Geez, all you had to do is read the rest of the article summary.

This would only go into affect after enough states totaling 270 electoral votes (enough to elect a president) adopted similar resolutions.

With 270 electoral votes worth of states doing this as well I don't think their votes would be wasted.

I don't see how this is necessarily a better system (or worse for that matter) given that state reps and governors are often beholden to special interests. What's to stop them from appointing Senators on the basis of who will cater to said special interests. I mean just this resent fiasco with the governor of Illinois appointing Obama's successor is indication enough that leaving the selection of such an important position as Senator to party elites can be risky. Of course direct election of Senators has its own problems as you suggest in your post above so really all I'm saying is that I don't think either system is superior.

They may have warned against it becoming bipartisan but it quickly became so within a few years of the Republic's founding. The founder fathers were naive to think that political parties were something avoidable in a free, Republican form of government. It's only natural that people will group together with others of like ideology to empower their own agenda.

Why should I bother?

Yeah lets not support a company that's part of the solution for excessive advertising. That makes sense...

It's possible that a large part of the population has a low threshold of hypnotic suggestion and is susceptible to advertising, but this is a good reason to discourage it.

Huh, what? Currently advertisements are the only real means TV content creators have for making money. Are you saying that those who make the TV you enjoy should not be paid for their efforts?

In any case I'm not ruining anything "for the rest of us" since I wouldn't watch advertisements even if my eyelids were held open, and any that I've accidentally seen have given me a strong aversion to the product advertised.

Yes you are if you are editing out their advertisements. If too many people start doing this then advertisers pull their support for the sight and Hulu loses the ability to pay for the bandwidth you are greedily sucking up. You're basically advocating theft here, from those who make the shows that you enjoy.

Plus if you think you're not effected by advertising you are horribly naive.

Really everything would be fine if content creators would accept more modest profits. Maybe a 100% inheritance tax would help.

Ummm, that's what Hulu is. It's clearly TV show creators taking smaller profits. As for the inheritance tax comment, what the hell are you going on about? That has nothing to do with this.

Wow, what else do you see with your magical crystal ball of seeing into the future? All I see is a TV service that is finally putting forth a reasonable number of ads. If they change their policies I will change my opinion of them but I am not going to try to screw them over because some crazy person thinks they know what they'll do in the future.

Yes but there is absolutely no description of what the case is about. For all I know the RIAA is completely in the right on this particular case.

What's with your signature? It links directly to a PayPal donation link with no description as to what group I would be donating to. Seems like a dumb way to solicit donations as I have no inclination to donate to an unknown group nor any inclination to research a group so poorly presented.

No, you're a nerd.

Honestly I'm kind of bummed that these work-arounds to sites like Hulu exist. Finally I have a means of watching TV where i don't feel like I am wasting too much of my life on commercials while those that make the shows that I enjoy are able to make some money. Now that we're seeing a move back towards a reasonable level of advertising for TV we've got people abusing the system to the ultimate determent of us all.

I like the fact that I can honestly watch these shows without watching 8 - 9 minutes of commercials for every 21 - 22 minutes of show. It's really disappointing to find out that there are those that are actively ruining this for the rest of us because they can't be bothered with 2 - 3 30 second advertisements so that those who make the TV we like can make a bit of money.

wow, way to justify your job with a fluff piece and get it on slashdot no less.

I don't understand your reasoning here. How is the state court nullifying the amendment different then the federal court nullifying it? Why should it matter whether it is the federal or state court that nullifies an amendment?

That's ridiculous. So if the state of Oregon amends their constitution to advocate the killing of Jews the courts don't have the ability to change that? That's not true at all. The courts have every right to change a states constitution. How you got modded 5 informative is beyond me.

I think that's exactly what we're going to see happen. Fortunately for me, I'm a pretty solid Democrat so this just means more victories for us as I don't think the Republican's have much hope pushing a far right agenda. I do honestly feel for the Republican moderates though, who I do have quite a bit of respect for. It was a shame to see McCain's campaign sell itself to the far right.

But I dont see any strong leaders from the pragmatic, small government, strong but restrained military branch that I wish the party was...

If the Republican party had way more of this and way less of the religious right I'd probably vote Republican about 50 percent of the time. As it stands right now, that party is way to scary for me to even consider giving power to on the national level.