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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Electoral college does reflect the popular vote (Score 4, Insightful) 1424

There's no reason that amount of total area won should mean anything at all. Moreover, there's no reason you can reasonably object to cities dominating simply because they happen to be dense areas. Disagreeing with a group doesn't mean you get to use essentially arbitrary criteria to decide you'd like to ignore their wishes.

Social and political interests tend to have a heavy coincidence with geography. If you are on the coasts you care way more about the fishing industry than people in the heartland. If you are in a desert you care more about water conservation. If you are near oil and natural gas your livelihood or the livelihood of your neighbors probably depends on the energy industry. By virtue of being in a population dense area, you automatically have a powerful voting block on various area specific issues. What's more, the people in other areas are not your neighbors, you have much less incentive to protect their interests, and are much less likely to hear their anger and complaints when you don't. By and large people from Wisconsin are not going to be able to come and protest march down the streets of LA if California -- 8 x the population of Wisconsin -- decides corn should be taxed to subsidize making action movies.

The electoral college helps protect various minority populations from being exploited by a tyrannous majority. And that is the main point of our republic, why it is based on constitutional rights, competing branches of government (one of which is not voted on), an electoral college, etc., and super majorities are required to enact any substantial changes. Our government is not a mechanism for enacting the will of the 51% (or even the 60%) on every issue, it is built as a balance of interests which makes the government accountable to the people while also making it fairly difficult for any one group of people to use the government as a cudgel against another group.

Comment Re:*SNAP* Gone! (Score 1) 291

Sure, until they lock the cell firmware to an equivalent of UEFI secure boot on intel chips. You can disable it, but it also disables the cell radio and you can't get services. If they're a bitch about it, they'd do like Samsung has with some versions of Knox, where a tripped counter permanently disables some features (like Samsung Pay).

Comment Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? (Score 0) 600

He wants insular protectionism. What he doesn't realize is that it will also bring the negative - which is protectionism by other partners. We will be at a further disadvantage to selling our goods internationally as others impose tariffs to match ours. We'll get a fraction of our jobs back for those things that were previously produce overseas, but downward wage pressure will increase because everyone who sells internationally now has to lower their price to become competitive over the quid pro quo tarrifs and, domestically, we'll see 20-30% inflation on goods due to either tarrifs on foreign goods or more expensive, domestically produced alternatives. The net effect is that nearly everybody loses, but we gain a small fraction of jobs that nobody will want to do (how many people are clamoring for piece-work level electronics assembly positions anyway?)

Slashdot Top Deals

A man is known by the company he organizes. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...