I guess you don't get it. The electoral college is not obligated to reflect the popular vote. When that happens(and it has, I just don't know when) you do not have a representative republic. You have an arbitrary dictate from "above". If I am expected to vote, then I expect that vote to be counted. Otherwise it's a waste of my time.
From your previous post: One of the points behind the Electoral College and US Senate is to prevent the domination of small/sparsely populated states by large/heavily populated ones.
That would only be true only if each state had an equal number of electors, regardless of their populations. Because, right now the small states can be dominated by the big ones. If the 50 sovereign states is the basis you describe, then each should get one vote. That would insure that the less populated states are fairly represented. But it doesn't work that way. Right now you can win with 11 states. The other 39 be damned. Since it does come a little closer to representing the popular vote, it's not necessarily a bad thing. But the electoral college does nothing to protect the small states from domination. It merely provides a way to disregard the will of the people. And if that doesn't work you can always go to the house of representatives(1824), or the supreme court(2000).
California has always been on path to economic self-destruction.
Yeah, I suppose Apple, Lockheed, General Dynamics, and all those other high tech, aerospace, entertainment, and agricultural industries are leading the way. No matter that it has the 10th largest economy in the world. And that damn Austrian running the place, he's a real liberal all right. Yep, stay away. The place is dying. Netcraft confirms it.
The system isn't set up to give any special consideration to the popular vote.
Well, I guess I'm in no position to argue if you don't see that as a problem. I mean if no consideration is to be given to the popular vote, I'm not sure what makes it worth my time to do it. On the other hand, if I am to expect my vote to mean something, then it should do exactly that. An electoral college that doesn't represent the popular vote is little better than establishing a monarchy by divine providence.
I am your king! Well, I didn't vote for you. You don't vote for kings.
One of the points behind the Electoral College and US Senate is to prevent the domination of small/sparsely populated states by large/heavily populated ones.
When working within the constraints of self interests, as most do, I believe the system is working perfectly. It really can't go any other way. I suppose the trick is to make it in our self interest to fix it. To prove that the more you give, the more you get. Right now we have the broken thought process of zero sum. If one gains, the other loses. Seeing as that is a systematic belief, I guess you might be right.
Saying there were only 5% of the voters dissatisfied with the choices seemed way too low to me.
Note the "Neither" column. Occasionally it dips down to 4%. I believe you are making the assumption that these two are somehow different from each other. I can assure you, they are not. They represent the same interests of power. If one votes for a person they are "dissatisfied" with, then they really aren't dissatisfied. It is nothing more than passing the blame.
Julia Child Surveil-a-matic. Many tools in one convenient package. Comes with self-defense kitchen knives, navigational scarves, dog doo radio transmitters...First three thousand customers will also receive a month's supply of shark repellent. No more worries about those nasty lasers.
...the system proved once again that it is an abysmal failure in promoting good leaders.
No, we have proven that we are abysmal failures at seeking out good leaders. It is we who are so easily distracted by their shiny trinkets. It is we who act so helpless when only we can make the needed changes.
Next time, vote your conscience.
I agree, but most are voting for the guy who brings it home. The system ain't broke. We are. We created this system, and we continue to feed it. Most are just just not uncomfortable enough to do anything about it. Lack of empathy and downright hate play a huge part.
It's not flamebait. There's a good 5% of the voting public feel exactly that way about these two. And they have very good reason. While their position on "high" tech is interesting and all, when you starting asking the real questions, it boils down to their position on our rights to use that tech as we see fit. Because none of them are "against" technology. We have to watch how it will used against us. So the questions become something like, Who's going to to reign in the FBI and their wiretapping? Who's going to stop the TSA from damaging our airliners, possibly causing a real disaster? When are we ever going to see real adherence to the Bill of Rights? Not that we ever had, but it's about time we make a real effort. If we want to see truly rapid development of high tech, we have to ask when are they going to put an end to near infinite copyright, and the idea of software patents.
Well, from both of these guys we are getting negative responses to all these questions and more. We are going to get more of the same thing that we have been getting since long before we were born.
So the AC is right Fuck McCain Fuck Obama The only thing I could add is "!"
At least from my experience, unless provided by a major news provider, blogs tend to be a means for someone to advance their opinion, as opposed to report the news (though they may call it reporting).
