Quick question: how many people here work or have worked for Microsoft? What about Google?
How many here actually have a snowball's chance in hell to work for either of these companies?
Why does Slashdot care so much about the goings-on of the elitist clique of software developers fostered by both companies? Is there any chance this will actually effect any of us, or is this simply the Slashdot equivalent of reading People magazine?
"the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath."
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
This is not about Dick Cheney the private citizen, but Dick Cheney in his capacity as Vice President of the United States.
"Every president for the last few decades has used carriers to send messages to other countries, and saying that no options are off the table is application of diplomatic pressure. He never said that if Iran doesn't stop, the US will flatten it."
First off, does the potential existence of prior examples make the act right?
Secondly, why shouldn't this be something discussed in Congress in the impeachment proceedings?
"and it's unlikely that misdirection of the sort listed would come under a "high Crime" or "Misdemeanor,""
18 USC 1038: False information and hoaxes. Additionally, violating one's oath of office in itself appears to be illegal in Wyoming, or at least is mentioned as a reason for arrest in the state constitution.
"or else every person subject to impeachment could probably be pulled from office for making a political statement that someone on the opposing party doesn't like."
Those lower officers who are so despised are generally "asked to resign" by their president long before things get that far (e. g. Alberto Gonzales). And why should a lack of past impeachments by itself be used to justify not impeaching now?
"a) it's unlikely to garner enough House votes to continue even if it does get past committee, and b) it's essentially impossible for it to get a conviction in the Senate."
That depends on how popular the impeachment seems with the voters back home. Remember that Bush's approval ratings are currently lower than Nixon's.
"Give everyone guns. Educate them about their use."
Here in the United States, practically everyone has a car, and somewhere over 99% of those have obtained a license ostensibly proving that they've been educated in their use. And yet the road is still full of people acting like idiots and jeopardizing both their own lives as well as those around them (case in point).
Do you really want to give those people guns?
"Next time some idiot points his AK-47 at a crowd"
He'll be guaranteed to have access to a firearm in your fantasy, resulting in more deaths than may have occurred otherwise. Your fantasy is only a net benefit if there is already unrestricted access to firearms, if the potential shooter is guaranteed access to a weapon.
"In fact, would you try to rob a gas station or convinience store if you knew the clerk was armed and, probably, most of the people shopping in there?"
You're equating "Has a firearm" with "Is willing to get involved in a gunfight." Even in the instances where a gun was lawfully used in self defense, how often does the other person also have a gun?
Besides, if you're going to rob a store with a gun, your is (obviously) already drawn, meaning that the store clerk (or whoever else has a gun on them) is at a disadvantage, having to first draw and aim their weapon before you get off a shot. And there's nothing like a sudden, fast movement to get the attention of a nervous, jittery robber.
"Its one thing to watch a baseball game when you don't know whats going to happen next, but to watch one where you know the outcome... 2 years after the fact just blows my mind"
You know... Ensign Redshirt's going to bite it, Scotty will violate the laws of physics even after exclaiming that he can't, Bones will once again impatiently explain that he's a doctor rather than some other profession, Spock will play the comic straight man, and Kirk is gonna put it in the alien chick.
Why do you watch shows that are decades old, especially when you already know what's going to happen?
"If there were games for the PS3 that could do that, there'd be more reason to buy a PSP."
Except you've got it backwards: there are more PSPs in the wild than PS3s, and Sony would be more interested to pin the PS3 onto the (relative) success of the PSP because of it. For example, note that you can only access the PlayStation Store to buy games through the PS3, in spite of several of the games being playable on the PSP and the PSP's ability to access the internet without an intervening PS3.
"Remember, in approval polls, local representatives are scoring quite high while congress overall and the president are scoring very very low."
I'm curious, do you have any links to these polls that show "love my congresscritter, hate everybody else's" results? Like I noted elsewhere, the current approval rate of Congress as a whole can't get much lower before that becomes mathematically impossible.
"I'm seeing this constantly since the republican->democrat power shift"
But not in the previous six years, where President Bush didn't know what the word "veto" meant. The poisoning you complain of obviously didn't happen because the Democrats lacked the ability, but the budgetary bloat from earmarks were more than apparent to voters in 2002 and 2004 (with the ultimate effect of the spending during the Bush administration being compared to that of Lyndon B. Johnson's), yet they happily went along with it and even amplified it.
"plenty of great bipartisan efforts gain steam and then get whittled down to below veto override level,"
Food for thought: If the incumbency rate for the House resembled that of the Senate, the Democrats would have a veto-proof majority in the House.
"reign in the President, even at a time when damn near the entire Congress wants to do so;"
Whether it really is everyone or if it is still a decidedly partisan matter, the Mukasey confirmation should say.
Nearly a century after the Progressive movement appeared in the United States, most (if not all) state constitutions (under which elections are governed, directly or indirectly) are amendable by referendum, relatively independent of the partisan politics in the state legislature. If those that do vote in elections (elections that include these amendment proposals) weren't sufficiently happy with the way the elections were conducted, it would have changed by now.
