Folks, they never put seatbelts into cars until the likes of Ralph Nader proved that safety sells.
No. Auto manufacturers offered seat belts as an extra long before Nader came along - people didn't want them.
After Nader came along, the government MANDATED seatbelts.
It wasn't a case of "safety sells", it was a case of "you get seatbelts whether you want them or not".
Note that many States have had to make seatbelt use mandatory in order to get people to use them. Which doesn't suggest that "safety sells" very well. Especially since people STILL don't use seatbelts, in spite of them being free (you don't pay extra for them anymore), and mandatory (you can be fined for not using them, if you get caught)....
On that same day 44000 children died in Africa of hunger.
Wherever did you find this figure? It translates to 16 million per year, if it represents an average day.
And Africa's TOTAL deathrate (14.6 deaths per 1000 population, 680 million population in 2004) is less than 10 million per year. That's all age groups, all causes.
Read Asimov,s Caves of Steel. There they have just a few MASSIVE cities with most of the land free of people.
Perhaps you should read Caves of Steel again. A few MASSIVE cities, yes.
"most of the land free of people"? Well, technically, yes, but it was cleared of people to make room for farmland. Pretty much every arable acre was under cultivation to feed the population in those MASSIVE cities.
What is most interesting is that the massively populated world described in "Caves of Steel" was only slightly more than our current world population (8 billion in CoS, 6 billion and change now). In fact, the MASSIVE city in the story was smaller than modern Tokyo. Actually, it was smaller than any of the dozen largest cities in the world today, and less than half the size of Tokyo....
I wish people would stop trying to redefine terms to suit their political agenda. Please look up 'mercenary' in just about any dictionary. It is defined as someone hired to work for a foreign military.
Well, that's certainly ONE of the definitions. Usually the second (and therefore less important) definition. The first is usually some form of "A mercenary is a soldier who fights for money, regardless of ideological, national or political considerations".
Now, relatively few soldiers are in it for the money (noone pays soldiers all that well, really), but there ARE Americans who are serving in our Army for the money (and are, therefore, by definition, mercenaries (in the service of their own country)....
safeguard designed to prevent such things as what happened in Germany in the late thirties.
What happened in Germany in the late 30's that the Electors would have saved us from?
If you mean Hitler, that was the early 30's. He also wasn't elected Chancellor by the German people, in spite of popular rumour to that effect. He was chosen to be Chancellor by President Hindenburg.
Also I'm not shure what you meant by reducing the odds of rendering the electors irrelevant,
It's like this - no absolute majority of the Electors does NOT mean the Electors vote again - it means the Congress in Joint Session picks the President. So, three serious candidates would mean the Congress picks the President.
At best it serves s a mechanism to re-inforce the near duoppoly of the current parties.
Actually, it doesn't do that very well - a Third Party candidate, with just the right regional support, could conceivably become President with only 16% of the vote. (That would require getting 34% of the vote in States that add up to a bare majority of Electors). In a proportional allocation of Electors, that Third Party guy would need 34% of the vote to win.
What reinforces the Duopoly is that the two major Parties are basically left-center and right-center. Third Parties must be extreme-left or extreme-right to pull voters away from the two centrist Parties. And there aren't enough votes in either extreme (or both together, for that matter) to get someone elected President.
In order for the existing duopoly to go away, you'll need a Third Party that is centrist enough to attract a lot of votes, and extreme enough to pull voters from the current Parties, and a crisis that the current Parties aren't handling well.
Which translates mostly to really tough times in America and the world as a whole (to generate the crisis and loss of confidence required).
Once again you need to compare Alaska to Lapland not Finland it's part of the whole not the whole.
Alright. If we exclude Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau (Alaska's three "cities" - collectively they have less population than New Orleans, which isn't a large city by any measure), then Alaska has a population density of about 0.2 people per square kilometer. That's from 300K people spread over more than 1,500,000 Km^2.
Lapland has a population of 188,212, as of 2002. It has a land area just a bit under 100,000 Km^2. For a population density of 2 people per Km^2.
About ten times Alaska's rural population. Actually, if you include Alaska's urban population, then Alaska's population density is about 0.4 people per Km^2, which is about 1/5 Lapland's population.
Now, Montana, including urban population, has a higher population density than Lapland - 1.5 per Km^2. Excluding urban Montana, we drop to about the same population density as Lapland.
Note that we can come up with places that make Lapland look positively metropolitan, and other places that make all of Finland look like a rural backwater (LS-SD corridor, for instance).
Now why do you accept that you need a new phone when moving from Sprint to Version?
Of course, we don't in the USA. My Alltel phone works just fine over here where Verizon is the cell phone provider. My current plan allows me to use my phone pretty much anywhere in CONUS without even having to pay roaming charges. Fact is, I didn't even have to change providers (or phone numbers) when I came over here. Any more than I did when I went to New York, or Detroit, or anywhere else I've been in the last five years.
Texas has twice the land area of Finland, and four times the population.
Montana has a similar land area and 1/5 the population.
Alaska four times the area, and 1/8 the population.
California has similar land area, and six times the population.
Alaska isn't our least populated state, but it's close. Note that population density is about 1/32 of Finland's.
California is our most populated state, but Rhode Island (for instance) has twice the population density.
Point is that the USA is a lot more comparable to Europe in its diversity than to Finland. And I'm including the former Soviet Union in my definition of Europe. When Europe gets cell phone coverage from the Ural Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean, I'll start worrying about the USA falling behind.
Until then, the fact that a small country has universal cell access doesn't really mean all that much....