There's a problem when the sponsors decide what's "news" and what isn't. Sure there's plenty of chaff from the bloogers, but it's the only thing that will get those with the resources to report a bit more truthfully. Note how those in mass media reacted in the past, with calls for control of the bloggers. It's about damn time the bloggers have equal access to those who make the news. They must be allowed to demand answers to the questions that mass media reporters are afraid to ask. And there's lots of questions that need to be asked.
This decentralization has really deteriorated the quality of reporting as news outlets have had to slash their budgets.
There used to be rules about a broadcaster's obligation to serve the community. And not just the advertising or business "community". When they fail to do this, we should be out there challenging their license. This decentralization is the best message we can send, shape up, or hand over the keys. Budgets be damned. Most of it is wasted on fancy studios and production(you should see what they spend on just the "music" library, for example, they even have to pay for the fake teletype background noise), and overpaid primadonna script reading robots anyway. Very little is used to gather and report the news. Now the viewers expect it. That's a shame.
We gotta move these refrigerators We gotta move these colour tvs...
You're probably right. It's there for anybody. The quick reaction from the moderators makes me awful proud. If you ever see one, post a picture, ok?
Damn! I sure wish moderation went to +/-1000. I would love to see how many dweebs are trying to mod it down more. They're probably slamming on that moderate button like the "close door" button in the elevator. Whack away fellas. Hee hee hee. No sense of humor whatsoever. What a bunch of dopes...Pusillanimous Pinheads...Presumptuous Popinjays...Sanctimonious Scatterbrains! You all do the party proud. This is gonna be a fun election.
What's next? We keep paying doctors every few years for prior services rendered? Or how about the contractor that built your house you continue to live in?
I use the Hobbs meter on the plane I fix, and the odometer on a car. I haven't lifted a wrench since 1982. I'm good for another 50 years. in my dreams!
First, the article is an ad for this guy. Second, priorities. But real needs have no place in the "free" market, do they? And yes, there are quite literally many parts of the world where it's easier to get a cell phone than clean drinking water out of the tap. For instance, Chiapas, Mexico, just about any place in Central America. Proof? Come down for a visit. I'll give you all the proof you need there. And another thing, I see plenty of very poor people wear very nice, locally made clothes. You think they all wear shredded pants and a dirty "wife beater" from Red Cross disaster relief? Hell, I dress worse than they do. None of my clothes are newer then five years old. My point is that there's money for both. Which would you rather have first? All indications are the cell phone. But that's only because these people believe there's no no money for a decent water infrastructure, because the authorities tell them so. If they knew the truth, you can bet they would demand it. But high profit, gimicky toys are always an easy sell. Let's see how much use they get when the bill comes due or when the army blows up the towers.
I like the term used in firehose(though I hate firehose almost as much as idle): binspam. And there's probably lots of sock puppets marking it up. It seems a lot of it is making the front page. The editors should know better.
Although what the Rosenbergs did was more spying than public speech, if atom bomb details had been published in the NYT they still would have gotten the death penalty, and again properly so. It was treason.
Citation needed. The Rosenbergs were railroaded*. They weren't even charged with, or convicted of treason. And furthermore, the case shows why we should not allow grand jury testimony to be withheld from the public.
*During the trial the prosecutor announced in a national news conference that he had secured sworn affidavits from an old friend of the Rosenbergs's, William Perl, which conclusively proved the conspiracy. Saypol decided against putting Perl on the stand, however, when Perl admitted to lying in his affidavits.
Libelous and slanderous speech causes no damage whatsoever. It is the action taken by others that causes the damage. And those who commit the action based on libelous and slanderous speech are the ones who should be punished. You're blaming the speaker. I blame the actor. Speech is not action. It is only words. And words mean nothing if nobody takes action. Here, I'll Godwin it for you. If nobody had followed Hitler's orders, how famous do you think he would be today?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you don't get it. The electoral college is not obligated to reflect the popular vote. When that happens(and it has, I just don't know when) you do not have a representative republic. You have an arbitrary dictate from "above". If I am expected to vote, then I expect that vote to be counted. Otherwise it's a waste of my time.
From your previous post:
One of the points behind the Electoral College and US Senate is to prevent the domination of small/sparsely populated states by large/heavily populated ones.