As it stands now, when alternative voting methods are proposed, only those that feel they have something to gain by it will favor it, and the majority in power will oppose it (e. g. favored by Republicans only in blue states, Democrats only in red states). Changes to how elections are conducted only happen when the issue becomes one of principle, beyond potential selfish gain for particular groups.
"That doesn't exclude races with only a weak and/or underfunded candidate."
Would you be satisfied if I went back and only looked at votes cast for either the Republican or Democrat candidate? Do you believe there is a substantial difference in the percentage of poorly-funded House candidates and the number of such Senate candidates? Don't forget Senators like Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy had "challengers" in 2006.
"I also don't understand the basis of concluding that any state that elects a new Senator "obviously" wants to get rid of its incumbent House members as well."
The members of Congress who personally did something objectionable (e. g. ties to Abramoff, Foley, etc.) went the "spend time with my family" route rather than actually run for re-election. With no specific reasons to oust an incumbent, that leaves only more general reasons for voters to want to remove them, such as general dissatisfaction with the Republican party (no Democrat incumbents lost) or with Congress in general. The same party dominated both houses of Congress, and in the previous six years (full Senate term) there were no notable differences of opinion between the two chambers. There are some duties that the Senate performs that the House has no involvement in, such as judicial and executive nominees, but in the past six years, controversial nominees either dropped out before a vote (e. g. Miers) or became so only well after assuming office (e. g. Gonzales). Besides, the general theme of change also extended to state governments as well, seeing (relatively) large changes in the make up of executive and legislative offices.
I see no compelling reason to believe that, in the minds of voters, there was a discernible difference between performance of the House and the Senate. There may be local politics in play here and there that might convince voters to ditch their particular Senator but hold on to their particular Representative, but it's highly unlikely that this 92% consistency is mere coincidence.
"Again... I don't understand what mathematical relationship you're expecting to see. If it was 51% and it was evenly distributed, it would result in a 100% victory."
Note the "evenly distributed" requirement. If the electorate were homogeneous, any arbitrary arrangement of district lines would produce the same results, and those results would be substantially similar to the results of statewide elections (as each randomly-drawn district would have the same political divisions as the state as a whole). But you yourself noted that this is not so, with marked differences in political affiliations based on numerous factors including geography, population density, race and so on. The more disparate the electorate is, the less likely an arbitrary districting scheme will produce such a high incumbency rate (e. g. some such random districts would include some with a near-even split in party devotion), let alone one so much higher than the statewide rate.
"By this statement, I assume (...) Do you see the problem with assuming a linear relationship?"
I didn't assume a linear relationship, rather I expected the differential to be lower, not higher (or zero, for that matter). If the political makeup of the average House district was substantially similar to the state as a whole, a relatively small shift should not result in such a large shift towards one of the extremes. Rather, with the incumbency percentages being closer to 100% than the vote percentages, the difference in the two incumbency rates should be smaller than the difference between the two vote rates.
"If 75% are not voting, my vote means that much more."
"More" needs a differential. It can't be "more than the last election," because turn-outs have been this low for decades. "More than a potential maximum" doesn't mean much when that maximum hasn't been approached since... maybe the Wilson administration? If there are 75% voters less than the last election cycle, then you might have something.
And since 60% of the voters of the district will vote for the district's majority party's candidate in the general election, regardless of how or if you vote, whether or not that multiplier of yours applies, 4 times 0 is still 0.
"Compare it to stockholders and proxy voting, although that process has been formalized but has the same requirement that *you must vote* or other people get to vote for you."
Proxy voters are specifically designated, not mandatory. And you are assuming that those who don't vote abstain because they are happy with the results, but repeated surveys show that the opposite is true: they don't vote because they feel it wouldn't mean anything.
"Why don't you nominate a candidate and get him on the ballot? You say you participate. How much is it worth to you? By the sound of it, not very much."
I don't need anecdotal evidence, I've already looked at the election results and done the math. In districted elections, challenged incumbents "just happen" to win ~95% of the time, with a consistent average of ~60% of the vote, with the balance of the minority voting for the other major party's candidate. In such instances, it's not the general election that matters, it's the party primary (and as I pointed out with another one of the links in my original post, plurality voting has a long, recorded history of resulting in two-party dominance).
I'll assume you're not going to try to argue with math and history and are suggesting that I should try to participate in the primary process instead of the general election. To that, I will say that I will not sacrifice my personal principles just to be on the winning side.
"Then it's no wonder you're marginalized."
Apparently you missed the link in my original post: THE FUCKING MATH! You're not going to convert me unless your rhetoric can account for it.
"You claim to participate but your words paint a very defeatist attitude and advocate not participating."
I never said "don't participate," I am asserting "participation does not matter as it will not effect the outcome." Going through the motions may give you some sense of personal satisfaction, and if that's the case, by all means vote. But don't expect the act to matter to the process or the candidates. In order to advocate against participating, I'd have to believe that participation affects the outcome to begin with.
