538 blog about the "invisible primaries" for 2016 that are already underway). Therefore, I believe the time for discussing any sort of changes is immediately after an election rather than during the run-up to voting. Consonantly, I can at least appreciate that they are having these discussions now rather than, say, in 2015.
Eliminating gerrymandering entirely is likely to be mathematically impossible (my guess is that this is likely a corollary to Arrow's impossibility theorem), but I would support curbing the most egregious, clear-cut abuses. However, legislating this all the way into the grey area is likely to merely produce a different system to be gamed for unfair advantage.
I also believe it is important to secure the vote. That means eliminating the unauditable electronic voting systems and having some reasonable barriers to voter fraud. For instance, I think it's fairly difficult to argue against election ink.
Finally, while I'm wishing, I prefer alternative balloting systems—these have very little downside, especially when compared to the current system.
I'm not a Republican, not that it should matter for debate purposes. I actually perused your link to the National Popular Vote initiative site before posting my last reply. I avoided engaging in flinging epithets at you in an ad hominem manner (unlike you). I declined to allege that the national popular vote was some kind of Democratic plot in response to your allegation that the electoral college vote splitting concept was some kind of GOP subterfuge—these kinds of allegations instantly devolve the discussion (and let's not start now because that wasn't an official allegation on my part).
So, if you can lower your emotional tenor perhaps we can discuss this rationally. I know we are unlikely to come to an agreement in the end, but at least we can exchange ideas. I do this for the same reason I read the NYT rather than subsisting on something like the Weekly Standard: I have no need to exist in an echo chamber. However, if you can't debate calmly and rationally then the exercise becomes worthless for both of us.
You know, every time I argue with a wingnut, the wingnut idiot tries putting words in to my mouth.
That's "nice". Perhaps people wouldn't need to conjecture about your positions if you actually responded to the questions raised. Remember, "Why does the election of the executive branch "need" to be via direct democracy in order to be "fair", but apparently there is no such need for direct democracy when selecting the legislative branch?"
What claim did he make, and how is it demonstrably false? Be sure to quote Vakuona's exact words and in your reply.
No problem: "Basically, the system rather blatantly takes away Democrat electoral college votes in the states the Dems are winning, while leaving them unchanged in the states that the Republicans are winning."
That has never happened. The opposite, of course, has happened. Therefore the statement, as written in an unqualified fashion, is patently false.
Where exactly was I advocating "winner take all" per state in this thread? I didn't do so in in this post nor in this post.
It seems you may have become enraged by misreading my post. Here's the quote you must be referencing, "Notwithstanding this, your proposed national popular vote does nothing to address the "winner take all" aspect of our voting system." See? No reference to your position on the state-based, "winner takes all" in that quote.
Anyway, back to my quote: nothing I saw on the NPV site suggested anything to the contrary. Namely, as far as I can tell, the NPV initiative would award the election to the candidate with 50% + 1 votes in the standard, plurarity balloting process that is standard in this country. My advocacy about alternative balloting methods (eg. Condorcet or instant runoff) for elections is due to the fact that it allows people to vote their true preference without having to worry about "wasting" their vote. It elegantly eliminates the incentive for tactical voting while undermining the binary party system in our country that is a consequence of Duverger's law. That way you can vote for Nader, with Gore as your second preference, and when Nader is defeated during the ballot counting your vote automatically counts for Gore instead.
Haha, and no, alternative balloting isn't some sort of evil plot.
However, the fact of the matter is that no "red state" has proposed gerrymandering their electoral votes since the 2012 election.
The fact of the matter is that vakuona's claim, as stated, is demonstrably false.
Why shouldn't electors be chosen the same way as Congress: by congressional district for individual electors (like the House) and by overall state winner for the remaining two electors (like the Senate)? Then again, perhaps you believe that the basic system for electing Congress in the US is unfair and perverse.
The most fair way for votes to be counted in a democracy is one person, one vote.