AFAIK the Democrat-education correlation is stronger than the Republican-economic correlation.
well, no. From the CNN exit polls:
Vote for Bush by Income:
Under $15K - 36%
$15K-$30K - 42%
$30K-$50K - 49%
$50K-$75K - 56%
$75K-$100K - 55%
$100K-$150K - 57%
$150K-$200K - 58%
Over $200K- 63%
Vote for Bush by education:
No High School - 49%
High School Diploma - 52%
Some College - 54%
College Graduate - 52%
Postgrad Study - 44%
Note that Kerry wins at both ends of the Education spectrum - both postgrads and highschool dropouts favoured him (though it was a statistical deadheat at the low end, really).
On the other hand, Bush seems to be clearly less popular among lower-income brackets.
And I should point out that it was KARL ROVE there pointing that out.
What I distrust is the winner take all format adopted by 48 of the 50 states.
And you distrust it why? Because it reduces the chance that the Electors will be rendered irrelevant? Or because it increases the influence of any given State on the process?
Umm, Free Speech is about Freedom, not about Price.
The numbers you cite are very broadly cast, and incorrect (please look up the number of voters in California, as an example).
Of course they were - I guesstimated California's population based on what I remembered of historical trends regarding same, and used it in its entirety, rather than guesstimating number of registered voters. For the pedantic, there were 16,557,273 last general election, out of 22,075,036 eligible voters.
Adjusting my statements for the correct numbers, we can change the "1%of the potential voters" to "3% of the potential voters". Note that 97% of the voters don't get to hear ANYTHING about you, still - since ANYONE mentioning your name comes out of your $300,000.
Of course, you esteemed incumbent opponent need merely create a "Bill to Mandate English as the Only Legal Language" (or Spanish), and get mention in every paper in California.
It's my personal belief that you're sheilding the intent of the constitution for its literal words. I also believe that free speech is protected when the amount that can be said may be, in a very practical way, limited to what one known individual can say, rather than the lies and ruse of political blogging by serupticious organizations. These are scams. Their intent is to demean, and their vehicle to demean is by masquerade. This isn't truth. This isn't free speech.
Yes, actually it is. Free Speech (as in Freedom, not Price - where *have* I heard that phrase before?) is all about everyone saying whatever they'd like. Not about YOU deciding what is legal for them to say. If everyone cansay what they will, the truth will out. If virtually everyone is muzzled, it won't.
Keep in mind that your plan WILL be used against you by and by. If it were passed, and it passed Constitutional muster (it won't, and it won't). Because everyone involved WILL look for ways to take advantage of it to their own best interests. Not YOUR best interests, but their best interests.
The framers of the constitution had no idea that campaign financing would bring in enormous multiples of the salaries paid by elective office.
Likely enough. Of course, the Framers didn't intend the Congress/President to have much real power - they assumed that virtually all government would be done at the State level. You ready to go back to that mode? No EPA, no Education Department, no Social Security, no Medicare or Medicaid, no WIC? No Federal Reserve Bank, no FDIC, no FSLIC?
Two billion dollars is horrendous; Everett Dirksen must be reeling in his grave.
Two billion is horrendous??? It took me half an hour this last year to earn my family's share of the entire four years worth of Presidential campaigning! When measured over a four year election cycle, it's around 1/220th of one percent of our GDP. It's utterly inconsequential, given the power of the Office.
Sure, if all the President could do is sign the odd Treaty now and then, and open a bridge, it might be a bit extreme. But the US government has changed a lot since FDR got hold of it in 1933 (he's the only President who got an Amendment passed to prevent anyone else from doing what he did, you know). Instead, we have on Office that, at least theoretically, has an impact on everyone on the planet. Is an office like that worth $2 billion? It's worth a damn sight more than that, frankly.
And note that the $2 billion wasn't spent by any one candidate, but in aggregate by all of them (and the PAC's, the 527's, everything)....
Why the hell do you (as a political candidate) need to advertise on TV?
Because I have 50 million constituents, and giving each of them 30 seconds of attention would require 50 years? And accomplish no more than would one 30 second commercial.
And if you (as a supporter of a candidate) really support that candidate, why not exercise actual free speech instead of free throwing-money-around? Get out there and tell your neighbors about your candidate. Make up some signs yourself for your neighbors to put on their lawns.
Because if I spend the money for a commercial, I reach all 50 million constituents, instead of the two dozen or so neighbors I might have?
If a candidate has even 1% of their supporters willing to go to bat for them with actual *effort* rather than just writing a check, then the campaign practically runs itself, with actual speech instead of money.
Well, no. Keep in mind that the GF post described a situation where you had a $100,000 limit imposed on ALL campaign expenditures. Including those by people who were your supporters. Technically (and lawyers are technical people), making signs costs money. Assume a dollar per. 100,000 signs on the lawns of 100,000 people, and you reach perhaps 2% of your potential voters. And use up ALL of the legally allowed campaign expenditures.
Yah, that'll build name-recognition for an unknown new candidate. Especially as compared to an incumbent Senator, who can propose a new law, and get his name in every newspaper in the state/country for free.
I should also note that Ralph Nader tried that technique in 2000 & 2004. Hopefully, everyone remembers how well it worked for him....
Free speech doesn't include things like child pornography, or other abuses. Consider that there are forms of political speech and rhetoric can be abuses of free speech as well.
You are now arguing that "Congress shall pass no law..." really SHOULD be rewritten as "Congress shall tightly control all aspects of...". Sorry, I can't buy that.