"When you boil down your argument, the only person that benefits is you, which is again contradictory to what you write."
There are no external benefits. If your personal views coincidentally align with those of the local majority party, your desires will be catered to 90% of the time by your legislator. If your views differ with the party, the same guy will still get elected, and you will only be satisfied by 10% of your legislator's actions. This is wholly independent of whether you personally choose to vote, let alone the legislator's margin of victory in the general election. I am aware of no legislator at the state or federal level whose voting record of party loyalty has changed to reflect his or her margin of victory.
"Your contradictions and stated defeatism *will* keep you from being taken seriously."
Then what is your explanation for the vast majority of the enfranchised feeling so disaffected by the entire process to stay home year after year? Where an election with a turn-out of 36% resulting in 5% of seats changing parties can be called a "sweeping Democratic vic
"The simple solution to this, though hard to achieve, is independents in each state need to unite and compel their states to allow independents to have their own primary."
Louisiana and (I believe) Texas practice run-off elections, with an "open primary" in November with all candidates of all parties as well as independents appearing on the ballot, followed by a run-off between the top-two candidates in December (unless someone got a majority in the first round). This has had no noticeable effect on the incumbency rate or the dominance of the two major parties.
"It seems pretty obvious. The parties go all-out to make sure they have a strong competitor for every senate seat. It is simply not possible with every House seat."
If most House members did not run against a "viable" candidate, then they'd have a disproportionately higher percentage of the vote compared to statewide elections. Since you couldn't be bothered to look at my links, I'll repeat the numbers here:
House: Challenged incumbents got 64% of the vote on average, and won 93% of the time Senate: Challenged incumbents got 58% of the vote on average, and won 79% of the time.
I only looked at the elections where the incumbent had a competitor whose name appeared on the ballot. I specifically excluded single-candidate elections as well as those where the only competitors were write-ins. 6% fewer votes "just happen" to result in 14% fewer wins, from the same voters? Even when I looked only at the contested House incumbents in states where the Senate incumbent lost (i. e. they obviously wanted change), challenged House incumbents got 63% of the vote on average, winning 92% of the time.
"Sure, there are A FEW districts that will only vote for one party or another."
"A few?" I haven't put it in my journal yet, but I looked at Michigan's state legislature elections from 2006 (average-sized state, parties swapped majorities in the legislature in 2006, considered a toss-up in 2004, no major news of voting problems). Aside from re-electing their federal Senator and 13 out of 14 federal Representatives...
House: 81 contested incumbents, 64% of the voters kept 78 (96%) in office Senate: 29 contested incumbents, 62% of the voters kept 28 (97%) in office
So victory margins of 20% keeping ~100% in office is just "a few?" Statistical outliers?
Speaking of statistical outliers, let me tell you about the federal Representative that lost: he lost the party primary, he was forced to run as a write-in (funny how state law requires independents to register before the party primaries even though the ballots obviously don't get printed until afterwards). He got a whopping 1.07% of the vote. He was the only challenged incumbent out of the 367 who lost the primary but still managed to run in some manner (many states are less forgiving than Michigan, denying those who lose a primary from being involved in the general election). As you can see from the Wikipedia article, he was involved in no major scandal, he simply wasn't pro-life enough for some PACs in the primary. The next-biggest loser (who won his primary) got 39% of the vote in his district.
"Gerrymandering may be able to occasionally gain one party or another an advantage in some district, but depending on the scenario, and which party is in charge, it is just as likely to decrease as increase the incumbency rate."
6% fewer voters, 14% fewer victories. Only substantial difference is that House races are gerrymandered while Senate races are statewide. If it were "just as likely to decrease as increase the incumbency rate," why is the difference more than doubled?
Also, you're forgetting that we live in a two-party system: carve out a few districts strongly in favor of one party, and the leftovers will be strongly in favor of the other.
"When the politicians scan the registry, they'll see my name and not yours."
The only party that matters is the party that has the majority in your district. The districts have been chosen in such a way as to marginalize voters in the minority party as well as those with no party affiliation. This has been going on for centuries, long enough to have a name: "gerrymandering."
"Who will be taken more seriously by the elected when it comes to having viewpoints considered?"
Neither. They got to where they are by the machinations of the beloved party, and they consistently vote straight party lines in the legislatures. If you have meaningful data to back up your assertions and counter my hard data, I'd dearly love to hear it.
"Perhaps sitting silently with no representation is the form of democracy that you prefer. I prefer to participate."
With the exception of those offices not subject to districting, the only way to cast your vote for a winning candidate is to change your principles to align with those of the district's majority party. The candidates choose their voters, not the other way around.
And, for the record, I do "participate," and I have "participated" far more than you. I simply recognize the near futility of my actions.
"I don't think that one necessarily follows from the other. It shouldn't be surprising that most the time people will vote for the same person in election N that they voted for in election N-1."
Then explain why the incumbency rate for statewide office is 15%-20% lower than districted elections, in the same election, polling the same voters.
