Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:And it doesn't matter. (Score 2) 400

when one candidate wins the popular vote and another the electoral vote, you have a problem.

I don't have a problem. People who don't understand how (and why) the system works have a problem. Let's look at an example...

In California, Hillary won the popular vote by about 3 million votes. But it doesn't matter whether she won by 3 million, 1 million, or 10 million. It was a foregone conclusion that Hillary would win California and its 55 electoral votes, so neither candidate spent much time there. And I suspect many California Republicans did not vote, because they knew their vote wouldn't matter anyway. But if the election were to be based on the popular vote, the campaign would have been completely different -- the candidates would have concentrated their efforts on the most populous states (like California) and ignored the smaller states. Voter turnout would have been different and the results would have been different.

This is not a bug, it is a feature. It was designed this way so that smaller states would not, in effect, be shut out of the presidential election. For example, the population of California is about 65 times the population of Wyoming, but only has about 18 times the electoral votes. Without this protection, smaller states would have been reluctant to join the Union in the first place.

You might argue that the system should be changed. But when the system, as it is, is based on the electoral vote, candidates run their campaigns to win the electoral vote and the winner of the electoral vote becomes president. The results of the popular vote are irrelevant because that is not what they were campaigning for. If the winner was based on the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign and a different election -- and Trump may have won anyway.

Comment Re:And it doesn't matter. (Score 2) 400

...someone winning the popular vote by millions of votes but still losing the election.

You say that as if it means something. It doesn't. The goal of the candidates was to win the electoral vote, not the popular vote. It has been this way in the US for 200+ years. Both candidates knew this and based their campaign strategy on it. If the goal was to win the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign, different people would have voted, and Trump may have won that, too.

When the contest is for the electoral vote, candidates concentrate on campaigning in the swing states while giving relatively little attention to states that are already heavily in favor of one candidate or the other. If the contest was for the popular vote, candidates would campaign in the largest population centers instead.

With the current system, a Republican voter in a heavily Democratic state (or vice versa) may as well not vote, because it won't count anyway. If the winner was based on the popular vote, everyone's vote would count, and people would come out to vote regardless of which way their state was leaning.

They are different games. You can't say, "We lost the football game, but we would have won if it was rugby." Well, you could, but people would just laugh at you.

Comment Re:Narrative Pushing (Score 1) 434

Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million people...

You say that as if it means something. It doesn't. The goal of the candidates was to win the electoral vote, not the popular vote. It has been this way in the US for 200+ years. Both candidates knew this and based their campaign strategy on it. If the goal was to win the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign, different people would have voted, and Trump may have won that, too.

When the contest is for the electoral vote, candidates concentrate on campaigning in the swing states while giving relatively little attention to states that are already heavily in favor of one candidate or the other. If the contest was for the popular vote, candidates would campaign in the largest population centers instead.

With the current system, a Republican voter in a heavily Democratic state (or vice versa) may as well not vote, because it won't count anyway. If the winner was based on the popular vote, everyone's vote would count, and people would come out to vote regardless of which way their state was leaning.

They are different games. You can't say, "We lost the football game, but we would have won if it was rugby." Well, you could, but people would just laugh at you.

Comment Re:Hard to put a finger on it... (Score 1) 587

None of my contractors give a shit if my company succeeds beyond their next invoice.

Why would you expect more than that from someone you have specifically acquired as a disposable asset? Do you care if your contractors succeed beyond the completion of their current project with you?

Loyalty is a two-way street. The best you can expect from a contractor is a professional work ethic and X hours of work for X hours of pay. If you want someone who cares about your company's future, then demonstrate by your actions that you care about their future.

Comment Re:And I keep coming back to my same question (Score 1) 693

But if we return to the original argument, PvtVoid denied that even one person "has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers".

My counterargument was that a Google search does in fact show a large number of reports of people calling for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers. I don't think the fact that one of these many links leads to Breitbart -- which you regard as an unreliable source -- negates my argument.

In fact, let's throw caution to the wind and click on that odious Breitbart link right now: http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

The article claims that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse made the following statement during a Senate Judiciary Hearing:

The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco's dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions' dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected. Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme.

First, you might argue that the esteemed Senator did not actually speak these words. I confess that I do not have time to examine the Congressional Record to see if these words were really spoken. But I do trust Breitbart enough to believe they did not just make this up. Feel free to dispute this if you wish.

Second, you might argue that this statement is not really calling "for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers". The way I read it, the Senator equates "the climate denial apparatus" of the fossil fuel industry with tobacco industry fraud. He then states that the Department of Justice won a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) action against the tobacco industry. He then complains, with obvious dissatisfaction, that "the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme."

I don't know how you parse this, but it sounds very much to me as if Senator Whitehouse is calling "for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers". I submit that this is sufficient evidence to disprove PvtVoid's claim that not one person has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.

Comment Re:And I keep coming back to my same question (Score 4, Insightful) 693

Tried that. Got a bunch of links to Breitbart and the Washington Times.

Your logical fallacy is: Genetic

"You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit."

Comment Re:And I keep coming back to my same question (Score 2) 693

Oh, please. Show me one person who has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.

Does Google not work in your country? I can't be bothered to copy and paste the results for you here, but just do a search for your own phrase "criminal prosecution of climate change deniers" (without the quotes). I am pretty sure you will find more than one.

Oh, ok... here is one to get you started: http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Slashdot Top Deals

1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law!

Working...