Perhaps you're not thinking clearly about possible ways to take advantage of sweeping restrictions on freedom of political speech. Let me spell it out for you:
1) No minor party will EVER become a major Party under these rules. Simply because the current major Parties would be in absolute control of the process of handing out "exceptions".
Once either major Party reaches a critical mass (61 Senators, a simple majority of Representatives, plus the President), the other major Party will NEVER win a meaningful election. Again, the ability of the politicians in power to grant "exceptions" would allow for the complete breakdown of the system.
An imposed limit of ~$300,000 for ALL campaign expenditures by ANYONE for a single election means that the candidates have negligible ability to get their message out. NOT an enhanced ability, but a LESSENED ability. How will you tell people what you believe when it takes every dime of your legally mandated budget to finance ONE 30 second spot in ONE major market?
Restrictions of expenditures allows people to come face to face with candidates, personally or virtually
How many people live in California? 50 million or so? How many of them will a candidate for the Senate be able to meet in six months? 16 hours a day, seven days a week, 26 weeks, 30 minutes per crowd, 10,000 people per crowd...hmm, if we get that extreme, then the candidate could actually be in the same place as all the voters.
Of course, rental of wherever it is the speeches are to be held, plus transport to-from same will eat up his budget in the first couple weeks, so cut that back to a more realistic 1% of the potential voters...Yeah, that'll make things more face to face.
Do you know why candidates do sound bites and propaganda? Hint: because there isn't enough time or money to do more, even with the free-spending system currently in effect.
In identifying the authors of speech (who otherwise have the right to assemble as you imply) we get the advantage of the context of the communication and its nature
Of course, we're not actually talking about identifying the authors. We're talking about forbidding the expenditure of more than about $300,000 by ALL interested parties on behalf of a candidate. So, for instance, *I* can sabotage someone's campaign by buying a TV commmercial advocating his election - there's the $300,000, and he is now legally forbidden to spend ANYTHING on his own behalf.
It is arguable that anonymity is a good thing in politics. Of course, the people who argue it is a bad thing usually have no problems with things like the Pentagon Papers, or other whistleblowers. Who frequently act anonymously to prevent retribution.
One might also note that in 2004, the nation spent rather less than $2 billion on the Presidential election. A whopping $6 per person. Which, interestingly, is about 20% of what I expect to spend taking my family out to dinner tomorrow evening. Hardly an outrageous amount of money...
Frankly, people who want to shred the First Amendment in the name of "Campaign Finance Reform" frighten me every bit as much as those who want to shred the Second.
In #4, perhaps the insertion of the phrase accredited news agency as an exception.
So, who gets to "accredit" news agencies? The government? What a wonderful way to reinforce "Congress shall make no laws..."! We change things so that that is synonymous with "Congress shall regulate every aspect of..."
Seriously, that's just more incumbent protection. The accrediting authorities are chosen by people who have a vested interest in the accreditation favouring them. So if I'm on the committee to choose the members of the accrediting authority, I have a powerful incentive to choose like-minded people, so the news agencies are in my pocket. At least....
In #6, perhaps the defamer should be required to step down.
So, if I can make it look like my opponent did the defaming, I get elected automatically? Great idea! That'll make politics much more entertaining.
Just thoughts.
Bad ones. ALWAYS consider ways the system can be gamed when looking at politics. because it WILL be gamed. Right now, our Political Parties are gaming the system by setting up Congressional Districts to ensure safe seats (and occasionally to remove the district entirely of a particularly able opponent).
Not that this is a new problem, but the current problem is enhanced by Justice Department requirements that a certain number of Congressional Districts by black-majority. That requirement makes it all but certain that some or all of the remaining Districts be, how shall I say it, fancifully drawn...
It is inevitable that money "contaminate" politics. Or do you really believe that you'd care enough to vote in an election where you had no clue who the candidates were? Restricting political expenditures are intended primarily to enusre that some or all candidates have little or no name recognition. So, candidates spend money to increase their name recognition. Live with it.
In other words, even if the system works poorly, I doubt seriously that you (or anyone else in/.) is wise enough to come up with a better system.
By the way, that I don't entirely disagree with the original six points. Nor do I endorse the ones I have not previously mentioned. The only one I endorse even a little is number five, which is completely unenforcable (and redundant to number one, as well), since it requires that foreigners outside the USA abide by our campaign-finance laws.
Note that a Brit who bought a "GW Bush is teh debhil" commercial to air on BBC would be in violation - good luck on prosecuting him, or on convincing the UK to restrict his rights for you.
The changes you disklike happened largely as a result of an election which was decided in Congress (Thomas Jefferson's - the only one, so far as I know).
Most people who advocate "election reform" in any form really are saying "my guy lost last time, and I want to change things in a way that I think will ensure that my guy never loses again". Personally, I find that the current system works adequately.
It doesn't, in general, cause people to riot (as in the Ukraine recently), nor do we often have tanks crushing protesters.
Yeah, some people bitch about the results - you don't like it that Bush won twice. I wasn't too happy that Clinton won twice.
I would have been FAR more unhappy if 2 of every three elections were decided in the Congress (the only President in my lifetime to really make me unhappy was Gerald Ford - the only unelected President/VP pair in US History - it was a bad precedent)
4) Monies spent to publically publish information about an issue or campaign shall be considered a contribution to that issue or campaign, and are subject to the limitations in Amendment One.
Would this apply to newspapers, and radio and TV news? If so, that pretty much means that if the President is mentioned in the New York Times ONCE during the Campaign season, he's used up his campaign budget.