That would only be true only if each state had an equal number of electors, regardless of their populations. Because, right now the small states can be dominated by the big ones. If the 50 sovereign states is the basis you describe, then each should get one vote. That would insure that the less populated states are fairly represented. But it doesn't work that way. Right now you can win with 11 states. The other 39 be damned. Since it does come a little closer to representing the popular vote, it's not necessarily a bad thing. But the electoral college does nothing to protect the small states from domination. It merely provides a way to disregard the will of the people. And if that doesn't work you can always go to the house of representatives(1824), or the supreme court(2000).
California has always been on path to economic self-destruction.
Yeah, I suppose Apple, Lockheed, General Dynamics, and all those other high tech, aerospace, entertainment, and agricultural industries are leading the way. No matter that it has the 10th largest economy in the world. And that damn Austrian running the place, he's a real liberal all right. Yep, stay away. The place is dying. Netcraft confirms it.
The system isn't set up to give any special consideration to the popular vote.
Well, I guess I'm in no position to argue if you don't see that as a problem. I mean if no consideration is to be given to the popular vote, I'm not sure what makes it worth my time to do it. On the other hand, if I am to expect my vote to mean something, then it should do exactly that. An electoral college that doesn't represent the popular vote is little better than establishing a monarchy by divine providence.
I am your king!
Well, I didn't vote for you.
You don't vote for kings.
One of the points behind the Electoral College and US Senate is to prevent the domination of small/sparsely populated states by large/heavily populated ones.
Then sometimes the system runs amok :-)
...that means the system is completely broken.
I think I heard George Carlin once say, "I come from a broken home...broke it myself".
When working within the constraints of self interests, as most do, I believe the system is working perfectly. It really can't go any other way. I suppose the trick is to make it in our self interest to fix it. To prove that the more you give, the more you get. Right now we have the broken thought process of zero sum. If one gains, the other loses. Seeing as that is a systematic belief, I guess you might be right.
Saying there were only 5% of the voters dissatisfied with the choices seemed way too low to me.
Note the "Neither" column. Occasionally it dips down to 4%. I believe you are making the assumption that these two are somehow different from each other. I can assure you, they are not. They represent the same interests of power. If one votes for a person they are "dissatisfied" with, then they really aren't dissatisfied. It is nothing more than passing the blame.
Julia Child Surveil-a-matic. Many tools in one convenient package. Comes with self-defense kitchen knives, navigational scarves, dog doo radio transmitters...First three thousand customers will also receive a month's supply of shark repellent. No more worries about those nasty lasers.
...the system proved once again that it is an abysmal failure in promoting good leaders.
No, we have proven that we are abysmal failures at seeking out good leaders. It is we who are so easily distracted by their shiny trinkets. It is we who act so helpless when only we can make the needed changes.
Next time, vote your conscience.
I agree, but most are voting for the guy who brings it home. The system ain't broke. We are. We created this system, and we continue to feed it. Most are just just not uncomfortable enough to do anything about it. Lack of empathy and downright hate play a huge part.
Conversely, I would contend that if we don't do them, they will do us. Are you a "pitcher", or a "catcher"? :-)
It's not flamebait. There's a good 5% of the voting public feel exactly that way about these two. And they have very good reason. While their position on "high" tech is interesting and all, when you starting asking the real questions, it boils down to their position on our rights to use that tech as we see fit. Because none of them are "against" technology. We have to watch how it will used against us. So the questions become something like, Who's going to to reign in the FBI and their wiretapping? Who's going to stop the TSA from damaging our airliners, possibly causing a real disaster? When are we ever going to see real adherence to the Bill of Rights? Not that we ever had, but it's about time we make a real effort. If we want to see truly rapid development of high tech, we have to ask when are they going to put an end to near infinite copyright, and the idea of software patents.
Well, from both of these guys we are getting negative responses to all these questions and more. We are going to get more of the same thing that we have been getting since long before we were born.
So the AC is right
Fuck McCain
Fuck Obama
The only thing I could add is "!"
At least from my experience, unless provided by a major news provider, blogs tend to be a means for someone to advance their opinion, as opposed to report the news (though they may call it reporting).
There's a problem when the sponsors decide what's "news" and what isn't. Sure there's plenty of chaff from the bloogers, but it's the only thing that will get those with the resources to report a bit more truthfully. Note how those in mass media reacted in the past, with calls for control of the bloggers. It's about damn time the bloggers have equal access to those who make the news. They must be allowed to demand answers to the questions that mass media reporters are afraid to ask. And there's lots of questions that need to be asked.