"It is a problem with the government, but it shouldn't take a revolution to fix. If the way we count votes is broken, we can change it from plurality voting to something that actually would work"
Collect a few thousand signatures to get a constitutional amendment proposition in your state's next election. Then find a way to convince several million eligible voters who tend not to vote to vote in favor of your proposition, because the people who do already vote will be against it (as they have a vested interest in the status quo and have nothing to gain). Find a way to get their attention the middle of the media clusterfuck that is campaign advertising season.
Then explain to me how the effort involved in your success differs meaningfully from that required for an actual revolution.
"If people would follow a simple rule, "Vote the ins, out," it would change things immensely."
The vast majority of elections in this country consist of two candidates. After that come the ones with only one candidate. The number of elections where third parties have the ability to get their candidates on the ballot is smaller even than that. The result of your philosophy is to replace the Replublocrat with a Demican.
Even if there are more than two candidates on the ballot, if the "vote the bastard out" people distribute their votes randomly among the non-incumbents, the party faithful from the two major parties will still ensure that one or the other will be the one with the plurality.
"You can always vote him out next election."
Many (if not most) ballots feature the same two names as last year's. You would simply be voting in the bastard you voted out last time.
"The longer a person is in the legislature the more harm he/she can do."
You assume that legislators act individually, rather than voting along strict party lines, which they do 90% of the time. Term limits have done nothing to change the political makeup of the legislatures, and the party in power is more important than the names of the people the party whips command.
No, it doesn't. The winner is chosen by who has a plurality of the ballots cast. The only way your vote would be "worth 4 votes" is if the election turn-out dropped 75%
"Assuming you're registered, my voice had 4 times the clout because people like you didn't bother voting."
And your voice will be a part of the (average) 40% of voters who didn't vote for the local incumbent/local majority party/whatever. Who you vote for doesn't mater when the party faithful have been carefully corralled into unsurmountable majorities, producing some of the most lopsided election results this side of Kazakhstan.
And then the winner of the election will show his devotion to the people who got him elected, specifically the political party that allowed him to be the sole possible winner in these shake-and-bake elections, and will abide by the calls of his party's whip to vote with the Beloved Party 90% of the time.
The numbers don't lie. Look at the election returns of your district. Check out the neighboring districts. Look around for some non-partisan groups that keep track of such things and check out the winner's party loyalty in their legislative history. If you don't vote for your district's majority party's candidate, whether you voted or stayed home, your "voice" will only be catered to 10% of the time, if you're lucky.
This isn't rhetoric, this is documented fact.
"See? You hate me now."
I wouldn't call it "hate" per se, but whatever it is, it's not for the reasons you think. You've accepted the lie that you actually make a difference hook, line and sinker, and therefore you're part of the inertia that has to be overcome before meaningful election reform can be put in place. You perpetuate this farce by participating and giving it an air of legitimacy.
The only solution is election reform, and that requires momentum. The 30% of the people that can be bothered to vote feel the system works just fine for them (and they're right) and will resist changing it. The other 70% have decades of experience on the futility of trying to participate in the system (and they're right) and will resist bothering to go to the polls. Any initiative to get the disaffected majority to participate in pushing election reform will have to get through all the chaff created by all the other noxious political ads in yards, mailboxes, radios and televisions that normal people have learned to tune out.
"I'm so sick of people repeatedly voting in incumbents, then whining about how things never change, and they're just all so corrupt."
Incumbents don't lose. 93% of House elections (and something like 96% of state legislative elections) were decided shortly after the 2000 census. Voting doesn't matter, with the possible exception of the party primaries (since the parties function as kingmakers).
Even if you did live in a state that allowed write-in candidates and you filed the necessary paperwork (and paid the necessary fees) to be counted as a write-in candidate, we still have a plurality voting system. If every person who normally didn't vote went in next year to vote for themselves, the results would not be different.
"but don't whine that you'd just be *wasting a vote*"
"Whine?" It's essentially a mathetmatical certainty. Rhetoric doesn't trump political science demonstrated by centuries of practical examples.
"Our government allowing them to do so through shady practices is a problem with the GOVERNMENT!"
Yeah, OK, go start the revolution, then. We'll be right behind you.
"Although he has a point, we humans love to compare and if you don't give us any metric by which to do that, then we don't feel like anything has been achieved."
The movie reviewers solved this problem a long time ago. That's why most adopted a simpler rating system in which a 4-star movie didn't imply 'perfection' but supreme excellence. In most cases, games are penalized through being divided by a sum that they can never possibly reach.
I didn't even have to go to TFA for that, grabbed it right from the/. submission right at the top there.
I think you're missing the point. Parent seems to be talking about the upgrade from Windows 2000 (Professional) to Windows XP. Not upgrading server platforms, not going from 98, but simply going from 2kPro to XPPro.
"It's just the ESRB's opinion, and they cannot make law. Those ratings were designed to placate moralists."
They're not going to be placated if they just slap ratings on the game but sell them to minors anyway. And for that reason (at least) I'm disappointed that the Best Buy part of the suit isn't going forward.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick question: how many people here work or have worked for Microsoft? What about Google?
