Being encumbered with the legal status of the official ISOs and artwork is not 100% free. It's like saying that the governments of thw world are 100% free because some distributions of it are free.
I didn't see any international observers at my polling place. As I mentioned in another post, I and others were disenfranchised when they removed Nader from the ballot in my county(county not country).
From your observer report: Although the election law
requires secret voting, polling station procedures can compromise the secrecy of the
ballot and open voting is common; these shortcomings should be addressed by the
authorities.
Ahem!
Also: Because of the short duration of the Assessment Mission and its small size, it was not
able to assess in detail all aspects of the electoral process. Likewise, a few brief visits
to polling stations were not a sufficient basis upon which to draw firm conclusions in
regard to the Election Day process of voting throughout the country.
More opportunities for things to go wrong per country. Let's say that an error happens 1 per 1000 polling places per election. If the amount of polling places is proportional, then the US will have the greatest number of hits. Furthermore a major election occurs every 4 years.
This wikipedia article isn't much help in determining how often the Spanish Prime Minister is elected, perhaps you can fix that?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Spa in
More to the point, not detecting election problems is not the same as no problems. I haven't heard anything on the validity of European elections, so by your logic there must not be any.
1. I accept a certain translation of the bible as truth.
2. I accept a literal read of Genesis where the word conventially translated "day" is properly translated "era"
The only difference is that one requires facts and one requires faith.
So in other words, no difference at all, really. http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html
The sole criteria of creationism is "intelligent design". It is completely possible to define that in a way that scientific scrutiny can be applied.
Build and turn on a jammer. Everyone else will go buy phones on a different frequency. Then the frequency will be free for you to use your network with.
America has survived as a democratic republic for more than two centuries >
Relevant question: Would America have been able to remain a demorcratic republic for more than two centuries if that change hadn't been made.
"The majority does not rule." Strictly speaking, that is true. A few sentences further, Anonymous Coward agrees with me saying, "True, the popular majority doesn't rule, " Whether or not the result agrees with what would happen in a majority rule situation does not take into account the psycological effects of not actually possessing rule, which is a contributing factor to the decision to not vote.
Under direct elections, at least the plurality would rule, which it does not under the Electoral College system.
I have yet to see it demonstrated that the Electoral College strengthens the Presidency. Furthermore, it does not transform a popular plurality into a popular majority.
I have yet to see it demonstrated that Direct popular election would also vastly increase corruption or compromise of the electoral system over the current system
I do not see how Coloradans would be foolish to back a measure that would diminish their state's influence of the election of the president by taking most of its electoral votes out of play when that influence does not swing their way.
Abolishing the "Benefits some states" arguement
States are made up of people.
People's interests are best protected when the people's will is reflected
The electoral college mutes this will.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody said there was anything wring with it, just that it makes OpenBSD conceptually less than 100% free.
Maybe not2 .shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/afgh-o1
And I'm a disenfranchised Nader voter from Lorain Ohio.
Being encumbered with the legal status of the official ISOs and artwork is not 100% free. It's like saying that the governments of thw world are 100% free because some distributions of it are free.
I didn't see any international observers at my polling place. As I mentioned in another post, I and others were disenfranchised when they removed Nader from the ballot in my county(county not country).
From your observer report: Although the election law requires secret voting, polling station procedures can compromise the secrecy of the ballot and open voting is common; these shortcomings should be addressed by the authorities.
Ahem!
Also: Because of the short duration of the Assessment Mission and its small size, it was not able to assess in detail all aspects of the electoral process. Likewise, a few brief visits to polling stations were not a sufficient basis upon which to draw firm conclusions in regard to the Election Day process of voting throughout the country.
More opportunities for things to go wrong per country. Let's say that an error happens 1 per 1000 polling places per election. If the amount of polling places is proportional, then the US will have the greatest number of hits. Furthermore a major election occurs every 4 years. This wikipedia article isn't much help in determining how often the Spanish Prime Minister is elected, perhaps you can fix that?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Spa in
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lorain+na der Alreadty there are disenfranchised voters. I pushed out hte chad next to the "removed candidate" option...wonder what they're going to do about it?
More to the point, not detecting election problems is not the same as no problems. I haven't heard anything on the validity of European elections, so by your logic there must not be any.
Please look up the population of the U.S. and the population of your country and report the results back to us... Thanks!
1. I accept a certain translation of the bible as truth.
2. I accept a literal read of Genesis where the word conventially translated "day" is properly translated "era"
The only difference is that one requires facts and one requires faith.
So in other words, no difference at all, really.
http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html
The sole criteria of creationism is "intelligent design". It is completely possible to define that in a way that scientific scrutiny can be applied.
I'm not sure where that's from...
Here try this:
Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could...
1. Your point is? 2. And that makes it a bad idea how?
long, extraordinary, well translated speeches about the nature of humanity?
I don't put money in my paypal account. All the money I use paypal with comes stright out of the bank.
Build and turn on a jammer. Everyone else will go buy phones on a different frequency. Then the frequency will be free for you to use your network with.
I had streetlights turn off on me recently when I was on my bike. Anybody got an explanation for this?
It wants feet.
The point to this would be to encourage microsoft to stop banning mods because it would become futile.
So plug the results of a RNG into the key and you're bound to get some of them, and create a huge database headache for Microsoft.
Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, and The Easter Bunny, not to mention the sun rising and setting.
How does that change anything? No matter where they're located, they still deal with the same market situation
Why not?
one could successively mod one's X-box to look like the entire X-Box population, getting it completely banned.
America has survived as a democratic republic for more than two centuries > Relevant question: Would America have been able to remain a demorcratic republic for more than two centuries if that change hadn't been made.
"The majority does not rule." Strictly speaking, that is true. A few sentences further, Anonymous Coward agrees with me saying, "True, the popular majority doesn't rule, " Whether or not the result agrees with what would happen in a majority rule situation does not take into account the psycological effects of not actually possessing rule, which is a contributing factor to the decision to not vote.
Under direct elections, at least the plurality would rule, which it does not under the Electoral College system.
I have yet to see it demonstrated that the Electoral College strengthens the Presidency. Furthermore, it does not transform a popular plurality into a popular majority.
I have yet to see it demonstrated that Direct popular election would also vastly increase corruption or compromise of the electoral system over the current system
I do not see how Coloradans would be foolish to back a measure that would diminish their state's influence of the election of the president by taking most of its electoral votes out of play when that influence does not swing their way.
Abolishing the "Benefits some states" arguement
States are made up of people. People's interests are best protected when the people's will is reflected The electoral college mutes this will.