http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Foundations_of_voting_theory

A variety of methods were proposed by statesmen such as Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and Daniel Webster. Some of the apportionment methods discovered in the United States were in a sense rediscovered in Europe in the 19th century, as seat allocation methods for the newly proposed system of party-list proportional representation. The result is that many apportionment methods have two names: for instance, Jefferson's method is equivalent to the d'Hondt method, as is Webster's method to the Sainte-Laguë method, while Hamilton's method is identical to the Hare largest remainder method.[12]

Well to be fair, he didn't really point out the problems as he proposed a different method. Of course he did a lot back then such as proposing 20 years in between constitutional conventions to re-approve the constitution (or to add or remove depending).

And in Europe its called the D'Hondt method, but its basically the same as Jefferson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method#D.27Hondt_and_Jefferson

Personally I didn't know Jefferson had created a different voting method until I saw it in a computer game called "Victoria 2" in which you could change your government voting system so I had to look it up.

I'm not a physicist, or anything, but I tend to think the following: if energy is here, it was either created at some time in the past or it has existed forever.

The thing is, all our laws of physics and hypothesis thereof, have been acquired through observation of the known and observable universe.

There could be parts of the universe too far off to observe (things past 14 billion light years away), impossible to observe (whats inside a black hole or large chunks of matter approaching the speed of light), or thinking unknown to be unknown that we can observe (other theoretical dimensions or things like dark mater).

It could be very well possible that our laws of physics may not apply in other parts or conditions of the universe where entropy and 2nd laws of thermodynamics does not apply or at least not in the ways we are familiar with.

Of course, it could be possible the laws are uniform everywhere and in all conditions instead, but either way it is impossible to tell currently until we actually find observable proof.

Which is why we are doing the LHC. ;)

Well of COURSE most people want their own opinions to be the only ones in power. I would love it if I had complete and total control and congress voted in lockstep with me.

I think you misunderstood me.

I want my personal political view in government, rather than in control of government.

Let's say we have 30% demss, 30% republicans, 20% libertarians, and 20% socialists in congress.

I'd be much more happy with that than the current government which as you say Ron Paul has to parade as a Republican (which he himself has said the only reason he is one, is because a non 2 party candidate has no realistic ability to win).

That said, there is nothing preventing individuals running as parties in these systems.

I mentioned Kadima earlier, which was founded by Sharon after he had a break with his existing political party. When people voted for Kadima they were voting for Sharon.

Same thing is still happening in the states like it or not... Just without 3rd parties.

People are simply voting Republican because they support Sarah Palin and people are voting Democrat because they support Obama.

I'm pretty sure I voted for people today that I have no idea who are, but I know whoever I vote for will usually tow the party line.

I mean how else did the Republicans keep a filibuster when some of the individual Republican senators previously said they supported the legislation?

And if proportional representative irks you so much, just suggest STV (single transferable vote) or IRV instead as that is more in the classic sense of voting for individuals.

But the question is, does this make the quality of government better?

If we are using quality on efficiency governmental metrics, you could just install a dictator and get the job done quite easier and quicker.

What many of us really want in our government is our personal opinion and political views represented more clearly and like our own.

Sure, this will add another cook in the kitchen, but we need more alternative views than just two.

And its not like Germany, Israel, and many other of the prop rep governments go into political deadlocks all the time and have their government shutdown.

If the Prime Minister cannot form a coalition, then he has to call for an election and/or resign until a functional one does.

Proportional Representation assumes that you're voting for a Political Party. We don't actually do that in the USA. We cast votes for individuals.

When you vote for candidates on the Federal (and mostly state level) you are voting for the party like it or not because either the candidate tows the party line or you don't get funding, committee seats, or campaign help.

Notice how both parties have usually voted down the party line in congress even when the candidates previously said their stances are.

And in theory in a proportional rep government, an individual can create a one man political party in which they have complete control over, so when you vote for that party, you vote for that individual.

If they got more than one seat, they could simply get a college to fill in or just write that that persons vote in parliament is 2 seats or whatever.

When you vote, you legitimize the process.

I've never understood this argument.

The people in power never cared that only 40% of the people vote and in fact it shows that if no one bothered to come to polls to vote against them, then it most likely occurs to them that they should keep doing the things they way they want to.

I mean... People who can't be bothered to vote won't likely be bothered to go into the streets to protest either, much less take arms up against a legitimate government.

You could in theory vote democrat until the republicans become so marginalized they are forced to become "republican-lite".

Personally, I'd vote Republican in a snap if they weren't so pushy about legislating morality.

Yes actually...

The Green Party in Germany comes to mind.
The Pirate party is really close to getting seats in the Swedish Parliament.

Also... Israel had a 3rd party called Kadima which not only was founded in 2005, but was able to get a majority coalition in the Israeli parliament shortly thereafter.

Proportional representation clearly is the best way to get 3rd party candidates and political turnover over any other system that has been tried.

