NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) There is no positive for small states here. Due to the fact that their population densities there is no way that you can convince me that a canditate will listen MORE to people whose votes would be more expensive to gather, vs somewhere they can raise both cash and campaign issues to a much larger group of people. I don't understand how you can dismiss the small amount of electoral votes from a state, but then try to honestly tell me that they will be MORE important, with statistically LESS influence per capita? That makes zero sense to me. You are honestly trying to tell me that if Wyoming had 1/3 the influence of a national election that canditates would make more of an effort to win their votes? With limited resources and more limited by time, canditates are looking for the biggest bang for their buck. Dilluding the influence of someone isn't going to help them at all. Plus like I said earlier, these kinds of checks against majority power are present all over our government. We have the filibuster to give the minority a chance to be heard. On budget bills they need a 60% majority for passage, and have to start in a certian house of congress. We have a complex system for updating the constitution to insure that one party getting into power can't rewrite whatever rules for society that they want. Our forefathers were enlightened enough in many respects to know that 50% +1 might not always be the best thing. I don't see this being any different. I think there are a lot of positives for small states here, but obviously you don't see what I do. I'll just point at my previous posts and say that those are valid arguments. And yes, I am honestly telling you that without the electoral system, people in small "gimme" states will actually get more influence. Again, as I stated earlier. Thing is, I am very much a states-rights person. The 10th amendment was actually the one that caused the most debate and controversy during the constitutional convention, and it's key this federation. The Feds have taken over a lot of things from the states where they should not have. But I don't believe for a second that the electoral college does anything to aid states' rights. The US Senate, and more so the 10th amendment itself, protect states' rights. The fact that the US government has done run-arounds of the 10th is more my concern from a states' rights perspective.

I can't figure out why this forum is under Hotstove. I don't see any connection. Wouldn't this be better on it's own? Just a thought. I reall don't think people will look for it there.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) Every employer has made it difficult to join a 401k or SimpleIRA or whatever they have. One of my fellow employees has been eligible and interested for a year in her SimpleIRA with the 3% match. Yet, the owner can never seem to find the person or forms to get her enrolled. Last winter, when sales were doing well, I was able to put about 20% of my income into savings. Did that for four months, then left for another job and things went south quickly. I'm trying to put a little away every paycheck now. I think most large employers are not making it difficult. 401k is part of their benefits structure, so implementation would be highly regimented in most medium to large firms. Small companies, though, I think you are right. I've heard nightmares.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 09:58 AM) Let's see. Idiot Mayor talks about God punishing us for Iraq, etc. and NO needs to be rebuilt 'chocolates'. Algore screams about our freedoms being taken away. Hillary calls the GOP House a "Plantation"... all yesterday... Coincidence? I think not. I might agree on Gore and Clinton. But me thinks Mr. Nagin is kind of on his own planet. Also, remember, yesterday was MLK Day, so the issues of freedoms and civil rights were naturally going to be at the forefront.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 09:49 AM) Actually that is completely wrong. Because of the guarentee of a certian number of electoral votes, the states at the bottom of the population ladder actually are over represented when it comes to people per electoral vote. California had almost 34 million people as of the last election. Wyoming had just under 500,000. So in other words it takes about 650,000 people to equal one electoral vote in Cali, where as it is about 166,000 in Wyoming. Wyoming wouldn't even have one electoral vote if they were a part of California. And please spare me the ideal that people will travel all over the country for votes. In a system where cash is king, canditates are looking for places they can raise the largest amount of cash the quickest. The system is already geared towards the big states as is. Canditates know that they can gather a large amount of people quickly and make a buck. They stop in small states now only to put on a dog and pony show. If you reduce the value of small states even further, why would they stop there at all now. At least the system we have overvalues them in the electoral college to provide some inducement, get rid of that and you water them down even more. I simply don't agree with your assessment here. As far as the ratio of importance of small states to large states, the fact that Wyoming has 3 instead of 1 isn't terribly relevant. Either way, it looks unimportant to a candidate. What would make WY residents MORE important to a candidate is if that candidate's views played well to that political profile. Again, the focus moves from states to issues. That's positive for WY's residents. If you leave it as-is, a candidate is likely to avoid WY entirely, since A) it's a given R state usually anyway and B) 3 votes or 1 vote in the electoral college isn't a lot. On the other hand, you remove the electoral college, and suddenly the residents of that state are as important as those in CA. People WILL travel all over the country for votes if their political profile requires them to. If they are appealing to a group of people that tend to be rural, well then, they'll travel a lot in rural states. It's pretty clear to me. Removing the electoral college enhances the power of all individual voters, and for that matter makes the smaller states more important as well because they actually count for something. Plus as stated, it changes the focus from geography to actual issues, and further, it removes some of the randomness of state importance (the imbalance caused by a few given states getting all the attention as "swing" states in that given election year).