How many here actually have a snowball's chance in hell to work for either of these companies?
Why does Slashdot care so much about the goings-on of the elitist clique of software developers fostered by both companies? Is there any chance this will actually effect any of us, or is this simply the Slashdot equivalent of reading People magazine?
It sounds more like the "see-through" cockpit of the YF-19 in Macross Plus.
"Distributors will need to deliver targeted, interactive advertising for a range of multimedia devices."
Dancing aliens for everyone!
"Every president for the last few decades has used carriers to send messages to other countries, and saying that no options are off the table is application of diplomatic pressure. He never said that if Iran doesn't stop, the US will flatten it."
First off, does the potential existence of prior examples make the act right?
Secondly, why shouldn't this be something discussed in Congress in the impeachment proceedings?
"and it's unlikely that misdirection of the sort listed would come under a "high Crime" or "Misdemeanor,""
18 USC 1038: False information and hoaxes. Additionally, violating one's oath of office in itself appears to be illegal in Wyoming, or at least is mentioned as a reason for arrest in the state constitution.
"or else every person subject to impeachment could probably be pulled from office for making a political statement that someone on the opposing party doesn't like."
Those lower officers who are so despised are generally "asked to resign" by their president long before things get that far (e. g. Alberto Gonzales). And why should a lack of past impeachments by itself be used to justify not impeaching now?
"a) it's unlikely to garner enough House votes to continue even if it does get past committee, and b) it's essentially impossible for it to get a conviction in the Senate."
That depends on how popular the impeachment seems with the voters back home. Remember that Bush's approval ratings are currently lower than Nixon's.
"Give everyone guns. Educate them about their use."
Here in the United States, practically everyone has a car, and somewhere over 99% of those have obtained a license ostensibly proving that they've been educated in their use. And yet the road is still full of people acting like idiots and jeopardizing both their own lives as well as those around them (case in point).
Do you really want to give those people guns?
"Next time some idiot points his AK-47 at a crowd"
He'll be guaranteed to have access to a firearm in your fantasy, resulting in more deaths than may have occurred otherwise. Your fantasy is only a net benefit if there is already unrestricted access to firearms, if the potential shooter is guaranteed access to a weapon.
"In fact, would you try to rob a gas station or convinience store if you knew the clerk was armed and, probably, most of the people shopping in there?"
You're equating "Has a firearm" with "Is willing to get involved in a gunfight." Even in the instances where a gun was lawfully used in self defense, how often does the other person also have a gun?
Besides, if you're going to rob a store with a gun, your is (obviously) already drawn, meaning that the store clerk (or whoever else has a gun on them) is at a disadvantage, having to first draw and aim their weapon before you get off a shot. And there's nothing like a sudden, fast movement to get the attention of a nervous, jittery robber.
"Its one thing to watch a baseball game when you don't know whats going to happen next, but to watch one where you know the outcome... 2 years after the fact just blows my mind"
You know... Ensign Redshirt's going to bite it, Scotty will violate the laws of physics even after exclaiming that he can't, Bones will once again impatiently explain that he's a doctor rather than some other profession, Spock will play the comic straight man, and Kirk is gonna put it in the alien chick.
Why do you watch shows that are decades old, especially when you already know what's going to happen?
"If there were games for the PS3 that could do that, there'd be more reason to buy a PSP."
Except you've got it backwards: there are more PSPs in the wild than PS3s, and Sony would be more interested to pin the PS3 onto the (relative) success of the PSP because of it. For example, note that you can only access the PlayStation Store to buy games through the PS3, in spite of several of the games being playable on the PSP and the PSP's ability to access the internet without an intervening PS3.
"And you can't save inside it. Well, you can, but you'll restart at the top when you load that save."
Close the DS.
"Remember, in approval polls, local representatives are scoring quite high while congress overall and the president are scoring very very low."
I'm curious, do you have any links to these polls that show "love my congresscritter, hate everybody else's" results? Like I noted elsewhere, the current approval rate of Congress as a whole can't get much lower before that becomes mathematically impossible.
"I'm seeing this constantly since the republican->democrat power shift"
But not in the previous six years, where President Bush didn't know what the word "veto" meant. The poisoning you complain of obviously didn't happen because the Democrats lacked the ability, but the budgetary bloat from earmarks were more than apparent to voters in 2002 and 2004 (with the ultimate effect of the spending during the Bush administration being compared to that of Lyndon B. Johnson's), yet they happily went along with it and even amplified it.
"plenty of great bipartisan efforts gain steam and then get whittled down to below veto override level,"
Food for thought: If the incumbency rate for the House resembled that of the Senate, the Democrats would have a veto-proof majority in the House.
"reign in the President, even at a time when damn near the entire Congress wants to do so;"
Whether it really is everyone or if it is still a decidedly partisan matter, the Mukasey confirmation should say.
"I do? When did I come to this conclusion?"
