He did A LOT more rallies than Hillary, sometimes doing up to five _per day_, and the attendance at those was an order of magnitude higher, with some rallies running 10K people or more.
And still lost the popular vote. You're telling us that Trump did appeal to the popular vote, lost it, but would have won it if.....
Not too many years ago, an elector from my state wrote the wrong name down. The vote was not quite so close to make it matter, but it could have been a really big deal. There are penalties in some states for electors who vote the wrong way, but that doesn't invalidate their votes.
I'd be willing to bet that you live in a country that's a group of states, none of which are sovereign, and most of which never were sovereign. Look up what it means to be sovereign, and look at the Constitution to see how many of those things are expressly ruled out by the Constitution, including the right to control borders and regulate trade and the right to a foreign policy. States are self-governing, not sovereign.
Most states weren't sovereign to begin with. I believe the list is the original thirteen, Texas, and Hawaii, although I may have missed some. My own state was formed out of Federal territory, and was made a state when it was populous enough.
The Electoral College already has nothing to do with the original intent of the Constitution. It didn't make any sense after George Washington was no longer President, because party politics (which the Founders really wanted to avoid) stepped in, and has been firmly ensconced in the system for more than two centuries now.
Right now, I'm not in a swing state, because my state tends to go the way I do. You propose that I should push my state away from my political positions so it matters more what I do. Do you ever check your ideas to see if they make sense?
I'm happy to argue against the EC regardless of who won. This time, I really dislike the outcome. Other times, I really like the outcome. I don't like the EC in either case.
The US was set up as a union of individual states.
Equally accurate: The US was set up so that slaveholding states would have disproportionate influence. Hence, by your reasoning, we should have slaveholding states that have disproportionate influence.
That was then, a bunch of intelligent people making up stuff as they went along and hoping it would work as a government. This is now.
The goal of the electoral college was to have a group of educated men provide a short list of presidential candidates to send to the House for selection.
In other words, you favor a system in which a small minority of the population automatically has great political influence because they're theoretically indispensable, and the vast majority is considered to be dispensable.
If my state's electoral vote were divided according to the popular vote in the state, there's no way in the world any Presidential candidate would care about my state. It would be a swing of 1 or 2 electoral votes, not 10. If all states did that. the EC would be something like a Picasso painting of the popular vote, with quantization artifacts and valuing a vote from a Wyoming resident much higher than mine.
Our country was founded on a constitution that was written by people who didn't know what they were doing. This is not intended as disrespect, but the fact is that there was pretty much no experience on how this democracy was going to work. The people who wrote it did an extremely good job, considering what they knew at the time, but they had some stuff in the Constitution that just wasn't going to work. Some of that stuff has been amended out since.
Moreover, the Electoral College does not work anything like what those people intended. It has jumped the rails and turned into something thoroughly different. Even if it was a good idea in the first place, and I don't think so, what it has turned into is not. The Electoral College is not a group of informed men that voted for the purpose of sending a short list of candidates to the House of Representatives to select the next President (and also to the Senate to select the next Vice President).
A direct democracy election process is indistinguishable from mob rule.
My Senators and my Representative are elected in a direct democracy election. So is my governor, my state legislature, some other state offices that it looks to me really should be appointive, state and local judges, my county board, my city council, and my mayor. It hasn't led to anarchy and revolution in my state, county, or city yet. We don't have mob rule.
"Well screw 'em they're the minority" only works as long as you remain a part of the majority, and those divisions are never stable or predictable when it comes to mobs.
In Presidential elections, I tend to be in the majority in my state, and that means I don't count. If the election in my state is really close, my state's electors don't matter because the side I don't favor has already one.
States don't need influence, people need influence. A vote from Wyoming would be just as significant as a vote from California, rather than being much more influential as it is now. Candidates would not think "Unless there's a landslide, State X will vote for me/my opponent, so there's no point in paying it any attention" because the vote total in the state would matter. Right now, those of us who don't vote in swing states have no influence on who becomes President. We're disenfranchised.
I've read that you can turn off the telemetry in the Enterprise edition. However, I don't have one, and would want to spend a long time with Wireshark to convince myself if I did.
Some PDF files are weird. That's how it goes. PDF is not so much a document format as a program to produce a certain document.
I know of no F/OS PDF reader that handles the entire spec, although it's been a few years since I looked, such as providing a 3D image that can be manipulated by the user.
Used to be, I figured that anybody who used a computer for light word processing, email, and web surfing could get along nicely with a Linux distro. I'm not sure that role is the right one any more, since an iPad or Android tablet will usually work, and has better casual games.
Heck, if you want to change text in most PDF files, you can do it with a text editor. Technically, the text is encoded in an intermediate form, but in most files I've looked at ASCII text is itself the intermediate form.
However, Munich has been using their Linux setup for some time now. Apparently, Microsoft Office turned out to be something they could replace. Replacing Windows with Linux won't work for all enterprises, but if it does work it has significant advantages
It's not free, as you say. I don't know how the support costs would prepare, since running an enterprise Windows setup requires support also, and I don't know who'd they need to run Linux support. It's a large enterprise, so the cost of having a few developers is amortized over a large number of machines.
What Munich gets out of it is the ability to use lower-end hardware (not a consideration with new computers, but Linux is typically less demanding on older hardware than Windows), a lack of licensing fees, a lack of having to account for licensing fees (an expense in its own right), and freedom from relying on a US supplier as a sole source of something vital. These are real benefits, not ideological ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the reason it wasn't a lot less close is the large rural areas inland that Republicans dominate.