I'm going with Rex's option as well, which I wish was an option in the poll. I'd support my wife/friend/GF/sister/whatever's decision, whatever it was. My leaning would be to keep it, but ultimately, I could only influence the decision, not make it. It would be her decision to make ultimately.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 08:26 AM) Doesn't anyone remember their history? Remember the Great Compromise? Small states rights? The system was set up this way to ensure that large states didn't completely dominate this new union. In today's world, it wouldn't necesarily be large states, but large urban areas would become the only thing that matters. I know someone already alluded to this, but the United States wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for this system that recognized the power of majority rule on one hand, yet gave a nod to the minority rights on the other hand. Also remember that it isn't JUST the electoral college that gives this kind of credence to minority rights... ahem filibuster anyone? Think about it, if you were trying to win only popular votes, why would you ever leave the 6 county area around Chicago? How many rural issues would ever get heard when urban areas would be the only ones that mattered? I just don't think that removing the electoral college will curtail states' rights at all, nor do I think that small states would be marginalized. First, regarding small states being marginalized, let's give this some thought. Right now, if Wyoming goes to a candidate, they get a whole 3 electoral votes (making all WY votes fairly meaningless). On the other hand, if we have an actual national vote (since the Presidency is a NATIONAL office, not a state office), then every vote in Wyoming has the same value as every vote in California. That's the idea, isn't it? The electoral ration between CA and WY is what, 53 to 3? Roughly the same as the population ratio? Except that ultimately, the votes in CA are overvalued in the electoral system because of the bulking of all those votes. Remove the electoral college, and the system becomes MORE fair for smaller states. Second, regarding the curtailing of states' rights, the state doesn't execute a right in the election anyway. The popular vote in each state decides the electoral college vote, so what rights exactly are being lost? Finally, as far as large urban areas becoming more dominant, that's also not the case. Why? Because large urban areas themselves have a specific bias in most cases (generally to the left, as it happens). Candidates won't be campaigning by state anymore - they'll be campaigning to a certain set of political views, which might be urban, or rural. Either way, they are forced to go to those areas all over the country, in either case. Again, removing the electoral college makes the system more fair, and as far as I can tell, increases the importance of votes in the states which are currently considered gimmes for one party or the other (like, say, WY and other small states, as well as some big ones).

Very cool. Cheap and easy, and possibly fundable too. Plus, something the article failed to mention: companies could make even more money off of this via pollution credits. If they use the green stuff to cut their emissions well below standard, they can trade the pollution credits on the pseudo-market for more cash.

I highly recommend Moose meat to anyone who has the chance. Generally doesn't show up much in the U.S., more in Canada (where it's not endangered). Really rich, tasty red meat, though a little fatty.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 01:41 PM) This speaks for itself. Not about the Democrats, but about the politicians. All of 'em. Yes it does. It says even more about the Dems, though. I realize that much of Congress is pretty bent, but you cannot tell me that the Dems couldn't find SOMEONE from their ranks with a clean background and no ties to Abramoff. There has to be someone. What a bunch of idiots (those who made this decision, not all Dems).

