Why does it matter - that's just a pissing contest. The actual election is held in the Electoral College, which has built-in checks and balances.
States get 1 Elector for each Representative. That number is directly related to the state's population and the number of associated Electors will very closely match the popular vote. Each state also gets 1 Elector per Senator. That number is equal for all states.
Consequently, the result of the Electoral College vote is a balance between the popular vote, and the number of states which a candidate's Electors won.
Those claiming it's somehow unfair for the winner of the popular vote to not be the winner in the Electoral College are either ignorant, or ignoring that the system is working exactly as intended. It's not a fluke, or a rounding error, or a problem with how votes are counted. It's by design. By the same design which created a House of Representatives with directly reflects the population, and a Senate which represents States. It's checks and balances, to prevent populous states from overwhelming the less populous ones. It's a Federal government because the US is a federation of states, not a direct democracy.
You want to change to a direct vote for President? To be consistent, you'd better be pushing to get rid of the Senate, too, where the imbalance between population and power is even more pronounced.
Your candidate got 1% more of the popular vote? Well, the other candidate won in 50% more of the states.
You're arguing semantics, and trying to extend a commonly understood term to create a false equivalence for your argument. A fetus is alive in the same way a finger is. It is not a separate life as is a child.
If your objection to abortion is based on the Christian religion, why do you not accept scripture...
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
...which clearly says life begins at birth (when breath starts)? And why do you equate the life of a woman with the "life" of a fetus, when the Bible draws a clear, and wide, distinction?
Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death... If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
Go ahead, try to find something more directly relevant in the New Testament.
"Proportionally allocating electors (i.e. a system like Maine's) would result in Republic landslide victories. "
No, it wouldn't. Electoral votes would still closely reflect the popular vote, with the same slight difference due to the "Senate" Electors.
What it would do, is make it less likely that either of the two party candidates would get elected by vote, since some Electors would get assigned to third parties, making it possible for no one to achieve a majority.
You clearly don't understand that Presidential elections only occur in the Electoral College. The popular election is only for Electors. And, there's absolutely no requirement for a popular vote at all. That's a privilege (not a right) which the states have chosen to provide. The Constitution gives states the power to chose Electors in any manner they want. If a state wanted to have their legislature, or their Governor, chose the Electors, they could.
No, Clinton did not get more votes than Trump. She got considerably less.
Finally, it was never the intent that the Electoral College proportionally reflect the populace. Each state is given one Elector for each Representative and one for each Senator. Just as Senators give small states disproportionate power, so to does the Electoral College. That's by intentional design, to prevent large populous states from overwhelming smaller ones. Nationally, the US is a federation of states, not a direct democracy. Always has been. This is all grade school civics.
Why have an inefficient popular vote at all? Why not have the state legislature or governor bargain with candidates? Support for state policies in exchange for electors. That would dramatically increase the incentive for candidates to support state policies.
"I would like to see all the states' electoral votes be proportioned to the candidates by the popular vote within each state."
As would I. But it would take a Constitutional amendment to force that on the states. As it is, the states have the sole authority to chose the manner in which their electors are chosen. Trump was right about one thing - elections are rigged. But not in the way he implied, they're rigged for a two party system, which work together to suppress minor parties. Winner take all rules are part of that rigged system.
I also agree that the college should remain - because it gives smaller states some additional power which helps avoid a tyranny of the majority, although not as much power as they have with senators.
And your alternative is, what exactly? If you can't tell who's turning the sky brown day after day, or putting mercury in your well water, or who's shitting in the river, why would a law stop them, since they'd never get caught?
" Libertarian party which cared about the environment"
You should do your homework first, to avoid making false claims. Libertarians (large or small "L") aren't philosophically against protecting the environment, they just believe there's a better way to do it.
2.2 Environment
Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.
Yep, and it just caters to groupthink when you have a "vote" on which info is accurate. It's clear enough locally from the/. mod system that such moderation is more subjective than objective, and easily falls to deliberate misuse.
Huh? The undo is just to cover you if you accidentally hit send. If you deliberately pressed send without being sure about what you wrote, you're doing it wrong.
It really true ignorance to say that, since even she has said "That was a mistake."
And, even if these new emails are dupes, how many are classified and how did they end up on the Weiner's laptop? There's the rub - the whole Hillary posse is lax on even basic security. That's the Clinton thing - the rules don't apply to them, simply because they believe they're doing the right thing the end justifies the means.
(not that the Donald is any better, they're both evil, only in different ways)
Slashdot Mirror
Why does it matter - that's just a pissing contest. The actual election is held in the Electoral College, which has built-in checks and balances.
States get 1 Elector for each Representative. That number is directly related to the state's population and the number of associated Electors will very closely match the popular vote. Each state also gets 1 Elector per Senator. That number is equal for all states.
Consequently, the result of the Electoral College vote is a balance between the popular vote, and the number of states which a candidate's Electors won.
