Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Was the report a first draft? (Score 1) 167

I realize I'm coming a bit late to the party with this question, but I wonder how Derek would edit the brief further if he had the opportunity, or if he is happy with the arguments and policy suggestions as is.

For me, while I agreed with virtually all of his arguments, I found his arguments for reform rather unpersuasive and some of his policy suggestions downright off-putting. DJ remixing as the lead argument? Ignoring copyright trolling? Even some of his strong arguments are weakly proffered. His proposal to create disincentives for renewing copyright was wildly convoluted and would've been a lightening rod for copyright holders to attack.

Comment Re:further reason for a popular vote (Score 1) 642

Sure. First off, know that the SCOTUS has specifically ruled the Electoral College skew between states is constitutional, but has also ruled that state elections must be one person one vote. This is important because of the mechanics of the Interstate Compact.

The Compact says that member states will allocate their EC vote based on the national popular vote. Non-member states would continue to allocate however they choose (most by winner-take-all statewide popular vote.) So what happens is that member state votes are counted X times (where X = number of member states) while non-member state votes are counted X+1 times. That's an unconstitutional because the state elections for electors (per Bush v Gore) are counted unequally.

Think of a Democratic CA voter in 2000-like scenario (reversed so that the D wins the EC and the R wins the popular vote) having their 55 EC votes flipped to the Republican which also flips the EC result. Their argument will be essentially, "My state should've gone Y but flipped to Z because it unconstitutionally counted non-member states' votes more often."

And that's part of the problem with the Compact, the supporters don't see how badly it could backfire (much like the R's who were knee jerking for all those allocation changes since the 2012 election.) A popular, effective incumbent verses a horrible, elitist challenger eeked out only a 4 point win. When the R's get another plurality, these solidly-D states that have passed the Compact so far will be glad it never got traction.

(Note: also not a lawyer, but I have read extensively on this issue.)

Comment Re:WInner-take-all == dumb (Score 1) 642

AR = 2.03E-06 to NY = 1.48E-06 in the Electoral College. In the House of Representatives, AR = 1.36E-06 to NY = 1.38E-06 (i.e. NY voters actually have very, very slightly more power in the House than AR voters.) Mind you, all of the figures are as true for rural NY voters as urban NY voters and for urban AR voters as rural AR voters thanks to SCOTUS one person one vote rulings (that specifically exempted the POTUS election because that election was specifically designed by the Constitution to not be one person one vote.)

Comment Re:further reason for a popular vote (Score 1) 642

It is a rare Presidential election where the winner doesn't get both the electoral and popular vote. It has happened four times.

And of those four times, you can't really consider 1824 or 1876 because not every state had a popular vote to determine their EC vote. In addition, there was significant voter intimidation, disenfranchisement, and controversy in 1876.

Comment Re:further reason for a popular vote (Score 1) 642

Actually there is a backdoor way to have it occur without a constitutional amendment- agreement by the states.

It's about halfway there.

Not only is it a backdoor way, it'll also open up a can of Constitutional worms that will make Bush v. Gore look like small claims.

Comment Re:What?! (Score 1) 642

When you start using scientific notation to measure the "worth" of something, you're talking about something pretty worthless. Is it "unfair" that a vote is worth 5.32e-6 vs. another vote being worth 1.47e-6, perhaps, but neither is particularly valuable (also keep in mind that you're using the absolute extremes to make that point, if you look at Montana vs. Pennsylvania, the difference is down to 2.98e-6 vs. 1.57e-6) At the end of the day however, would you rather have influence over .5% of the election, or 10.2%?

Comment Re:Place names (Score 1) 642

I understand it, I just fundamentally disagree with it because he's right; it's an outdated, inefficient way of governing that leaves room for disgusting levels of abuse via gerrymandering, which is why a majority of people in Pennsylvania voted Democrat, yet only 5 of their 18 representatives are actually Democrat.

And why a third of the people in Maryland voted Republican, yet only 1 of their 8 representatives is actually Republican. That's why I like Iowa's redistricting, a non-partisan computer draws the lines and the legislature has to vote it up or down.

Comment Re:Accenture wrote it? (Score 1) 245

Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity... Doubling, tripling; sounds to me like it could be explained by an untrained operator not receiving feedback that an operation has been completed, and so clicking again on the button which initiates the operation.

Other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one. It's a Cartesian select. The real question is why only certain precincts are affected.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL." -- Dave Bowman, 2001