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 01:56 PM) I call 'em like I see 'em. This is racist. I agree with YASNY, in that these imitations make the poster look pretty damn ignorant. That's my reaction. But where is the line? Is it OK to make fun of Arnold's accent? How about the Saturday night live skit called "Super Fans" and their Chicago accents? This is not a black and white thing; there is a spectrum. I don't think that the imitations are enough to be banning anybody. If people want to say stupid things about some category of people, fine. Frankly, it just makes it easier for the rest of us to spot the troglodytes.

What a great quote. What a great man, that Washington fella. And cheers to Mr. Englin. History will, I believe, show he is correct. Eventually. Bigotry has no place in the law.

Perhaps instead of required military service, you encourage judges to assign teens to groups similar to Americorps as alternative sentences. Groups that do volunteer work like building low cost housing, neighborhood clean-up, disaster aid, etc. Something more than just XX hours of community service, mind you - I mean a group that is 24/7 together and functioning as a unit (like the military). Eh, I suppose there aren't any groups like that now, and you'd have to establish them from scratch. But still an idea.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 15, 2006 -> 03:27 PM) I like that though because the leftists always overplay their hand and it ends up hurting them more than Bush. As much as I despise whiners and complainers, I'd have to say that the attacks on Bush during the last year actually HAVE helped the Dems. Bush's approval ratings being mired in the 40's are, in part, a testament to that. So is the fact that Congress was unable to do a lot of things the GOP wanted them to do, until very recently, partly because they were more willing to split with Bush on some things. But it is definitely true that the Dems cannot continue to rely just on that negative media rush if they want any real success in the 2006 midterms and the 2008 Presidential campaign. There has to be the perception among independents and moderates that the Dems have some sort of plan, some positive ideas, and a real theme to their march. Right now, the GOP is still perceived by the middle as having a plan, some common themes and a strong internal structure (reality or not). Not all moderates like the ideas and plans, but for some people, the fact that they have them at all is enough to support Bush and his party.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 15, 2006 -> 03:10 PM) A possibility I defintely allowed for, before one sentence was taken out of context and called absurd. Looking back, I suppose the word "absurd" was a bit strong, since it was perspective being discussed (which is entirely subjective). Sorry about that. I do agree with the responses here though, stating that it truly is the same from either side of the fence on this one. The other side on an issue always looks more extreme than your own.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 08:02 PM) Most people don't think of themselves as being FAR left or FAR right. So people who are somewhat left think that the righties are more extreme and people who are somewhat right think that the lefties are more extreme. Precisely.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 03:42 PM) Im in favor of keeping the status quo. Im absolutely positive the founders had this very same debate when the Constitution was being drawn up and theres a very good reason why things are the way they are. We get rid of the electoral college then the views of the small states become irrelevant as candidates focus on Cali, NY, TX, IL, OH and Florida. Actually, I don't think it would do that at all. It would in fact make states like CA the same as states like ID, because states no longer matter. Candidates would be forced to go after voters as individuals, not specific states. To me, it benefits the country as a whole by creating equality on a per-person basis.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 08:31 AM) Considering that you are young guy (right?) and basically a Democrat, that is understandable. Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. The EC hasn't been to kind to you in your lifetime. In this century, I believe there have been 2 Presidents elected to office by electoral college who did not carry the popular vote: one Republican (Bush II), and one Democrat (Kennedy). The fact that there have been more GOP Presidents in the last 25 years is not relevant to discussion of the electoral college, since Reagan, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II II all won the popular vote (most by a large margin). The electoral college has no logical reason for existence at this point in time. President is a national office, and should be voted on nationally. Like I said earlier, I hope we have another election soon where that duality occurs, so that we can get this thing knocked out. And I could care less which party does the complaining. Let's have some objectivity in this discussion (instead of just flinging stuff from the wings).