Nearly a century after the Progressive movement appeared in the United States, most (if not all) state constitutions (under which elections are governed, directly or indirectly) are amendable by referendum, relatively independent of the partisan politics in the state legislature. If those that do vote in elections (elections that include these amendment proposals) weren't sufficiently happy with the way the elections were conducted, it would have changed by now.
As it stands now, when alternative voting methods are proposed, only those that feel they have something to gain by it will favor it, and the majority in power will oppose it (e. g. favored by Republicans only in blue states, Democrats only in red states). Changes to how elections are conducted only happen when the issue becomes one of principle, beyond potential selfish gain for particular groups.
"That doesn't exclude races with only a weak and/or underfunded candidate."
Would you be satisfied if I went back and only looked at votes cast for either the Republican or Democrat candidate? Do you believe there is a substantial difference in the percentage of poorly-funded House candidates and the number of such Senate candidates? Don't forget Senators like Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy had "challengers" in 2006.
"I also don't understand the basis of concluding that any state that elects a new Senator "obviously" wants to get rid of its incumbent House members as well."
The members of Congress who personally did something objectionable (e. g. ties to Abramoff, Foley, etc.) went the "spend time with my family" route rather than actually run for re-election. With no specific reasons to oust an incumbent, that leaves only more general reasons for voters to want to remove them, such as general dissatisfaction with the Republican party (no Democrat incumbents lost) or with Congress in general. The same party dominated both houses of Congress, and in the previous six years (full Senate term) there were no notable differences of opinion between the two chambers. There are some duties that the Senate performs that the House has no involvement in, such as judicial and executive nominees, but in the past six years, controversial nominees either dropped out before a vote (e. g. Miers) or became so only well after assuming office (e. g. Gonzales). Besides, the general theme of change also extended to state governments as well, seeing (relatively) large changes in the make up of executive and legislative offices.
I see no compelling reason to believe that, in the minds of voters, there was a discernible difference between performance of the House and the Senate. There may be local politics in play here and there that might convince voters to ditch their particular Senator but hold on to their particular Representative, but it's highly unlikely that this 92% consistency is mere coincidence.
"Again... I don't understand what mathematical relationship you're expecting to see. If it was 51% and it was evenly distributed, it would result in a 100% victory."
Note the "evenly distributed" requirement. If the electorate were homogeneous, any arbitrary arrangement of district lines would produce the same results, and those results would be substantially similar to the results of statewide elections (as each randomly-drawn district would have the same political divisions as the state as a whole). But you yourself noted that this is not so, with marked differences in political affiliations based on numerous factors including geography, population density, race and so on. The more disparate the electorate is, the less likely an arbitrary districting scheme will produce such a high incumbency rate (e. g. some such random districts would include some with a near-even split in party devotion), let alone one so much higher than the statewide rate.
"By this statement, I assume (...) Do you see the problem with assuming a linear relationship?"
I didn't assume a linear relationship, rather I expected the differential to be lower, not higher (or zero, for that matter). If the political makeup of the average House district was substantially similar to the state as a whole, a relatively small shift should not result in such a large shift towards one of the extremes. Rather, with the incumbency percentages being closer to 100% than the vote percentages, the difference in the two incumbency rates should be smaller than the difference between the two vote rates.
"If 75% are not voting, my vote means that much more."
"More" needs a differential. It can't be "more than the last election," because turn-outs have been this low for decades. "More than a potential maximum" doesn't mean much when that maximum hasn't been approached since... maybe the Wilson administration? If there are 75% voters less than the last election cycle, then you might have something.
And since 60% of the voters of the district will vote for the district's majority party's candidate in the general election, regardless of how or if you vote, whether or not that multiplier of yours applies, 4 times 0 is still 0.
"Compare it to stockholders and proxy voting, although that process has been formalized but has the same requirement that *you must vote* or other people get to vote for you."
Proxy voters are specifically designated, not mandatory. And you are assuming that those who don't vote abstain because they are happy with the results, but repeated surveys show that the opposite is true: they don't vote because they feel it wouldn't mean anything.
"Why don't you nominate a candidate and get him on the ballot? You say you participate. How much is it worth to you? By the sound of it, not very much."
I don't need anecdotal evidence, I've already looked at the election results and done the math. In districted elections, challenged incumbents "just happen" to win ~95% of the time, with a consistent average of ~60% of the vote, with the balance of the minority voting for the other major party's candidate. In such instances, it's not the general election that matters, it's the party primary (and as I pointed out with another one of the links in my original post, plurality voting has a long, recorded history of resulting in two-party dominance).
I'll assume you're not going to try to argue with math and history and are suggesting that I should try to participate in the primary process instead of the general election. To that, I will say that I will not sacrifice my personal principles just to be on the winning side.
"Then it's no wonder you're marginalized."
Apparently you missed the link in my original post: THE FUCKING MATH! You're not going to convert me unless your rhetoric can account for it.
"You claim to participate but your words paint a very defeatist attitude and advocate not participating."