...and you avoided answering my question: you were advocating "winner take all", per state. Now, you're avoiding the question by appealing to a national popular vote.
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. Regardless, I believe in a democratic federal republic that has representation based on both state population *and* the states themselves. This is reflected in Congress, and I believe it is fair when applied to state elector selection as well. If the presidential election needs to be based on a national popular vote in order to be "fair", then why not all the members of Congress too? Maybe that's what you believe, but you would be in a definite minority.
More directly: why does the election of the executive branch "need" to be via direct democracy in order to be "fair", but apparently there is no such need for direct democracy when selecting the legislative branch?
Notwithstanding this, your proposed national popular vote does nothing to address the "winner take all" aspect of our voting system that causes the stable equilibrium to be a binary party system (cf. Duverger's law). The ideal solution is to switch to Condorcet voting, but even the flawed instant runoff voting method is better than the present situation. However, it is unlikely that the voting system will ever be changed because both national parties have a vested interest in locking out candidates from any other party.
I keep promising myself I won't post to Slashdot, but someone has to say something so inaccurate it really needs a correction.
Sorry, but the poster I was responding to was incorrect. The claim was that this approach only hurts Democrats and is neutral for Republicans; it is an incontrovertible fact that this system in Nebraska has benefited Democrats at the expense of Republicans. Predictably, after this happened in 2008 the Republicans wanted to go back to the "winner takes all" system. Fortunately, the Republicans failed in their attempt and the split electoral system remains in place.
In terms of fairness, this approach starts to move our election system away from the "first past the post" outcomes by allowing state votes to be split. No state elects their US House of Representatives Congressional delegation via a statewide "winner takes all" system, and effectively no one is complaining that it is unfair that each district gets to choose their own representative. Why shouldn't electors be chosen the same way as Congress: by congressional district for individual electors (like the House) and by overall state winner for the remaining two electors (like the Senate)? Then again, perhaps you believe that the basic system for electing Congress in the US is unfair and perverse.
Either way, I hope you are intellectually honest enough to hold the same opinion no matter which party is likely to prevail in the current election and not have your advocacy shift whenever it seems that your preferred party would benefit.
Are you sure that the person you vote for will vote for a president who has the same ideas?
Yes. "Libertarian Gary Johnson’s Bold and Consistent Stand on Gay Marriage" (and the firearms/weapons rights issue we can take for granted). It's amusing that the Libertarian candidate has a stronger endorsement of gay rights than the Democratic candidate (ostensibly being the party everyone thinks of as pro-gay rights).
Does the party you vote for give you that option?
Yes. It's their raison d'etre. It would be a breach of the basic ideology of the party to do otherwise.
Does that party have any chance of ever being part of a government?
Not unless we change our voting system or one of the two major parties collapses. It's a consequence of Duverger's law.
In Europe there are people from the Pirate Party who have a seat in governments. There are people from all over the place representing the people.
I applaud that. Fortunately, you don't have to deal with the inevitable consequence of our first past the post voting system. In that case, the Pirate Party would be almost completely locked out of government until they absorbed a sizable portion of a now-defunct major party. That would inevitably dilute the ideology of the Pirate Party and probably lead to some ironic legislator votes (eg. compromising on increased copyright enforcement).
Heh, also, I presume there are no "guns, gays, recreational drugs, and limited government" parties anywhere in Europe (and yes, the guns part is required when comparing).
Basically, the system rather blatantly takes away Democrat electoral college votes in the states the Dems are winning, while leaving them unchanged in the states that the Republicans are winning.
Sorry that reality doesn't match your vehement assertions. If you bother to check history, you will find that the electoral college vote for Nebraska District 1 went to Obama in 2008. That split outcome represents one more EC vote than he would have gotten had Nebraska used the standard, "winner takes all" system. It also came reasonably close to happening again in 2012.
Conversely, there are *zero* examples of your alleged outcomes happening; therefore, your hypothesis (as stated) is falsified by observation.