Or any candidate for said office. Which gives the New York Times Editor a great deal of political power - since any given candidate can only be mentioned once, and cannot campaign otherwise, it just takes some careful picking of the particular article: "Bill Clinton Accused of Rape", "George W. Bush Pardons Jose Padilla".
Note that retractions in case of error would be illegal, so the patent falseness of the latter article (Clinton WAS accused of rape, though of course there was little evidence and no conviction) would never be acknowledged, nor would the slanderous nature of the former be acknowledged.
This rule, of course, would completely muzzle use of TV in campaigning (which, if it had been in place in the distant past would have resulted in no Kennedy in the White House - remember that people who listened to the Kennedy-Nixon debates on radio though Nixon had won, people who saw it on TV thought Kennedy had won), since the costs of TV commercials are far too high to fit within those budgets.
Which, of course, means no mention of any politics on TV news.
Alternatively, it might be argued that "the Media" would be exempted from this particular rule. Which STILL vastly increases their power, since their's would be the only unfettered voices in politics. Or it would be dealt with the old-fashioned way - if you want to influence politics, buy/build a TV station, and go to town, in an unregulated sort of way....
6) Defamation of a political candidate during a political campaign will be cause for any contested election to be held again until such defamation ceases. Defamation is constituted by the publically published utterance of material known to be false, or the subsequent inability to publically publish retraction of publically disproven allegations about a candidate's character, morals, or public record.
I especially like this rule. If I don't like someone, campaign against him, defaming him constantly. His election is held in abeyance forever! Noone gets to fill his seat! More power to every other elected official.
Alternatively, the President decides to acquire dicatorial powers - make sure defamation occurs in EVERY congressional election! So no House, no Senate, just the President.
Of course, if incumbents get to hold their seats until a valid election occurs, the incumbent has a great deal of incentive to defame his opponent (or make it look like his opponent is defaming him), since he gets to stay in office till the defamation stops (which stoppage would occur...NEVER, since I might lose an election, but I won't ever lose office if there is no valid election).
In other words, these ideas were not well thought-out. To say the least.
But there was hope the problem would be fixed. People like Senator John McCain wanted to limit how much money got in the political process.
The only problem McCain was interested in fixing was the possibility that someone might win an election running against him.
The essentially free publicity that goes with being an incumbent (all you have to do to get your name mentioned in the news is to propose a popular new law, even if you had no intention of making ay effort to pass it. Or criticize the President - any President - the President of France will do) means that restrictions on campaign financing tilt the field even further in favour of the incumbent.
And frankly, while I like my current Senators (one D, one R), and my Representative (R), I'd like to see them propose a Constitutional Amendment establishing term limits for both House and Senate - three terms each should do nicely as a practical limit.
Running for President would work something like this: Get your petition signatures, apply for government funding, get your $100k, and spend it wisely, because that's all you're allowed to spend on your campaign. Fortunately, everyone else is dealing with the same $100k budget that you are, and finally it becomes a contest of who has the best ideas, rather than the loudest ones.
So, under your system, can I buy $100,000,000 in TV commercials for a candidate I like (assuming I have $100 million, of course)?
If not, looks like MY Free Speech is down the toilet?
Are the News Media allowed to mention the candidates? If they are, and I am not, why?
Given that I don't have $100 million, can I get together with, say, 100,000 like-minded people at $1000 each to buy those TV Commercials? If not, why not?
How would any of the above cases impact your $100,000 limit on political expenditures without muzzling pretty much everyone?
For that matter, how is anyone going to run a national campaign for $100,000? That'll buy, what, maybe one 30 second commercial in New York City? It won't pay to create the commercial, mind you, just to air it. Realistically, it won't pay for your campaign headquarters....
If highways were funded completely from fuel taxes (which would make a lot of sense), cars would be significantly more expensive to drive
The Federal share of highway costs are in fact paid entirely out of fuel taxes.
In fact, about 1/6 of Federal gasolie taxes are diverted from highway funding to pay for mass transit systems.
So, if US hughways were funded entirely by fuel taxes (and the fuel taxes used for nothing else), the federal Highway system would be in better shape than it is now. Or the gasoline taxes would be lower than they are.
I counterpropose that human beings are more valuable than the human race.
Given that "human beings" are more immportant than the "human race", does it not still follow that survival of the "human race" is of paramount importance, if only to keep on producing those "human beings" which are more valuable? Or do you really mean that YOU are more valuable than the human race? I'm afraid that you'll find about 6 billion people who disagree with you there.
It just might be the height of arrogance to suppose that we should do everything in our considerable power to colonize space simply for the purpose of perpetuating our own spawn, rather than solving the many problems we face here.
If perpetuating our own spawn has no importance, then why should we bother to "solve the many problems we face here"? Given that survival of MY species is unimportant, then whyever should I give a rat's ass about some other species?
The proverbial Martian would be well-justified in wanting to prevent a race intent on committing nuclear suicide from spreading over the Universe!
Yep! and no doubt we'll feel the same about them. And after the War, we'll know who was right, by the only possible measure - the ones who were wrong will be extinct.
DST wasn't in general use in the USA before the statute. It wasn't in universal use even after the statute, even though the statute mandated it.
The statute mandated standard timezones for the federal government and common carriers. Specifically, to render it constitutional, it applies to common carriers engaged in interstate or international commerce. Realistically, it applies to pretty much all common carriers.
Anyone else can take it or leave it, as they choose. Not like the Feds are going to break down my doors to check that my clocks are accurate much less that my kitchen clock agrees with my bedroom clock.