Those claiming it's somehow unfair for the winner of the popular vote to not be the winner in the Electoral College are either ignorant, or ignoring that the system is working exactly as intended. It's not a fluke, or a rounding error, or a problem with how votes are counted. It's by design. By the same design which created a House of Representatives with directly reflects the population, and a Senate which represents States. It's checks and balances, to prevent populous states from overwhelming the less populous ones. It's a Federal government because the US is a federation of states, not a direct democracy.
You want to change to a direct vote for President? To be consistent, you'd better be pushing to get rid of the Senate, too, where the imbalance between population and power is even more pronounced.
Your candidate got 1% more of the popular vote? Well, the other candidate won in 50% more of the states.
Samsung is just pulling your finger.
Even worse. They're lying. It's not Windows 10, it's an application.
Where are the patches for Win7 which address all these known flaws? They're supposed to be providing security updates until 2020.
If your objection to abortion is based on the Christian religion, why do you not accept scripture...
...which clearly says life begins at birth (when breath starts)? And why do you equate the life of a woman with the "life" of a fetus, when the Bible draws a clear, and wide, distinction?
Go ahead, try to find something more directly relevant in the New Testament.
Ethernet has had 802.1p prioritization for many years.
"Proportionally allocating electors (i.e. a system like Maine's) would result in Republic landslide victories. "
No, it wouldn't. Electoral votes would still closely reflect the popular vote, with the same slight difference due to the "Senate" Electors.
What it would do, is make it less likely that either of the two party candidates would get elected by vote, since some Electors would get assigned to third parties, making it possible for no one to achieve a majority.
You clearly don't understand that Presidential elections only occur in the Electoral College. The popular election is only for Electors. And, there's absolutely no requirement for a popular vote at all. That's a privilege (not a right) which the states have chosen to provide. The Constitution gives states the power to chose Electors in any manner they want. If a state wanted to have their legislature, or their Governor, chose the Electors, they could.
No, Clinton did not get more votes than Trump. She got considerably less.
Finally, it was never the intent that the Electoral College proportionally reflect the populace. Each state is given one Elector for each Representative and one for each Senator. Just as Senators give small states disproportionate power, so to does the Electoral College. That's by intentional design, to prevent large populous states from overwhelming smaller ones. Nationally, the US is a federation of states, not a direct democracy. Always has been. This is all grade school civics.
Why weren't there any liberals defending Donald's right to his "safe space" zone?
Shervin Pishevar is a naturalized US citizen, born in Iran. If he no longer wants to be associated with the US, his path is obvious.
Hell, 47.7% of California is owned by the federal government.
The rest of the country can live just fine without the fruits, nuts and flakes from California.
Besides, I'm sure Arizona would love to start an agricultural industry using Colorado river water to irrigate.
Why have an inefficient popular vote at all? Why not have the state legislature or governor bargain with candidates? Support for state policies in exchange for electors. That would dramatically increase the incentive for candidates to support state policies.
"I would like to see all the states' electoral votes be proportioned to the candidates by the popular vote within each state."
As would I. But it would take a Constitutional amendment to force that on the states. As it is, the states have the sole authority to chose the manner in which their electors are chosen. Trump was right about one thing - elections are rigged. But not in the way he implied, they're rigged for a two party system, which work together to suppress minor parties. Winner take all rules are part of that rigged system.
I also agree that the college should remain - because it gives smaller states some additional power which helps avoid a tyranny of the majority, although not as much power as they have with senators.
And your alternative is, what exactly? If you can't tell who's turning the sky brown day after day, or putting mercury in your well water, or who's shitting in the river, why would a law stop them, since they'd never get caught?
Newsflash: Laws are marks on paper, and do nothing in exactly the same way.
You should do your homework first, to avoid making false claims. Libertarians (large or small "L") aren't philosophically against protecting the environment, they just believe there's a better way to do it.
- LP Platform
Yep, and it just caters to groupthink when you have a "vote" on which info is accurate. It's clear enough locally from the /. mod system that such moderation is more subjective than objective, and easily falls to deliberate misuse.
Huh? The undo is just to cover you if you accidentally hit send. If you deliberately pressed send without being sure about what you wrote, you're doing it wrong.
"Government announcements concerning the candidates should be postponed"
You're arguing for a less informed electorate. You're part of the problem.
I have no time to teach an illiterate to use a dictionary.
So, you don't know the difference between an accident and a mistake.
How hard can it be? MS just has to give him a box running anything but Windows, and 99% of the job is done.
"She did nothing wrong."
It really true ignorance to say that, since even she has said "That was a mistake."
And, even if these new emails are dupes, how many are classified and how did they end up on the Weiner's laptop? There's the rub - the whole Hillary posse is lax on even basic security. That's the Clinton thing - the rules don't apply to them, simply because they believe they're doing the right thing the end justifies the means.
(not that the Donald is any better, they're both evil, only in different ways)
"I'm sure both individuals who will comit voter fraud are delighted."
Not really, it didn't make any difference because neither Donald nor Hillary were registered to vote in NC.