Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Wow (Score 3, Informative) 381

A true SMPS will do much better, but unfortunately is more complicated than one three-legged IC and a few caps. Actually, there are several companies that make board-mounted switching regulator modules, allowing you to step DC voltages up or down with >80% efficiency using... just a three-legged IC and a few caps. :) One company even makes one that fits in the same space as a traditional 7805, can't remember the name right now. They're a lot more expensive, but the lack of a heat sink and the additional efficiency is a big plus for certain applications.

Comment Re:I hope they're removed, (Score 2, Insightful) 918

If neither candidate can run on the ballot OR as a write in, that would almost certainly precipitate a nationwide constitutional crisis.

To win the Presidency in a one on one race, a candidate needs to get 270 electoral votes, because there are a total of 538 votes in the Electoral College. Texas has the 34 electoral votes, meaning that if the electors from Texas were barred from voting for either candidate, Obama would almost certainly win a plurality.

Except -- the electors aren'tspecifically bound by the constitution to vote for anybody. Theoretically an elector, while elected standing for candidate A, can change his mind and vote for B. About half the states have laws which punish "faithless electors", although the constitutionality of these laws have never been tested. It's doubtful that they are constitutional.

If Obama wins 270 electoral votes, it won't matter. But if he wins 235 electoral votes it won't matter (because McCain will have 370), although that is unlikely in the extreme.

If we have anything in between, we have a constitutional crisis. What would be clear is that had the will of Texans been honored according to how the system was supposed to work, then McCain should have won. If some TX electors acting on this theory votes for him, then he will win, but the legitimacy of this win will be questioned by around half of Americans who voted for Obama -- possibly more than half if Obama wins the popular vote. If not enough TX electors vote for McCain to put him over the top, the people who voted for McCain will not recognize the legitimacy of the elections. If each candidate gets exactly 252 votes (I haven't checked whether this is possible mathematically), then the election goes to the House, which will give the Presidency to Obama.

I'm afraid you misunderstand the system. The House doesn't just decide in a dead tie, it decides if nobody gets a majority of the total electoral votes cast. With 538 electors, that always means 270. It's not a question of who gets the most votes, it's a question of who gets >50% of the total. If both McCain and Obama get less than 270, the election goes to the House, no matter who has more. Since McCain is guaranteed to win Texas if he's on the ballot, there are three possible outcomes if he's not. 1) Obama gets 270, so McCain not being on the ballot in Texas doesn't matter. 2) McCain gets 270, even without Texas. 3) Obama doesn't get 270, nor does McCain because of Texas. Election goes to the House. So the real question is, who would win if the House voted state by state, along party lines? Anyone care to count it up?

Slashdot Top Deals

DEC diagnostics would run on a dead whale. -- Mel Ferentz

Working...