Dehydration is definitely a major contributor to hangover. However, it isn't the entire picture.
The next two major contributing factors to hangover (or other deleterious effects) are:
1) Hyponatremia (which can lead to potomania, whether you are drinking beer or liquor), and
2) Vitamin B deficiency, particularly B1 and B12 (I personally use this, because high doses of water-soluble vitamins doesn't cause any issue). Note Wernicke's encephalopathy.
...so, ensure your drinks have a positive sodium balance for what you're losing, and backstop your vitamin B's.
Applying these two approaches have effectively eliminated any hangover I would have expected to experience (aside from being tired, but that may be attributed to staying up until 3 AM—drinking or not). It has worked well for me for almost two years now.
Also, ensuring you consume adequate protein may help to forestall liver damage; I prefer to err on the side of high-protein intake.
Slashdot Mirror
Regulating the color of firearms probably could pass constitutional muster, and it could immediately make it clear that a particular firearm was not legal. I think it would also have a huge impact on sales to the "macho" crowd. I think cops would look cute with pink firearms. And "gang bangers" might just look silly.
Worth a try I say.
No, if only for the reason that bureaucratic & judicial gun control precedent would suggest that simply owning a can of black Krylon spray paint could be a felony under "constructive possession" theory. Yes, it's very kafkaesque.
Here's just one example case. Note that the man was charged for simply having the method by which to violate a rather arbitrary law, and he wasn't selling an illegal gun (it just had the potential to be changed into an illegal configuration).
The ATF also banned, years ago, all semiautomatic rifles that fire from an open bolt by reclassifying them as machineguns. Not because they could fire automatically, but rather because the ATF decided it was "too easy" for someone to hack their rifle to fire multiple rounds.
Logic and reason rarely dictates what the ATF does.
You don't have to buy the new Xbox either, which will be equally restrictive.
Absolutely true. Personally, I got so annoyed with Microsoft's antics and hobbling of my ability to play my games that I legitimately purchased that I gave away my XBox 360, all its hardware, and all my games. I washed my hands of the whole debacle.
Sony is abysmal as well.
The happy days of the PS, PS2, and Xbox are but a distant memory. I just don't want to deal with the frustrating nickel and diming in modern games and the deliberate hamstringing of hardware in order to squeeze the last possible cent from me—that's the antithesis of my definition of "fun".
More power to anyone who doesn't mind these issues, but unless the industry drastically changes course I imagine my days of console gaming are over.
If this is anything like previous petitions, I expect the response to be farmed out to an cell phone carrier exec who will ignore the petition's content and instead talk about how much they are spending on building out their network. Bonus points if they end on a riff about how the DMCA protects consumer rights and why ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA would be great for the American public (if we could only get them passed... contact your congressperson!).
Personally, I think that living beings and the universe form a symbiotic relationship. We can't exist without a universe, equally, a universe without an observer might as well not exist. By this logic, it makes sense that a universe that wants to exist needs to creates observers in addition to itself.
FYI: this is commonly referred to as the strong anthropic principle
I am a supporter of the concept of the electoral college, as it represents the states as well as the population. Historically, the concept of the electoral college wasn't so much about lack of telegraphs as it was about the mixed representation that the electoral college represents. This is reflected in the legislative branch in that the Senate has equal representation and the House has proportional. And, as everyone knows, that is the breakdown of the electoral college as well (plus 3 more electors for DC).
Your point that no one even knows who their electors are resonates with me. I am not attached to the concept of selecting people to go "vote their conscience" (*cough*) in a subsequent, ceremonial "official" election. I am, however, attached to the mixed representation effects of the electoral college; therefore, I wouldn't really mind if the electoral college electors were replaced by state legislatures/governors sending an official electoral ballot in to be counted in a joint session of Congress (or whatever).