Although, in defence of the 90% argument - "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." - therefore, if the 90% don't like it, they should be able to change it - "...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [the gov't], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
Yah, that's a justification for revolution - if the Canadians (or anyone else) wants to do a revolution, more power to them. But that doesn't mean the current government should listen to the whining (whinging, to you Brits) of spoiled children in the meantime.
And finally, a somewhat less august source, warning about revolutions: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
OTOH, try to pay anything with a $100 note and you'll run into the same problem!
I don't carry $100's all that often. When I do, I never have any problems spending them - though I do try to refrain from using them unless the bill comes to more than $20...
Slashdot Mirror
No. Auto manufacturers offered seat belts as an extra long before Nader came along - people didn't want them.
After Nader came along, the government MANDATED seatbelts.
It wasn't a case of "safety sells", it was a case of "you get seatbelts whether you want them or not".
Note that many States have had to make seatbelt use mandatory in order to get people to use them. Which doesn't suggest that "safety sells" very well. Especially since people STILL don't use seatbelts, in spite of them being free (you don't pay extra for them anymore), and mandatory (you can be fined for not using them, if you get caught)....
Wherever did you find this figure? It translates to 16 million per year, if it represents an average day.
And Africa's TOTAL deathrate (14.6 deaths per 1000 population, 680 million population in 2004) is less than 10 million per year. That's all age groups, all causes.
Perhaps you should read Caves of Steel again. A few MASSIVE cities, yes.
"most of the land free of people"? Well, technically, yes, but it was cleared of people to make room for farmland. Pretty much every arable acre was under cultivation to feed the population in those MASSIVE cities.
What is most interesting is that the massively populated world described in "Caves of Steel" was only slightly more than our current world population (8 billion in CoS, 6 billion and change now). In fact, the MASSIVE city in the story was smaller than modern Tokyo. Actually, it was smaller than any of the dozen largest cities in the world today, and less than half the size of Tokyo....
Well, that's certainly ONE of the definitions. Usually the second (and therefore less important) definition. The first is usually some form of "A mercenary is a soldier who fights for money, regardless of ideological, national or political considerations".
Now, relatively few soldiers are in it for the money (noone pays soldiers all that well, really), but there ARE Americans who are serving in our Army for the money (and are, therefore, by definition, mercenaries (in the service of their own country)....
What happened in Germany in the late 30's that the Electors would have saved us from?
If you mean Hitler, that was the early 30's. He also wasn't elected Chancellor by the German people, in spite of popular rumour to that effect. He was chosen to be Chancellor by President Hindenburg.
Also I'm not shure what you meant by reducing the odds of rendering the electors irrelevant,
It's like this - no absolute majority of the Electors does NOT mean the Electors vote again - it means the Congress in Joint Session picks the President. So, three serious candidates would mean the Congress picks the President.
At best it serves s a mechanism to re-inforce the near duoppoly of the current parties.
Actually, it doesn't do that very well - a Third Party candidate, with just the right regional support, could conceivably become President with only 16% of the vote. (That would require getting 34% of the vote in States that add up to a bare majority of Electors). In a proportional allocation of Electors, that Third Party guy would need 34% of the vote to win.
What reinforces the Duopoly is that the two major Parties are basically left-center and right-center. Third Parties must be extreme-left or extreme-right to pull voters away from the two centrist Parties. And there aren't enough votes in either extreme (or both together, for that matter) to get someone elected President.
In order for the existing duopoly to go away, you'll need a Third Party that is centrist enough to attract a lot of votes, and extreme enough to pull voters from the current Parties, and a crisis that the current Parties aren't handling well.
Which translates mostly to really tough times in America and the world as a whole (to generate the crisis and loss of confidence required).
Once again you need to compare Alaska to Lapland not Finland it's part of the whole not the whole.
Alright. If we exclude Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau (Alaska's three "cities" - collectively they have less population than New Orleans, which isn't a large city by any measure), then Alaska has a population density of about 0.2 people per square kilometer. That's from 300K people spread over more than 1,500,000 Km^2.
Lapland has a population of 188,212, as of 2002. It has a land area just a bit under 100,000 Km^2. For a population density of 2 people per Km^2.
About ten times Alaska's rural population. Actually, if you include Alaska's urban population, then Alaska's population density is about 0.4 people per Km^2, which is about 1/5 Lapland's population.
Now, Montana, including urban population, has a higher population density than Lapland - 1.5 per Km^2. Excluding urban Montana, we drop to about the same population density as Lapland.
Note that we can come up with places that make Lapland look positively metropolitan, and other places that make all of Finland look like a rural backwater (LS-SD corridor, for instance).
Now why do you accept that you need a new phone when moving from Sprint to Version?
Of course, we don't in the USA. My Alltel phone works just fine over here where Verizon is the cell phone provider. My current plan allows me to use my phone pretty much anywhere in CONUS without even having to pay roaming charges. Fact is, I didn't even have to change providers (or phone numbers) when I came over here. Any more than I did when I went to New York, or Detroit, or anywhere else I've been in the last five years.
Montana has a similar land area and 1/5 the population.
Alaska four times the area, and 1/8 the population.
California has similar land area, and six times the population.
Alaska isn't our least populated state, but it's close. Note that population density is about 1/32 of Finland's.
California is our most populated state, but Rhode Island (for instance) has twice the population density.
Point is that the USA is a lot more comparable to Europe in its diversity than to Finland. And I'm including the former Soviet Union in my definition of Europe. When Europe gets cell phone coverage from the Ural Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean, I'll start worrying about the USA falling behind.
