Complaining that the electoral college weights the votes in Wyoming roughly four times as heavily as the votes in Michigan, Lessig argues that the popular vote should be respected, and that the authors of the U.S. Constitution "left the electors free to choose. They should exercise that choice by leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton's favor."
The only problem with this logic (but it's a big problem) is that it sounds like he wants all electors to choose Clinton just because she won the national popular vote. But what would be the point of having states-specific electors if he advocates voting based on the national popular vote results? As someone explained recently on facebook (I forget what the guy's name was), he used a baseball analogy to state why we shouldn't be changing the rules of the game. Back in the 20th century the Pirates beat a team in the world series 4 games to 3, but the other team had more overall runs throughout the series. The rules of the game ignore who has the most overall runs and instead bases who wins on the number of games they won. Should we change the rules of the game just because a particular team didn't win one year? For every person who wants their team to win there is another who wants a different team to win. But rules exist for a reason: to make processes consistent, and therefore fair. They are still fair even if you don't get the result you wanted because next time you may very well get the result you wanted as the rules are consistently applied.
If anyone should support the electoral college it should be Lessig, given that he is a lawyer. We are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Therefore we don't vote purely on the majority wins mentality. If you prefer that then move to another country. Conservatives didn't ask for a recount nor did they riot in the streets or do their damnedest to figure out how to make electors change their minds either of the last 2 elections when Obama won. I guess they are just more honorable losers.
The electors will indeed be exercising the choice of the voters *in their individual states* rather than the national vote since our electors are at the state level, not national.
IDG, Owner of PCWorld and Research Firm IDC, in Advanced Talks To Sell Itself To Chinese Buyout Group: Reuters - This makes it sound like the Chinese buyout group is named Reuters rather than the report coming from Reuters
Here is the correct way to write a headline: Reuters: IDG, Owner of PCWorld and Research Firm IDC, in Advanced Talks To Sell Itself To Chinese Buyout Group
Also... the bible is not a trusted reference source. It was written by people who weren't there, repeatedly re-written by people with poor translation skills (not to mention political agendas to achieve). Each new interpretation of "The word of God" heralded as an unchanging, perfect holy text. Codswallop!
The part about not being there is also like every history book currently being printed for use in schools right now. Are you going to start lobbying for those to be removed from schools because they can't be trusted? With that said, you do realize that the parts about Jesus in the gospels were written by people who actually KNEW Jesus, right? There is no issue with being trustworthy for those parts.
And for the other parts, if you have problems with verbal or written history being handed down over the generations then how can you personally trust anything in history that happened more than about 117 years ago (the age of oldest still living person)? What has to happen for you to trust the information? Must you see it for yourself? What personal issues do you have with the people who wrote/translated the Bible versus those who wrote/translated other historical texts, especially those used in schools today? Do you have evidence for this opinion of poor translation skills? Since *you* weren't there either how well do you know the people who were writing and translating the Bible? What *political* agenda was there for documenting someone's life 2000 years ago while they were living? And finally, would you care to point out the parts that you can't trust because you know they are wrong? It would be difficult wouldn't it? Then how do you know *any* of it is wrong?
Except that there's other factors in play as well. A minimum wage increase will give the bottom 60+% of workers more spending power, this increased spending will boost the income of local shops which will help to improve the local economy.
This is economics 101, for an economy to work people have to spend money, the more money that people spend the better the economy works. Increasing the spending power of the vast majority of local residents is a very good thing for the local economy.
Those workers will be spending all their wage increase by having to pay more at, for example, fast food restaurants when prices go up to accommodate higher wages. Or the worker will get laid off completely in an effort by their employer to reduce ever growing costs and to avoid raising prices. In your utopian view of economics you forget that businesses have costs associated with running their businesses. It isn't all profit. So when their labor expenses go up they won't magically see an increase in sales because new sales and labor charges are NOT linked. Someone who makes an extra $1/hr or $8/day won't suddenly decide to buy something new just because of that new found money. If anything they will put the money towards repairs for their 10 year old car or their rent for the month that they are behind on because their child needed new clothes for school.
So all you do is raise the cost of those goods and services and make it harder for minimum wage workers to afford those things. You can't increase the spending power of residents if you just forced them to pay MORE for the same thing they paid $2 less for a week before the new minimum wage kicked in. If you think you can increase spending power that way then you don't know real world economics. You only think you do. What you really know is utopian economics.
Spending more comes from how much one can buy with $1. Giving someone $2 does not increase their spending power. Making goods and services cost less so that more can be purchased with the SAME $1 is what increases spending power. Maybe that simple description is what democrats and socialists really need to figure out just how economics really works rather than how they think it works.
I love seeing this crap in American articles. "Oh Noes! If we pay people more, it will cost businesses more!"
Lets look at this for a second.... Who are a businesses customers? Hint: It's the people who get paid a wage. These people get more money, more businesses get more customers. More customers mean more sales. More sales means more profits.
Is it really that hard to grasp that concept?
You assume the employees getting a higher wage are going to perform better in order to justify that new wage. If they did then their employer would already be giving them raises and, oh, lo and behold, those special employees aren't considered minimum wage anymore (note: that's how the real world actually works). Only the best employees will do that and by the law of statistics the best employees are a small percentage of the employee base. So you are asking for a business to be able to do more work with the same mediocre employees who now get paid more for being mediocre? Why should the mediocre employees do anything more than they did before if they can get a wage increase w/o working any harder than they did before?
And it now costs that business more money to pay its employees. To maintain profit margins cost either go up or employees are laid off. If costs go up then the employees earning more are now still earning the same amount as before if they are now having to pay more money as customers for goods/services that have had price increases. So the net change is 0 for those employees. If people are laid off then those employees whom you thought would generate more sales are now simply receiving food stamps careof us through the federal gov't. Good job!
Nothing motivates a man more than to see his boss put in an honest day's work.