I, too, appreciate the localism of the House districts. I think there may have been a subconscious attachment to this in the US from the start (cf. the antipathy that "virtual representation" evinced). Any system of representative democracy is inherently "flawed" insofar as such a government can never truly mirror the will of the people; however, that "flaw" can also yield benefits provided the elected officials choose to exercise leadership rather than demagoguery.
Gerrymandering is a serious problem—likely a problem that can never have a perfect solution. Any human-based system is subject to bias. An algorithm is subject to parameters, which again, would be controlled by people subject to the temptation to game the system. That doesn't mean I think we should give up combating abuses or trying to reduce inequities, just that there will always be people upset by the outcome of redistricting and there will always be people trying to skew the outcome for their benefit. Furthermore, there is no objective arbiter for these decisions because no faction will trust another to be fair. Even putting the redistricting plan to a popular, statewide vote leads to the population at large becoming responsible for the gerrymandering.
An interesting thought experiment about the ultimate implementation of direct democracy is the Demarchist faction in the Revelation Space universe.
This is possibly banging my head against a brick wall, but it ought to be obvious that I was referring to the system that was proposed, rather than a system that is already operating.
I read your other reply earlier, and I appreciate your civil, interesting responses that contrast strongly with the AC I was conversing with earlier.
In case it wasn't, then let me make it clear I was referring to the proposal that were being kicked around
True, but your original post neglected to mention the Nebraska counterexample and made an unqualified statement. I agree that it may be a rather fine distinction, and I think we have both communicated our point.
If you believe that the fact that these changes, if implemented, have the completely unintentional, but happy, side-effect of nullifying the Democrat vote in states that are increasingly leaning blue, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Yes, it does seem rather self-serving. That's unfortunate, because I actually prefer the proposed system. I am consistent about this: I was pleased when I heard several years ago that Nebraska defeated the Republican attempts to repeal their electoral vote splitting system, even though it benefits the Democrats. I honestly would be in favor of this proposal for *all* states, even if the projected results were in favor of Democrats. Would you be similarly opposed to implementing this if Democrats stood to gain an advantage?
Now, I agree with you that gerrymandering happens (and as your link explained, both parties engage in it). However, I'm more interested in your opinion about the proposal in in the abstract. In some theoretical world where districting were somehow performed in a neutral, "fair" fashion would your objections still stand? As I mentioned earlier, this system is considered fair when choosing the legislative branch, so why is it unfair for the executive branch?
In Nebraska, the Congressional districts are not gerrymandered and this split electoral system *prevents* the disenfranchisement of the urban population at the electoral college level. Your point about Nebraska being insignificant notwithstanding, do you believe Nebraska's system is unfair?
The only time a politician proposes a change in the way people vote is when it advantages them.
True: one person's electoral system "fairness improvement" is another person's disenfranchisement plot. It always tweaks the sense of equitability to change the rules while a "game" is in play. Unfortunately, politics is always in play (hell, today I was reading the 538 blog about the "invisible primaries" for 2016 that are already underway). Therefore, I believe the time for discussing any sort of changes is immediately after an election rather than during the run-up to voting. Consonantly, I can at least appreciate that they are having these discussions now rather than, say, in 2015.
Eliminating gerrymandering entirely is likely to be mathematically impossible (my guess is that this is likely a corollary to Arrow's impossibility theorem), but I would support curbing the most egregious, clear-cut abuses. However, legislating this all the way into the grey area is likely to merely produce a different system to be gamed for unfair advantage.
I also believe it is important to secure the vote. That means eliminating the unauditable electronic voting systems and having some reasonable barriers to voter fraud. For instance, I think it's fairly difficult to argue against election ink.
Finally, while I'm wishing, I prefer alternative balloting systems—these have very little downside, especially when compared to the current system.
You need to calm down.