Until then, the fact that a small country has universal cell access doesn't really mean all that much....
well, no. From the CNN exit polls:
Vote for Bush by Income:
Under $15K - 36%
$15K-$30K - 42%
$30K-$50K - 49%
$50K-$75K - 56%
$75K-$100K - 55%
$100K-$150K - 57%
$150K-$200K - 58%
Over $200K- 63%
Vote for Bush by education:
No High School - 49%
High School Diploma - 52%
Some College - 54%
College Graduate - 52%
Postgrad Study - 44%
Note that Kerry wins at both ends of the Education spectrum - both postgrads and highschool dropouts favoured him (though it was a statistical deadheat at the low end, really).
On the other hand, Bush seems to be clearly less popular among lower-income brackets.
And I should point out that it was KARL ROVE there pointing that out.
Sounds like he was joking to me....
The title refers to a 15-year-old. The Summary says the event happened two years ago, and that the girl is now 19.
somehow, that doesn't seem to add up.
Of course, reading the article, we learn the girl was 17 when she was (finally) propositioned, and the guy was 25.
Hardly an outrageous abuse of her innocence. Though I am sure the lawsuit will deal adequately with any "innocence she has left".
Pretty big? Smaller than Montana or California. Less than half the size of Texas. Less than one quarter of the size of Alaska.
I suspect that most Russians would agree that European ideas of "big" don't quite match up with our ideas of "big".
And you distrust it why? Because it reduces the chance that the Electors will be rendered irrelevant? Or because it increases the influence of any given State on the process?
Umm, Free Speech is about Freedom, not about Price.
The numbers you cite are very broadly cast, and incorrect (please look up the number of voters in California, as an example).
Of course they were - I guesstimated California's population based on what I remembered of historical trends regarding same, and used it in its entirety, rather than guesstimating number of registered voters. For the pedantic, there were 16,557,273 last general election, out of 22,075,036 eligible voters.
Adjusting my statements for the correct numbers, we can change the "1%of the potential voters" to "3% of the potential voters". Note that 97% of the voters don't get to hear ANYTHING about you, still - since ANYONE mentioning your name comes out of your $300,000.
Of course, you esteemed incumbent opponent need merely create a "Bill to Mandate English as the Only Legal Language" (or Spanish), and get mention in every paper in California.
It's my personal belief that you're sheilding the intent of the constitution for its literal words. I also believe that free speech is protected when the amount that can be said may be, in a very practical way, limited to what one known individual can say, rather than the lies and ruse of political blogging by serupticious organizations. These are scams. Their intent is to demean, and their vehicle to demean is by masquerade. This isn't truth. This isn't free speech.
Yes, actually it is. Free Speech (as in Freedom, not Price - where *have* I heard that phrase before?) is all about everyone saying whatever they'd like. Not about YOU deciding what is legal for them to say. If everyone cansay what they will, the truth will out. If virtually everyone is muzzled, it won't.
Keep in mind that your plan WILL be used against you by and by. If it were passed, and it passed Constitutional muster (it won't, and it won't). Because everyone involved WILL look for ways to take advantage of it to their own best interests. Not YOUR best interests, but their best interests.
The framers of the constitution had no idea that campaign financing would bring in enormous multiples of the salaries paid by elective office.
Likely enough. Of course, the Framers didn't intend the Congress/President to have much real power - they assumed that virtually all government would be done at the State level. You ready to go back to that mode? No EPA, no Education Department, no Social Security, no Medicare or Medicaid, no WIC? No Federal Reserve Bank, no FDIC, no FSLIC?
Two billion dollars is horrendous; Everett Dirksen must be reeling in his grave.
Two billion is horrendous??? It took me half an hour this last year to earn my family's share of the entire four years worth of Presidential campaigning! When measured over a four year election cycle, it's around 1/220th of one percent of our GDP. It's utterly inconsequential, given the power of the Office.
Sure, if all the President could do is sign the odd Treaty now and then, and open a bridge, it might be a bit extreme. But the US government has changed a lot since FDR got hold of it in 1933 (he's the only President who got an Amendment passed to prevent anyone else from doing what he did, you know). Instead, we have on Office that, at least theoretically, has an impact on everyone on the planet. Is an office like that worth $2 billion? It's worth a damn sight more than that, frankly.
And note that the $2 billion wasn't spent by any one candidate, but in aggregate by all of them (and the PAC's, the 527's, everything)....
Because I have 50 million constituents, and giving each of them 30 seconds of attention would require 50 years? And accomplish no more than would one 30 second commercial.
And if you (as a supporter of a candidate) really support that candidate, why not exercise actual free speech instead of free throwing-money-around? Get out there and tell your neighbors about your candidate. Make up some signs yourself for your neighbors to put on their lawns.
Because if I spend the money for a commercial, I reach all 50 million constituents, instead of the two dozen or so neighbors I might have?
If a candidate has even 1% of their supporters willing to go to bat for them with actual *effort* rather than just writing a check, then the campaign practically runs itself, with actual speech instead of money.
Well, no. Keep in mind that the GF post described a situation where you had a $100,000 limit imposed on ALL campaign expenditures. Including those by people who were your supporters. Technically (and lawyers are technical people), making signs costs money. Assume a dollar per. 100,000 signs on the lawns of 100,000 people, and you reach perhaps 2% of your potential voters. And use up ALL of the legally allowed campaign expenditures.
Yah, that'll build name-recognition for an unknown new candidate. Especially as compared to an incumbent Senator, who can propose a new law, and get his name in every newspaper in the state/country for free.