Why don't you go to the poling booth and see if there are any 3rd candidates on the ballot and vote for them?

I'm always surprised to see libertarian, socialist, and green parties on tickets.

Sometimes I even write in people just because.

Also, sometimes they try to push some interesting laws through via propositions.

I actually take the time to read them and vote accordingly.

I'm sure if you live in California you've got one right now that you should be considering.

Oh and I almost forgot to plug Fairvote.org which promotes NPV (National Popular Vote as opposed to electoral vote) and IRV (instant runoff vote) reforms which both would help 3rd party cannidates.

Surprisingly enough I believe several states are experimenting with IRV this election (read more in the fair vote page) and NPV is getting traction in some state governments so that its not just about Ohio and Florida and that your vote will matter in a presidential campaign.

Really, we need electoral form on all levels so if you are aware of it and talk about it to other people the more likely it will put as a major issue to the national level.

Then we can start having more serious 3rd parties.

It doesn't matter who you elect - voting simply creates the illusion of consent.

Not exactly true.

There are key differences in Democrat and Republicans.

That said, I disagree with both of them, but I vote against the party which I see the greatest threat to my personal liberty and well being.

Which I view as of now as the Republicans as they seem to be willing to trade my personal rights and freedoms off to either security issues, morality through legislation, and or various other issues that affect me personally.

Its not that the Democrats do similar things, but they do less of them.

I originally, voted against the democrats in 2000 simply because of the DMCA, anti-violent video game laws, and anti-smoking legislation only to find out that the republicans created the Patriot act and various laws that were started to make it feel like we were heading towards a Police state.

So given the choice of living in a Nanny State vs a Police state, I'd rather put up with a Nanny state... (catch my drift)

Of course if you really want change, you should start raising awareness of STV and Proportional Representation

You see... As one of the first major nationalized democracies which instituted the First past the post system which was seen as the best way to handle the situation as no one had tried this before in such a way. Although people like Jefferson did point out the mathematical problems with the system, no one bothered to change it.

Now when European monarchies were overthrown and replaced by democracies over the 19th and 20th centuries a great deal of the instituted proportional democracies (most notably the Wiemar republic) simply because it is more mathematically fair and prevents the dominance of 2 major political parties we face in our first past the post system.

Arguably the UK has the same issue as they've also had a first past the post system in voting system that has lasted longer than the US system and are actually talking about trying out STV or a watered down version of prop rep.

Suppose Montana passed a law making it legal to assassinate IRS auditors but imposed a one cent tax on each such assassination.

in theory any state could make murder legal (though assault on Federal employees is technically a federal crime) but there is the issue of federal funds.

DId you know most the laws that the Federal government passes actually is enforces by laws in the states (such as speed limits and drinking age laws) simply because the federal government makes the enforcement of the law a requirement for the state to receive federal money.

In theory any state can choose not to accept the law and not receive the money tied to do.

I think Montana does this with their speed limit law.

Keep in mind drug laws are passed and enforced by the state governments and not directly by the Federal government. If the states refuse to enforce the laws, then the Federal government won't really have the means to do anything about it.

Even if they were able to make it a federal crime, if the states refused to pay the bill to house the prisoners or have their officers not spend the effort to make the arrests, it is unlikely the Federal agents will be able to fill in the gap.

Prop 19 is a dumb one because pot is primarily criminal under federal law, and so this isn't going to make much difference.

I'm going to loose my moderation here but I want to point out something interesting.

There is specific wording in the US constitution that prohibits the US Federal government from interfering with the collection of state taxes.

In so much so that the US gov cannot collect income taxes from income received from interest on state municipal bonds (great way to avoid taxes btw).

Now the only way the US can specifically outlaw pot and prevent California from taxing it is via a constitutional amendment (its what they did for the alcohol prohibition after all) and its really doubtful such a thing would pass in this political environment.

I do believe the DEA will challenge it if it passes, but I think whoever put Prop 19 together was smart in that they specifically made the law to tax it and provide income to the state which historically cannot be legally interfered by the US Federal government.

Had their been no tax clause, the Feds could have shut it down,

In a galaxy that existed almost 10 billion years before the Earth cooled, I cannot imagine that we would be the first intelligence. The idea seems so preposterous as to not merit discussion.

Perhaps natural evolution favors non-technological species that evolve simply to consume bio-mass? (like dinosaurs)

And it takes a freak of nature (say a meteor strike) that not only kills off the larger species but doesn't kill off the smaller ones as well.

Fermi's Paradox bugs the hell out of me. I can't see how we are unique... but I also can't see why the evidence of other civilizations wouldn't be obvious.

The most simplest resolution to the Fermi paradox is... (drum roll)

We just happen to be first.

Or very close to be being first.

Once we (or someone close to us in the tech race) achieve inter-solar system space flight, it will be only a mater of time before the whole galaxy is colonized.

Now it might be likely that most species die off or choose not to do this, but it only takes one species to colonize everything over time.