I'm not a Republican, not that it should matter for debate purposes. I actually perused your link to the National Popular Vote initiative site before posting my last reply. I avoided engaging in flinging epithets at you in an ad hominem manner (unlike you). I declined to allege that the national popular vote was some kind of Democratic plot in response to your allegation that the electoral college vote splitting concept was some kind of GOP subterfuge—these kinds of allegations instantly devolve the discussion (and let's not start now because that wasn't an official allegation on my part).
So, if you can lower your emotional tenor perhaps we can discuss this rationally. I know we are unlikely to come to an agreement in the end, but at least we can exchange ideas. I do this for the same reason I read the NYT rather than subsisting on something like the Weekly Standard: I have no need to exist in an echo chamber. However, if you can't debate calmly and rationally then the exercise becomes worthless for both of us.
You know, every time I argue with a wingnut, the wingnut idiot tries putting words in to my mouth.
That's "nice". Perhaps people wouldn't need to conjecture about your positions if you actually responded to the questions raised. Remember, "Why does the election of the executive branch "need" to be via direct democracy in order to be "fair", but apparently there is no such need for direct democracy when selecting the legislative branch?"
What claim did he make, and how is it demonstrably false? Be sure to quote Vakuona's exact words and in your reply.
No problem: "Basically, the system rather blatantly takes away Democrat electoral college votes in the states the Dems are winning, while leaving them unchanged in the states that the Republicans are winning."
That has never happened. The opposite, of course, has happened. Therefore the statement, as written in an unqualified fashion, is patently false.
Where exactly was I advocating "winner take all" per state in this thread? I didn't do so in in this post nor in this post.
It seems you may have become enraged by misreading my post. Here's the quote you must be referencing, "Notwithstanding this, your proposed national popular vote does nothing to address the "winner take all" aspect of our voting system." See? No reference to your position on the state-based, "winner takes all" in that quote.
Anyway, back to my quote: nothing I saw on the NPV site suggested anything to the contrary. Namely, as far as I can tell, the NPV initiative would award the election to the candidate with 50% + 1 votes in the standard, plurarity balloting process that is standard in this country. My advocacy about alternative balloting methods (eg. Condorcet or instant runoff) for elections is due to the fact that it allows people to vote their true preference without having to worry about "wasting" their vote. It elegantly eliminates the incentive for tactical voting while undermining the binary party system in our country that is a consequence of Duverger's law. That way you can vote for Nader, with Gore as your second preference, and when Nader is defeated during the ballot counting your vote automatically counts for Gore instead.
Haha, and no, alternative balloting isn't some sort of evil plot.
However, the fact of the matter is that no "red state" has proposed gerrymandering their electoral votes since the 2012 election.
The fact of the matter is that vakuona's claim, as stated, is demonstrably false.
Why shouldn't electors be chosen the same way as Congress: by congressional district for individual electors (like the House) and by overall state winner for the remaining two electors (like the Senate)? Then again, perhaps you believe that the basic system for electing Congress in the US is unfair and perverse.
The most fair way for votes to be counted in a democracy is one person, one vote.
...and you avoided answering my question: you were advocating "winner take all", per state. Now, you're avoiding the question by appealing to a national popular vote.
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. Regardless, I believe in a democratic federal republic that has representation based on both state population *and* the states themselves. This is reflected in Congress, and I believe it is fair when applied to state elector selection as well. If the presidential election needs to be based on a national popular vote in order to be "fair", then why not all the members of Congress too? Maybe that's what you believe, but you would be in a definite minority.
More directly: why does the election of the executive branch "need" to be via direct democracy in order to be "fair", but apparently there is no such need for direct democracy when selecting the legislative branch?
Notwithstanding this, your proposed national popular vote does nothing to address the "winner take all" aspect of our voting system that causes the stable equilibrium to be a binary party system (cf. Duverger's law). The ideal solution is to switch to Condorcet voting, but even the flawed instant runoff voting method is better than the present situation. However, it is unlikely that the voting system will ever be changed because both national parties have a vested interest in locking out candidates from any other party.
I keep promising myself I won't post to Slashdot, but someone has to say something so inaccurate it really needs a correction.