Are you telling us that you think people who live in coastal cities shouldn't be counted?
And still lost the popular vote. You're telling us that Trump did appeal to the popular vote, lost it, but would have won it if.....
Not too many years ago, an elector from my state wrote the wrong name down. The vote was not quite so close to make it matter, but it could have been a really big deal. There are penalties in some states for electors who vote the wrong way, but that doesn't invalidate their votes.
I'd be willing to bet that you live in a country that's a group of states, none of which are sovereign, and most of which never were sovereign. Look up what it means to be sovereign, and look at the Constitution to see how many of those things are expressly ruled out by the Constitution, including the right to control borders and regulate trade and the right to a foreign policy. States are self-governing, not sovereign.
Most states weren't sovereign to begin with. I believe the list is the original thirteen, Texas, and Hawaii, although I may have missed some. My own state was formed out of Federal territory, and was made a state when it was populous enough.
The Electoral College already has nothing to do with the original intent of the Constitution. It didn't make any sense after George Washington was no longer President, because party politics (which the Founders really wanted to avoid) stepped in, and has been firmly ensconced in the system for more than two centuries now.
I'm usually a member of the majority in my state. That means that my vote counts no more than yours.
Which means that the number of electoral votes at stake in California are fairly small. California loses influence under that plan.
Right now, I'm not in a swing state, because my state tends to go the way I do. You propose that I should push my state away from my political positions so it matters more what I do. Do you ever check your ideas to see if they make sense?
I'm happy to argue against the EC regardless of who won. This time, I really dislike the outcome. Other times, I really like the outcome. I don't like the EC in either case.
Equally accurate: The US was set up so that slaveholding states would have disproportionate influence. Hence, by your reasoning, we should have slaveholding states that have disproportionate influence.
That was then, a bunch of intelligent people making up stuff as they went along and hoping it would work as a government. This is now.
The goal of the electoral college was to have a group of educated men provide a short list of presidential candidates to send to the House for selection.
In other words, you favor a system in which a small minority of the population automatically has great political influence because they're theoretically indispensable, and the vast majority is considered to be dispensable.
If my state's electoral vote were divided according to the popular vote in the state, there's no way in the world any Presidential candidate would care about my state. It would be a swing of 1 or 2 electoral votes, not 10. If all states did that. the EC would be something like a Picasso painting of the popular vote, with quantization artifacts and valuing a vote from a Wyoming resident much higher than mine.
My vote is not equal to the vote of someone who lives in a swing state. Large vs. small doesn't matter here.
Our country was founded on a constitution that was written by people who didn't know what they were doing. This is not intended as disrespect, but the fact is that there was pretty much no experience on how this democracy was going to work. The people who wrote it did an extremely good job, considering what they knew at the time, but they had some stuff in the Constitution that just wasn't going to work. Some of that stuff has been amended out since.
Moreover, the Electoral College does not work anything like what those people intended. It has jumped the rails and turned into something thoroughly different. Even if it was a good idea in the first place, and I don't think so, what it has turned into is not. The Electoral College is not a group of informed men that voted for the purpose of sending a short list of candidates to the House of Representatives to select the next President (and also to the Senate to select the next Vice President).
My Senators and my Representative are elected in a direct democracy election. So is my governor, my state legislature, some other state offices that it looks to me really should be appointive, state and local judges, my county board, my city council, and my mayor. It hasn't led to anarchy and revolution in my state, county, or city yet. We don't have mob rule.
In Presidential elections, I tend to be in the majority in my state, and that means I don't count. If the election in my state is really close, my state's electors don't matter because the side I don't favor has already one.
States don't need influence, people need influence. A vote from Wyoming would be just as significant as a vote from California, rather than being much more influential as it is now. Candidates would not think "Unless there's a landslide, State X will vote for me/my opponent, so there's no point in paying it any attention" because the vote total in the state would matter. Right now, those of us who don't vote in swing states have no influence on who becomes President. We're disenfranchised.
I've read that you can turn off the telemetry in the Enterprise edition. However, I don't have one, and would want to spend a long time with Wireshark to convince myself if I did.
Some PDF files are weird. That's how it goes. PDF is not so much a document format as a program to produce a certain document.
I know of no F/OS PDF reader that handles the entire spec, although it's been a few years since I looked, such as providing a 3D image that can be manipulated by the user.
Used to be, I figured that anybody who used a computer for light word processing, email, and web surfing could get along nicely with a Linux distro. I'm not sure that role is the right one any more, since an iPad or Android tablet will usually work, and has better casual games.
Heck, if you want to change text in most PDF files, you can do it with a text editor. Technically, the text is encoded in an intermediate form, but in most files I've looked at ASCII text is itself the intermediate form.
However, Munich has been using their Linux setup for some time now. Apparently, Microsoft Office turned out to be something they could replace. Replacing Windows with Linux won't work for all enterprises, but if it does work it has significant advantages
It's not free, as you say. I don't know how the support costs would prepare, since running an enterprise Windows setup requires support also, and I don't know who'd they need to run Linux support. It's a large enterprise, so the cost of having a few developers is amortized over a large number of machines.
What Munich gets out of it is the ability to use lower-end hardware (not a consideration with new computers, but Linux is typically less demanding on older hardware than Windows), a lack of licensing fees, a lack of having to account for licensing fees (an expense in its own right), and freedom from relying on a US supplier as a sole source of something vital. These are real benefits, not ideological ones.
Given some way to spot the fall of shells, battleships had no problems shooting over the horizon.