This decentralization has really deteriorated the quality of reporting as news outlets have had to slash their budgets.
There used to be rules about a broadcaster's obligation to serve the community. And not just the advertising or business "community". When they fail to do this, we should be out there challenging their license. This decentralization is the best message we can send, shape up, or hand over the keys. Budgets be damned. Most of it is wasted on fancy studios and production(you should see what they spend on just the "music" library, for example, they even have to pay for the fake teletype background noise), and overpaid primadonna script reading robots anyway. Very little is used to gather and report the news. Now the viewers expect it. That's a shame.
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour tvs...
Darn! I'll never be first at anything :-(
You're probably right. It's there for anybody. The quick reaction from the moderators makes me awful proud. If you ever see one, post a picture, ok?
Damn! I sure wish moderation went to +/-1000. I would love to see how many dweebs are trying to mod it down more. They're probably slamming on that moderate button like the "close door" button in the elevator. Whack away fellas. Hee hee hee. No sense of humor whatsoever. What a bunch of dopes...Pusillanimous Pinheads...Presumptuous Popinjays...Sanctimonious Scatterbrains! You all do the party proud. This is gonna be a fun election.
What's next? We keep paying doctors every few years for prior services rendered? Or how about the contractor that built your house you continue to live in?
I use the Hobbs meter on the plane I fix, and the odometer on a car. I haven't lifted a wrench since 1982. I'm good for another 50 years. in my dreams!
Sorry, man. Somebody had to say it
First, the article is an ad for this guy. Second, priorities. But real needs have no place in the "free" market, do they? And yes, there are quite literally many parts of the world where it's easier to get a cell phone than clean drinking water out of the tap. For instance, Chiapas, Mexico, just about any place in Central America. Proof? Come down for a visit. I'll give you all the proof you need there. And another thing, I see plenty of very poor people wear very nice, locally made clothes. You think they all wear shredded pants and a dirty "wife beater" from Red Cross disaster relief? Hell, I dress worse than they do. None of my clothes are newer then five years old. My point is that there's money for both. Which would you rather have first? All indications are the cell phone. But that's only because these people believe there's no no money for a decent water infrastructure, because the authorities tell them so. If they knew the truth, you can bet they would demand it. But high profit, gimicky toys are always an easy sell. Let's see how much use they get when the bill comes due or when the army blows up the towers.
Slashvertisements?
I like the term used in firehose(though I hate firehose almost as much as idle): binspam. And there's probably lots of sock puppets marking it up. It seems a lot of it is making the front page. The editors should know better.
But why pick on one company as though it is something special?
The article is binspam. An advertisement. I'm surprised the editors didn't notice. Overwhelmed by the glittery "high tech", I guess.
Maybe this would've helped to illustrate my point a bit better. Of course cell phones are much more profitable.
It's easier to get a damn cell phone than it is to get clean water.
Although what the Rosenbergs did was more spying than public speech, if atom bomb details had been published in the NYT they still would have gotten the death penalty, and again properly so. It was treason.
Citation needed. The Rosenbergs were railroaded*. They weren't even charged with, or convicted of treason. And furthermore, the case shows why we should not allow grand jury testimony to be withheld from the public.
*During the trial the prosecutor announced in a national news conference that he had secured sworn affidavits from an old friend of the Rosenbergs's, William Perl, which conclusively proved the conspiracy. Saypol decided against putting Perl on the stand, however, when Perl admitted to lying in his affidavits.
Libelous and slanderous speech causes no damage whatsoever. It is the action taken by others that causes the damage. And those who commit the action based on libelous and slanderous speech are the ones who should be punished. You're blaming the speaker. I blame the actor. Speech is not action. It is only words. And words mean nothing if nobody takes action. Here, I'll Godwin it for you. If nobody had followed Hitler's orders, how famous do you think he would be today?
your free speech rights aren't absolute.
But the amendment is. It says "no law", not "no unreasonable law". Sounds pretty absolute to me.
but Firefox 3 is unstable and explodes sometimes.
You mean like an iPod nano? Well, as long as you keep it off the airplane, I won't mind.
I don't have a dime(peso) to my name.