Sorry, but the poster I was responding to was incorrect. The claim was that this approach only hurts Democrats and is neutral for Republicans; it is an incontrovertible fact that this system in Nebraska has benefited Democrats at the expense of Republicans. Predictably, after this happened in 2008 the Republicans wanted to go back to the "winner takes all" system. Fortunately, the Republicans failed in their attempt and the split electoral system remains in place.
In terms of fairness, this approach starts to move our election system away from the "first past the post" outcomes by allowing state votes to be split. No state elects their US House of Representatives Congressional delegation via a statewide "winner takes all" system, and effectively no one is complaining that it is unfair that each district gets to choose their own representative. Why shouldn't electors be chosen the same way as Congress: by congressional district for individual electors (like the House) and by overall state winner for the remaining two electors (like the Senate)? Then again, perhaps you believe that the basic system for electing Congress in the US is unfair and perverse.
Either way, I hope you are intellectually honest enough to hold the same opinion no matter which party is likely to prevail in the current election and not have your advocacy shift whenever it seems that your preferred party would benefit.
How do you vote if you are pro gun and pro gay rights?
Libertarian, obviously: "Americans Moving in a Libertarian Direction: More Back Gun Rights, Gay Marriage"
Are you sure that the person you vote for will vote for a president who has the same ideas?
Yes. "Libertarian Gary Johnson’s Bold and Consistent Stand on Gay Marriage" (and the firearms/weapons rights issue we can take for granted). It's amusing that the Libertarian candidate has a stronger endorsement of gay rights than the Democratic candidate (ostensibly being the party everyone thinks of as pro-gay rights).
Does the party you vote for give you that option?
Yes. It's their raison d'etre. It would be a breach of the basic ideology of the party to do otherwise.
Does that party have any chance of ever being part of a government?
Not unless we change our voting system or one of the two major parties collapses. It's a consequence of Duverger's law.
In Europe there are people from the Pirate Party who have a seat in governments. There are people from all over the place representing the people.
I applaud that. Fortunately, you don't have to deal with the inevitable consequence of our first past the post voting system. In that case, the Pirate Party would be almost completely locked out of government until they absorbed a sizable portion of a now-defunct major party. That would inevitably dilute the ideology of the Pirate Party and probably lead to some ironic legislator votes (eg. compromising on increased copyright enforcement).
Heh, also, I presume there are no "guns, gays, recreational drugs, and limited government" parties anywhere in Europe (and yes, the guns part is required when comparing).
...with a spice weasel.
Basically, the system rather blatantly takes away Democrat electoral college votes in the states the Dems are winning, while leaving them unchanged in the states that the Republicans are winning.
Sorry that reality doesn't match your vehement assertions. If you bother to check history, you will find that the electoral college vote for Nebraska District 1 went to Obama in 2008. That split outcome represents one more EC vote than he would have gotten had Nebraska used the standard, "winner takes all" system. It also came reasonably close to happening again in 2012.
Conversely, there are *zero* examples of your alleged outcomes happening; therefore, your hypothesis (as stated) is falsified by observation.
Dehydration is definitely a major contributor to hangover. However, it isn't the entire picture. The next two major contributing factors to hangover (or other deleterious effects) are:
...so, ensure your drinks have a positive sodium balance for what you're losing, and backstop your vitamin B's.
1) Hyponatremia (which can lead to potomania, whether you are drinking beer or liquor), and
2) Vitamin B deficiency, particularly B1 and B12 (I personally use this, because high doses of water-soluble vitamins doesn't cause any issue). Note Wernicke's encephalopathy.
Applying these two approaches have effectively eliminated any hangover I would have expected to experience (aside from being tired, but that may be attributed to staying up until 3 AM—drinking or not). It has worked well for me for almost two years now.
Also, ensuring you consume adequate protein may help to forestall liver damage; I prefer to err on the side of high-protein intake.