I never said "don't participate," I am asserting "participation does not matter as it will not effect the outcome." Going through the motions may give you some sense of personal satisfaction, and if that's the case, by all means vote. But don't expect the act to matter to the process or the candidates. In order to advocate against participating, I'd have to believe that participation affects the outcome to begin with.
"When you boil down your argument, the only person that benefits is you, which is again contradictory to what you write."
There are no external benefits. If your personal views coincidentally align with those of the local majority party, your desires will be catered to 90% of the time by your legislator. If your views differ with the party, the same guy will still get elected, and you will only be satisfied by 10% of your legislator's actions. This is wholly independent of whether you personally choose to vote, let alone the legislator's margin of victory in the general election. I am aware of no legislator at the state or federal level whose voting record of party loyalty has changed to reflect his or her margin of victory.
"Your contradictions and stated defeatism *will* keep you from being taken seriously."
Then what is your explanation for the vast majority of the enfranchised feeling so disaffected by the entire process to stay home year after year? Where an election with a turn-out of 36% resulting in 5% of seats changing parties can be called a "sweeping Democratic vic
"The simple solution to this, though hard to achieve, is independents in each state need to unite and compel their states to allow independents to have their own primary."
Louisiana and (I believe) Texas practice run-off elections, with an "open primary" in November with all candidates of all parties as well as independents appearing on the ballot, followed by a run-off between the top-two candidates in December (unless someone got a majority in the first round). This has had no noticeable effect on the incumbency rate or the dominance of the two major parties.
"It seems pretty obvious. The parties go all-out to make sure they have a strong competitor for every senate seat. It is simply not possible with every House seat."
If most House members did not run against a "viable" candidate, then they'd have a disproportionately higher percentage of the vote compared to statewide elections. Since you couldn't be bothered to look at my links, I'll repeat the numbers here:
House: Challenged incumbents got 64% of the vote on average, and won 93% of the time
Senate: Challenged incumbents got 58% of the vote on average, and won 79% of the time.
I only looked at the elections where the incumbent had a competitor whose name appeared on the ballot. I specifically excluded single-candidate elections as well as those where the only competitors were write-ins. 6% fewer votes "just happen" to result in 14% fewer wins, from the same voters? Even when I looked only at the contested House incumbents in states where the Senate incumbent lost (i. e. they obviously wanted change), challenged House incumbents got 63% of the vote on average, winning 92% of the time.
"Sure, there are A FEW districts that will only vote for one party or another."
"A few?" I haven't put it in my journal yet, but I looked at Michigan's state legislature elections from 2006 (average-sized state, parties swapped majorities in the legislature in 2006, considered a toss-up in 2004, no major news of voting problems). Aside from re-electing their federal Senator and 13 out of 14 federal Representatives...
House: 81 contested incumbents, 64% of the voters kept 78 (96%) in office
Senate: 29 contested incumbents, 62% of the voters kept 28 (97%) in office
So victory margins of 20% keeping ~100% in office is just "a few?" Statistical outliers?
Speaking of statistical outliers, let me tell you about the federal Representative that lost: he lost the party primary, he was forced to run as a write-in (funny how state law requires independents to register before the party primaries even though the ballots obviously don't get printed until afterwards). He got a whopping 1.07% of the vote. He was the only challenged incumbent out of the 367 who lost the primary but still managed to run in some manner (many states are less forgiving than Michigan, denying those who lose a primary from being involved in the general election). As you can see from the Wikipedia article, he was involved in no major scandal, he simply wasn't pro-life enough for some PACs in the primary. The next-biggest loser (who won his primary) got 39% of the vote in his district.
"Gerrymandering may be able to occasionally gain one party or another an advantage in some district, but depending on the scenario, and which party is in charge, it is just as likely to decrease as increase the incumbency rate."
6% fewer voters, 14% fewer victories. Only substantial difference is that House races are gerrymandered while Senate races are statewide. If it were "just as likely to decrease as increase the incumbency rate," why is the difference more than doubled?
Also, you're forgetting that we live in a two-party system: carve out a few districts strongly in favor of one party, and the leftovers will be strongly in favor of the other.
"When the politicians scan the registry, they'll see my name and not yours."
The only party that matters is the party that has the majority in your district. The districts have been chosen in such a way as to marginalize voters in the minority party as well as those with no party affiliation. This has been going on for centuries, long enough to have a name: "gerrymandering."
"Who will be taken more seriously by the elected when it comes to having viewpoints considered?"
Neither. They got to where they are by the machinations of the beloved party, and they consistently vote straight party lines in the legislatures. If you have meaningful data to back up your assertions and counter my hard data, I'd dearly love to hear it.
"Perhaps sitting silently with no representation is the form of democracy that you prefer. I prefer to participate."
With the exception of those offices not subject to districting, the only way to cast your vote for a winning candidate is to change your principles to align with those of the district's majority party. The candidates choose their voters, not the other way around.
And, for the record, I do "participate," and I have "participated" far more than you. I simply recognize the near futility of my actions.
"I don't think that one necessarily follows from the other. It shouldn't be surprising that most the time people will vote for the same person in election N that they voted for in election N-1."
