NewHaiku
-
Posts
43 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by NewHaiku
-
-
And in a sense, that's still the people's say in government.
I'm not saying it's not. The electoral system does, to a great extent, represent the wishes of the people. My argument is that the popular vote does it even better.
If we are going to get into a bunch of conspiracy theory BS, then i'm out of this conversation. You conspiracy theroists are all a bunch of nut-jobs that need to get sent to your own little island where you can theorize until the end of time about how you got there.I don't quite understand. How does pointing out that states cast their electoral votes for whomever wins the popular vote in their particular state qualify as a "conspiracy theory?"
Looks like Wikipedia's in on it, too:
The election of the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States is indirect. Presidential electors are selected on a state by state basis as determined by the laws of each state. Currently each state uses the popular vote on Election Day to elect electors. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and the District of Columbia are actually choosing Electors from their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These Presidential Electors in turn cast the official (electoral) votes for those two offices.
-
No offense, but the average American is too dumb to make such an important choice. Therefore, we elect people to the college to make the decision for us.
That would all be well and good, as long they actually made those decisions for us. Instead, they just vote for whomever wins the most votes in their particular state.
(And, yes, I know that some states split their electoral votes. The same idea still applies.)
-
Vermont gets 3 votes and California get 55 because Vermont has a population of 630,000 and California has a population of 36,000,000
...
The yare not under-represented, they are equally represented, based on their population.
Oh, I see. So if we give every person in Vermont one vote, they're under-represented. But if we give entire states quasi-proportional votes based on their population, then those people are fairly represented. I don't see how these scenarios differ save that the popular vote is more exact in its math.
It is not irrelevent, it will never happen because it should never happen.This is not an argument.
The United States is a republic, not a democracy. The people that come from the rural areas of the country would never pressure their state governments to support such an amendment, because fundamentally, culturally, morally and politically, people that live in rural areas tend to be far different than people in urban areas. Those people would certainly not support a system where only the urban areas are needed to decide the future of their country.21% of the country lives in rural areas. Politicians will continue to target that demographic regardless of whether the electoral college is around.
We're not a democracy, etc. etc.Listen. I know how our government works. Just because I implied that "democracy" was a good thing doesn't mean I don't know we're a republic. I know what the electoral college is, I know how we have historically elected our presidents. None of these are reasons why we should choose ALL republican institutions over democratic ones.
For a hundred and fifty years, states elected their senators via their state legislatures. In 1911, we passed the 17th amendment, and that changed. We realized the status quo system was arbitrary and bearucratic, and now we're probably better off for it.
Abolishing the Electoral College would seriously compromise the sovereignty of the states in their ability to elect a president. Since the United States is a federal republic, the states maintain all political sovereignty that they do not yield to the federation. The ability of the state to decide, as a state, who it elects as president is is one of the fundamental principals of the state's sovereignty. Taking away that ability would seriously compromise our entire system of government...You actually think that states have the "sovereign right" to vote for whomever they want? States have the right to decide the president in the same way that Iraqis had the right to free elections in the Hussein era. Federalism is dead. If you're really worried about increasing states' rights, become a lawyer and challenge Lopez, don't worry about preserving "rights" that don't really exist anyway.
-
I strongly disagree that the Electoral College should be abolished. Doing so would alienate all of the smaller states and grant all of the power to the larger states. The Electoral College was designed so that every state has equal representation, so that is is impossible for only the largest states to decide the fate of the election. In other words, this system was designed so that it is possible for an election to be won without gaining the popular vote.
You mean exactly like the status quo, where Vermont gets two electoral votes and California gets 50? And why is being able to win an election where you don't win the popular vote a good thing?
In a purely democratic system, more loosely populated states would have no importance, so why even consider them? They dont matter. Who cares about a barren patch of land that has only 500,000 people? We don't need their vote...1. Again, these states are underrepresented anyway.