I should also note that Ralph Nader tried that technique in 2000 & 2004. Hopefully, everyone remembers how well it worked for him....
You use absolutes, where they're silly.
Free speech doesn't include things like child pornography, or other abuses. Consider that there are forms of political speech and rhetoric can be abuses of free speech as well.
You are now arguing that "Congress shall pass no law..." really SHOULD be rewritten as "Congress shall tightly control all aspects of...". Sorry, I can't buy that.
Perhaps you're not thinking clearly about possible ways to take advantage of sweeping restrictions on freedom of political speech. Let me spell it out for you:
1) No minor party will EVER become a major Party under these rules. Simply because the current major Parties would be in absolute control of the process of handing out "exceptions".
Once either major Party reaches a critical mass (61 Senators, a simple majority of Representatives, plus the President), the other major Party will NEVER win a meaningful election. Again, the ability of the politicians in power to grant "exceptions" would allow for the complete breakdown of the system.
An imposed limit of ~$300,000 for ALL campaign expenditures by ANYONE for a single election means that the candidates have negligible ability to get their message out. NOT an enhanced ability, but a LESSENED ability. How will you tell people what you believe when it takes every dime of your legally mandated budget to finance ONE 30 second spot in ONE major market?
Restrictions of expenditures allows people to come face to face with candidates, personally or virtually
How many people live in California? 50 million or so? How many of them will a candidate for the Senate be able to meet in six months? 16 hours a day, seven days a week, 26 weeks, 30 minutes per crowd, 10,000 people per crowd...hmm, if we get that extreme, then the candidate could actually be in the same place as all the voters.
Of course, rental of wherever it is the speeches are to be held, plus transport to-from same will eat up his budget in the first couple weeks, so cut that back to a more realistic 1% of the potential voters...Yeah, that'll make things more face to face.
Do you know why candidates do sound bites and propaganda? Hint: because there isn't enough time or money to do more, even with the free-spending system currently in effect.
In identifying the authors of speech (who otherwise have the right to assemble as you imply) we get the advantage of the context of the communication and its nature
Of course, we're not actually talking about identifying the authors. We're talking about forbidding the expenditure of more than about $300,000 by ALL interested parties on behalf of a candidate. So, for instance, *I* can sabotage someone's campaign by buying a TV commmercial advocating his election - there's the $300,000, and he is now legally forbidden to spend ANYTHING on his own behalf.
It is arguable that anonymity is a good thing in politics. Of course, the people who argue it is a bad thing usually have no problems with things like the Pentagon Papers, or other whistleblowers. Who frequently act anonymously to prevent retribution.
One might also note that in 2004, the nation spent rather less than $2 billion on the Presidential election. A whopping $6 per person. Which, interestingly, is about 20% of what I expect to spend taking my family out to dinner tomorrow evening. Hardly an outrageous amount of money...
Frankly, people who want to shred the First Amendment in the name of "Campaign Finance Reform" frighten me every bit as much as those who want to shred the Second.
So, who gets to "accredit" news agencies? The government? What a wonderful way to reinforce "Congress shall make no laws..."! We change things so that that is synonymous with "Congress shall regulate every aspect of..."
Seriously, that's just more incumbent protection. The accrediting authorities are chosen by people who have a vested interest in the accreditation favouring them. So if I'm on the committee to choose the members of the accrediting authority, I have a powerful incentive to choose like-minded people, so the news agencies are in my pocket. At least....
In #6, perhaps the defamer should be required to step down.
So, if I can make it look like my opponent did the defaming, I get elected automatically? Great idea! That'll make politics much more entertaining.
Just thoughts.
Bad ones. ALWAYS consider ways the system can be gamed when looking at politics. because it WILL be gamed. Right now, our Political Parties are gaming the system by setting up Congressional Districts to ensure safe seats (and occasionally to remove the district entirely of a particularly able opponent).
Not that this is a new problem, but the current problem is enhanced by Justice Department requirements that a certain number of Congressional Districts by black-majority. That requirement makes it all but certain that some or all of the remaining Districts be, how shall I say it, fancifully drawn...
It is inevitable that money "contaminate" politics. Or do you really believe that you'd care enough to vote in an election where you had no clue who the candidates were? Restricting political expenditures are intended primarily to enusre that some or all candidates have little or no name recognition. So, candidates spend money to increase their name recognition. Live with it.
In other words, even if the system works poorly, I doubt seriously that you (or anyone else in /.) is wise enough to come up with a better system.
By the way, that I don't entirely disagree with the original six points. Nor do I endorse the ones I have not previously mentioned. The only one I endorse even a little is number five, which is completely unenforcable (and redundant to number one, as well), since it requires that foreigners outside the USA abide by our campaign-finance laws.
Note that a Brit who bought a "GW Bush is teh debhil" commercial to air on BBC would be in violation - good luck on prosecuting him, or on convincing the UK to restrict his rights for you.
Actually, I always called it "inertia". But maybe that's just me.
Most people who advocate "election reform" in any form really are saying "my guy lost last time, and I want to change things in a way that I think will ensure that my guy never loses again". Personally, I find that the current system works adequately.
It doesn't, in general, cause people to riot (as in the Ukraine recently), nor do we often have tanks crushing protesters.
Yeah, some people bitch about the results - you don't like it that Bush won twice. I wasn't too happy that Clinton won twice.