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 08:27 AM) No offense, but it seems to me that most of the Dems are closer to the radical left than Reps are to the radical right. YASNY, I've seen you make a lot of great points on here, many I agree with. This, however, is an absurd statement.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:44 PM) http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...S0201/601130394 Ford won her seat over a GOP opponent by 13 votes, and irregularities such as dead people voting have been uncovered. Republican leaders said they may call for a vote next week to nullify the election of the Memphis Democrat. Attorney General Paul Summers' office said the Senate could to that with a majority, which is 17 votes. Williams said yesterday, however, that as chairman of a Senate panel looking into the election, he wants to wait until the state election office finishes reviewing ballots. Ford said she's not paying attention to Republicans, especially because they don't have enough votes. "I'm sure all my colleagues will do their best," Ford said. "I'll be ready for whatever that is." She replaced her brother, John Ford, who stepped down last year from the Senate seat after he was indicted on federal charges that he took $55,000 in bribes. -- What a great family. And might I just say -- Hey Tennessee, try to come up with your own original way to steal elections. Chicago's got the copyright on the dead voting. Or perhaps this is a bizarro Chicago where corpses cast votes for Republican candidates? I lived in Memphis for a few years. The whole Ford family is just chock full of losers and criminals. And they win offices all the time. Being in Memphis, I came to appreciate how well-run a city Chicago is (corrupt it may be, but it works). Memphis city government is corrupt AND ineffective.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 05:48 PM) Unless, of course, a Democrat won the electoral college and lost the popular vote. Then the electoral college would be an important institution in our democratic system. right northsidesox72? I'm not a Democrat. Also, I'm not a winger. Not sure why you thought I was a Dem, but if you look at the body of my posts in here, you'll see I'm as much on the right side of the aisle as the left. And as Heads said, it will be whichever party gets bitten in the ass. I'll just be happy when it happens again to someone, so that we can get that thing toppled.

QUOTE(rventura23 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 05:29 PM) yup thats how the electoral college works, its all about getting strategic votes And it's a pointless system at this time in history. Useless, and in fact is incongruous with our "democracy". It's time has past, but no politicians have the balls to get rid of it. This one needs the courts. Next time someone wins the Presidency without the popular vote, someone needs to get this thing removed by the judicial system.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) Yeah there are some groups blocking GM crops, but I wouldn't in all cases say there's "no good reason." I said some, not all. And I agree, there are potential consequences that need to be studied. We can't just engineer something and throw it on the fields and say "let's see what happens!"

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 04:45 PM) He has at least some interesting thought lines, but I don't think he's taken them to their full extremes. For example, he cites one possible benefit of global warming being more arable land for trees. Well, that is one possibility, but on the other hand, you can also enlarge deserts with global warming, thus removing arable land by cutting off the rain supply. Or you can shift weather patterns to the point that the areas getting moisture are impractical places for growing. Or for that matter, you can make several arable areas significantly colder, to the point that it has a large negative impact on the land. I think he's fallen into the classic trap of "global warming", which I think is just thinking that the whole world gradually warms up, and ignoring all of the little variations it can produce, like significant cooling in some areas, large shifts int he climate patterns of others, etc. For that reason, I still prefer the term "Climate change", since it is probably more accurate. Damn you. I swear, at least once a day I make a post to make a point, and when it gets posted, you have snuck the same idea (or similar) in before I can finish mine.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 04:40 PM) That's all I have to say about this one. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbc.../601130327/1071 Wow indeed. What a moron. I actually agree with the fact that some fringe eco-groups are blocking GM crops and some developments like that for no good reason. But to say that global warming is good because it creates more arable land is idiotic. It's the same as saying that dropping a nuke somewhere is good because it makes more glass. Of course it creates more arable land on the fringes - and it causes desertification in many others, and we LOSE lots of land to rising of water levels. What an ass.