2. Politicians will continue to campaign in places like Wyoming and Kansas to ensure they get the rural vote.
3. Why does it matter whether politicians "care" about these places? Citizens of Vermont won't get to attend political rallies? So what?
Realistically, the Electoral College will never be abolished. It is one of the fundamental principals of the Constitution of the United States and though a few may attempt to abolish it, the process is very clear and, in this case, insurmountable, as it would alienate the very states that would be needed to pass the amendment.Irrelevant to the debate over whether it should happen. If the people apply enough pressure to their state governments, we could reasonably pass such an amendment.
Besides, all of this stink has come about because Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and George W Bush won the election. Does anyone remember the electoral count? 271-266Do you know what that means? Florida was not the reason Gore lost. Since 1968, Florida has only voted Democrat twice. In other words, in the last 10 elections, Republicans have won Florida 80% of the time.
Gore lost because he did not even win the votes of his home state of Tennessee, which voted for Clinton in both elections and elected Gore four times as a representative and twice as a senator.
Thats why he lost, he ignored the little guy. He ignored his home state, and you dont win an election if you lose your home state. The only president to ever do so was James Polk, when he won the 1844 election, but lost in Tennessee.
The issue isn't "why Gore lost." The issue is that a few hundred voters in Florida functionally overruled the 500,000-strong majority who voted for Gore. It's not a partisan thing. Bush got 3 million more votes nationwide in 04, but if just 50,000 more people in Ohio had voted for Kerry, it wouldn't have mattered. That doesn't sound particularly democratic to me.
-
i am christian.
but hey, pretty much every faith believes in 1 God.
If by "pretty much every faith" you mean "like, three," then yes, I suppose pretty much every religion is monotheistic.
I was raised Jewish. Atheist now.
-
What are your thoughts on this? Discuss.
I'll join everyone else who posted in this thread in saying that I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. Parents? Peers? Are they telling you to do your homework? Give them your lunch money? Shoot up heroin?
For me, there are two types of imperatives: suggestions and threats. People have every right to give you suggestions, and you have every right to refuse them. Depending on the specific situation, people may or may not have the right to threaten you, and at that point you have the ability to weigh the potential negative consequences of inaction with your desire to comply with the imperative. There's no need to be rude about it unless people are continually hasseling you with commands to do things you don't want to do.
So, yes. That's how I feel. About this.
-
only nolifes play this game for any significant amount of time
Fixed.
I think most runescapers lose their life far before the 200m XP mark :lol:
-
that has nothing to do with interaction, interacting means trading, teleothering, attacking, ect...
I think the rule is vague enough that Jagex wouldn't throw down the banhammer just because someone had a scouting account.
-
I think this whole thing says more about your girlfriend than it does you. Think about it from her perspective: She's been going out with you for three years. You drink, cheat, and can't spell. She should be the one breaking up with you. :shame:
The fact that she's not indicates that she has serious issues, issues that you're taking advantage of if you continue to go out with her.
For both your sakes, you should end it now.
-
I think the whole looking-for-something-that's-in-my-hand thing happens to pretty much everyone. But once, I was at this cubs game, and some guy hit a foul ball, and I stuck out my hand to catch it, but then everyone was angry at me, and then security made me leave. So that was a pretty big brain freeze.
-
EDIT: Double post, sorry.
/complains to no one in particular about forum lag
-
I know that the drop X concept for non-stackable items would make the game unnecessarily easier. But what about a drop X option that only applies to stackable items? It would come in handy when you have to get rid of some runes or feathers but still need to keep a few.
Any comments?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why you'd want that. That's what banks are for.
-
I know you didn't ask for opinions, but how can you honestly watch something like the NFL when you can get involved in something like College Football?
Players doing just enough to keep their salaries vs. Players playing because they love the game (or working their wagons off to get into the nfl)
Meh. I can't watch college football. Too many missed tackles.