Then explain why the incumbency rate for statewide office is 15%-20% lower than districted elections, in the same election, polling the same voters.
"It is a problem with the government, but it shouldn't take a revolution to fix.
If the way we count votes is broken, we can change it from plurality voting to something that actually would work"
Collect a few thousand signatures to get a constitutional amendment proposition in your state's next election. Then find a way to convince several million eligible voters who tend not to vote to vote in favor of your proposition, because the people who do already vote will be against it (as they have a vested interest in the status quo and have nothing to gain). Find a way to get their attention the middle of the media clusterfuck that is campaign advertising season.
Then explain to me how the effort involved in your success differs meaningfully from that required for an actual revolution.
"If people would follow a simple rule, "Vote the ins, out," it would change things immensely."
The vast majority of elections in this country consist of two candidates. After that come the ones with only one candidate. The number of elections where third parties have the ability to get their candidates on the ballot is smaller even than that. The result of your philosophy is to replace the Replublocrat with a Demican.
Even if there are more than two candidates on the ballot, if the "vote the bastard out" people distribute their votes randomly among the non-incumbents, the party faithful from the two major parties will still ensure that one or the other will be the one with the plurality.
"You can always vote him out next election."
Many (if not most) ballots feature the same two names as last year's. You would simply be voting in the bastard you voted out last time.
"The longer a person is in the legislature the more harm he/she can do."
You assume that legislators act individually, rather than voting along strict party lines, which they do 90% of the time. Term limits have done nothing to change the political makeup of the legislatures, and the party in power is more important than the names of the people the party whips command.
"That means my vote was worth 4 votes."
No, it doesn't. The winner is chosen by who has a plurality of the ballots cast. The only way your vote would be "worth 4 votes" is if the election turn-out dropped 75%
"Assuming you're registered, my voice had 4 times the clout because people like you didn't bother voting."
And your voice will be a part of the (average) 40% of voters who didn't vote for the local incumbent/local majority party/whatever. Who you vote for doesn't mater when the party faithful have been carefully corralled into unsurmountable majorities, producing some of the most lopsided election results this side of Kazakhstan.
And then the winner of the election will show his devotion to the people who got him elected, specifically the political party that allowed him to be the sole possible winner in these shake-and-bake elections, and will abide by the calls of his party's whip to vote with the Beloved Party 90% of the time.
The numbers don't lie. Look at the election returns of your district. Check out the neighboring districts. Look around for some non-partisan groups that keep track of such things and check out the winner's party loyalty in their legislative history. If you don't vote for your district's majority party's candidate, whether you voted or stayed home, your "voice" will only be catered to 10% of the time, if you're lucky.
This isn't rhetoric, this is documented fact.
"See? You hate me now."
I wouldn't call it "hate" per se, but whatever it is, it's not for the reasons you think. You've accepted the lie that you actually make a difference hook, line and sinker, and therefore you're part of the inertia that has to be overcome before meaningful election reform can be put in place. You perpetuate this farce by participating and giving it an air of legitimacy.
The only solution is election reform, and that requires momentum. The 30% of the people that can be bothered to vote feel the system works just fine for them (and they're right) and will resist changing it. The other 70% have decades of experience on the futility of trying to participate in the system (and they're right) and will resist bothering to go to the polls. Any initiative to get the disaffected majority to participate in pushing election reform will have to get through all the chaff created by all the other noxious political ads in yards, mailboxes, radios and televisions that normal people have learned to tune out.
Don't hold your breath.
"I'm so sick of people repeatedly voting in incumbents, then whining about how things never change, and they're just all so corrupt."
Incumbents don't lose. 93% of House elections (and something like 96% of state legislative elections) were decided shortly after the 2000 census. Voting doesn't matter, with the possible exception of the party primaries (since the parties function as kingmakers).
"Vote for an independent,"
Also doesn't work.
"write in yourself,"
Even if you did live in a state that allowed write-in candidates and you filed the necessary paperwork (and paid the necessary fees) to be counted as a write-in candidate, we still have a plurality voting system. If every person who normally didn't vote went in next year to vote for themselves, the results would not be different.
"but don't whine that you'd just be *wasting a vote*"
"Whine?" It's essentially a mathetmatical certainty. Rhetoric doesn't trump political science demonstrated by centuries of practical examples.
"Our government allowing them to do so through shady practices is a problem with the GOVERNMENT!"
Yeah, OK, go start the revolution, then. We'll be right behind you.
Your Freudian slip is showing.
I think you're missing the point. Parent seems to be talking about the upgrade from Windows 2000 (Professional) to Windows XP. Not upgrading server platforms, not going from 98, but simply going from 2kPro to XPPro.
Here, allow me to jog your memory.
"It's just the ESRB's opinion, and they cannot make law. Those ratings were designed to placate moralists."
They're not going to be placated if they just slap ratings on the game but sell them to minors anyway. And for that reason (at least) I'm disappointed that the Best Buy part of the suit isn't going forward.