I would have been FAR more unhappy if 2 of every three elections were decided in the Congress (the only President in my lifetime to really make me unhappy was Gerald Ford - the only unelected President/VP pair in US History - it was a bad precedent)
Would this apply to newspapers, and radio and TV news? If so, that pretty much means that if the President is mentioned in the New York Times ONCE during the Campaign season, he's used up his campaign budget.
Or any candidate for said office. Which gives the New York Times Editor a great deal of political power - since any given candidate can only be mentioned once, and cannot campaign otherwise, it just takes some careful picking of the particular article: "Bill Clinton Accused of Rape", "George W. Bush Pardons Jose Padilla".
Note that retractions in case of error would be illegal, so the patent falseness of the latter article (Clinton WAS accused of rape, though of course there was little evidence and no conviction) would never be acknowledged, nor would the slanderous nature of the former be acknowledged.
This rule, of course, would completely muzzle use of TV in campaigning (which, if it had been in place in the distant past would have resulted in no Kennedy in the White House - remember that people who listened to the Kennedy-Nixon debates on radio though Nixon had won, people who saw it on TV thought Kennedy had won), since the costs of TV commercials are far too high to fit within those budgets.
Which, of course, means no mention of any politics on TV news.
Alternatively, it might be argued that "the Media" would be exempted from this particular rule. Which STILL vastly increases their power, since their's would be the only unfettered voices in politics. Or it would be dealt with the old-fashioned way - if you want to influence politics, buy/build a TV station, and go to town, in an unregulated sort of way....
6) Defamation of a political candidate during a political campaign will be cause for any contested election to be held again until such defamation ceases. Defamation is constituted by the publically published utterance of material known to be false, or the subsequent inability to publically publish retraction of publically disproven allegations about a candidate's character, morals, or public record.
I especially like this rule. If I don't like someone, campaign against him, defaming him constantly. His election is held in abeyance forever! Noone gets to fill his seat! More power to every other elected official.
Alternatively, the President decides to acquire dicatorial powers - make sure defamation occurs in EVERY congressional election! So no House, no Senate, just the President.
Of course, if incumbents get to hold their seats until a valid election occurs, the incumbent has a great deal of incentive to defame his opponent (or make it look like his opponent is defaming him), since he gets to stay in office till the defamation stops (which stoppage would occur...NEVER, since I might lose an election, but I won't ever lose office if there is no valid election).
In other words, these ideas were not well thought-out. To say the least.
The only problem McCain was interested in fixing was the possibility that someone might win an election running against him.
The essentially free publicity that goes with being an incumbent (all you have to do to get your name mentioned in the news is to propose a popular new law, even if you had no intention of making ay effort to pass it. Or criticize the President - any President - the President of France will do) means that restrictions on campaign financing tilt the field even further in favour of the incumbent.
And frankly, while I like my current Senators (one D, one R), and my Representative (R), I'd like to see them propose a Constitutional Amendment establishing term limits for both House and Senate - three terms each should do nicely as a practical limit.
So, under your system, can I buy $100,000,000 in TV commercials for a candidate I like (assuming I have $100 million, of course)?
If not, looks like MY Free Speech is down the toilet?
Are the News Media allowed to mention the candidates? If they are, and I am not, why?
Given that I don't have $100 million, can I get together with, say, 100,000 like-minded people at $1000 each to buy those TV Commercials? If not, why not?
How would any of the above cases impact your $100,000 limit on political expenditures without muzzling pretty much everyone?
For that matter, how is anyone going to run a national campaign for $100,000? That'll buy, what, maybe one 30 second commercial in New York City? It won't pay to create the commercial, mind you, just to air it. Realistically, it won't pay for your campaign headquarters....
The Federal share of highway costs are in fact paid entirely out of fuel taxes.
In fact, about 1/6 of Federal gasolie taxes are diverted from highway funding to pay for mass transit systems.
So, if US hughways were funded entirely by fuel taxes (and the fuel taxes used for nothing else), the federal Highway system would be in better shape than it is now. Or the gasoline taxes would be lower than they are.
Given that "human beings" are more immportant than the "human race", does it not still follow that survival of the "human race" is of paramount importance, if only to keep on producing those "human beings" which are more valuable? Or do you really mean that YOU are more valuable than the human race? I'm afraid that you'll find about 6 billion people who disagree with you there.
It just might be the height of arrogance to suppose that we should do everything in our considerable power to colonize space simply for the purpose of perpetuating our own spawn, rather than solving the many problems we face here.
If perpetuating our own spawn has no importance, then why should we bother to "solve the many problems we face here"? Given that survival of MY species is unimportant, then whyever should I give a rat's ass about some other species?
The proverbial Martian would be well-justified in wanting to prevent a race intent on committing nuclear suicide from spreading over the Universe!
Yep! and no doubt we'll feel the same about them. And after the War, we'll know who was right, by the only possible measure - the ones who were wrong will be extinct.
The statute mandated standard timezones for the federal government and common carriers. Specifically, to render it constitutional, it applies to common carriers engaged in interstate or international commerce. Realistically, it applies to pretty much all common carriers.
Anyone else can take it or leave it, as they choose. Not like the Feds are going to break down my doors to check that my clocks are accurate much less that my kitchen clock agrees with my bedroom clock.
Yah, that's a justification for revolution - if the Canadians (or anyone else) wants to do a revolution, more power to them. But that doesn't mean the current government should listen to the whining (whinging, to you Brits) of spoiled children in the meantime.
And finally, a somewhat less august source, warning about revolutions: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
I don't carry $100's all that often. When I do, I never have any problems spending them - though I do try to refrain from using them unless the bill comes to more than $20...