I could care less what the players are playing for, and I don't know why people would rather watch the second-best football players in the country over the best football players in the country. W
-
I've got a solution. Instead of having Jagex code conga lines into the game, just invite some friends over and create a real conga line. You'll be in varrock before you know it.
-
NBA is the national basketball association... And they usually draft people from college ball or high school. Theres people that play basketball besides these people that go into the NBA that are very good. Street players are pretty good in my area.
You'd think that if they were good enough to make the NBA, they'd play in the NBA. I'll bet that most street players would be happy to be paid a couple hundred thousand a year. In any case, you'd have to teach street players an entirly new game if you wanted them to play in the Olympics. Much cheaper, easier, and more reliable to take players from the NBA.
-
In rough order:
1. Pink Floyd
2. The Beatles
3. Eminem (only the older stuff)
4. The Who
5. The Rolling Stones
6. Kanye West
7. Franz Ferdinand
8. Black Sabbath
9. Red Hot Chili Peppers
10. King Crimson
I'm so mainstream, it's disgusting.
-
Bought Radiohead - The Bends last weekend after seeing it compared to Revolver. Wouldn't put them in the same class, but it's still good stuff. I got Hot Fuss a couple of weeks ago, too, thought it was ok but kinda monotonous.
Also got Divison Bell to round out my Pink Floyd collection. It was awful. Then again, it's not really even Pink Floyd, so I shouldn't be too disappointed.
-
Theres so many players that play unprofessionally that are better than NBA players.
Err... Could you explain?
-
Congrats. Don't be abusing your power, though. I don't want to be reading through Wikipedia and see a naughty word. It would burn my young, innocent eyes..
-
Lovely Rita, meter maid...
Anyway, from what I've heard, Houston should be fine since it wasn't built underwater. Galvaston, on the other hand...
-
Something I discovered when learning my torah potion for my bar mitzvah. Read from Deut 28:15. Apparently, God will force me to eat my children if I don't believe in him.
-
Lol, going in my signiture.
Woot. I am sig-worthy!
*takes a shot*
-
Mmm. I practically have Holy Grail memorized. My favorite moments, in no particular order.
1. The Upper-Class Twit of the Year contest. (And they're coming into their first test: walking in a straight line!)
2. The gangs of old ladies terrorizing people in the streets.
3. The "full frontal nudity" sketches.
4. The fight between King Arthur and the Black Knigget in Holy Grail. (It's just a flesh wound)
5. The Knights Who Say Ni and the shrubbery.
6. And of course, when Sir Robin is rescued from "almost certain temptation." :lol: Probably my favorite Python line.
7. And, finally... THE COMFY CHAIR.
Don't know who my favorite member is. Eric Idle or John Cleese. But Terry Gilliam's animation really made the show unique, so it's hard to pass him up.
/runs off to watch old monty python episodes on demand
-
What I was trying to say in my first post is whenever I've heard of people writing down their thoughts or ideas or things like that it was usually when people were talking about some philosopher or some super intellectual guy who went back and used those notes as the basis for some awe inspiring work of art.
Just because some geniuses keep personal notes doesn't mean that anyone who keeps personal notes is a genius. I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but it seemed to be your general point.
And, as a very wise person once told me, logic is overrated anyway. :D
America's republican form of government underattack
in Off-Topic
Posted
No. I said that they don't have one particular sovereign right.
It was an analogy. Both state electors and the Iraqi people technically had the right to vote for whichever guy they liked the most. Neither do. State electors are bound by the popular vote, and Iraqis were bound by Saddam's genocidal tendencies. I wasn't implying anything beyond that.
I'll admit this was unclear. The issue isn't Lopez, it's the precedent set by Lopez which has subsequently been ignored by every Supreme Court decision since then. A test case reaffirming Lopez could (at least partially) bring back federalism. But in any case, it's not really relevant.
I see neither conspiring nor theorizing.
If you actually want to answer the points I brought up in my last post, though, feel free.