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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Pants on fire (Score 2) 57

Forcing countries like Japan and South Korea to build nuclear weapons because his resolve to continue US's longstanding defense of its allies is not going to make a better world. The last time the United States retreated behind its borders and let its Allies fend for themselves, we ended up with the most destructive conflict in history, and the costs dwarfed what it would have cost to keep a proper military presence in potential trouble spots.

Comment Re:My compendium (Score 1) 156

No, you interpret what he said as sarcasm. But with Trump, it's virtually impossible without applying a filter, either in his favor, or biased against him, to sort out much of what he means. To have a man who wants to be the leader of the Free World speaking in a rantish and often incoherent fashion, and then constantly being informed by his followers as to what he really meant doesn't inspire confidence.

Comment Re: Cue the idiots (Score -1, Troll) 156

He only said that if you don't listen to what he actually said, but instead replace his treasonous and idiotic statement with what you wish he had said.

Just how much more wishful thinking can Trump supporters apply to this man? Clinton ain't no perfect candidate, but she's right about one thing, he's not fit to be President. For fuck's sakes, it's pretty clear now he's not really even fit to a run a fucking business.

Comment Re:If I was President... (Or King!) (Score 1) 248

It's not hard. 10,000 widgets x 20% = 2,000 widgets, leaving you 8,000 widgets. 1,000 widgets x 20% = 200 widgets, leaving you 800 widgets. Which person has more widgets at the end of the day?

And your solution of an income exemption level clearly signals that you understand this, and that to make sure the tax is not so regressive that it damages the poorest, you end up having to excuse some or all of their taxes. In other words, you've just made a non-flat tax.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 248

For the most part, what the hell is a platform worth? Sure, a President gets lucky on occasion and his party may dominate the Representatives and the Senate, but other than that, whatever platform a president may have campaigned on generally has to morph into something that can get enough votes. Even where a President's party controls Congress, that's no guarantee of smooth sailing.

Comment Re:If I was President... (Or King!) (Score 3, Interesting) 248

$500 seems pretty damned insufficient when you've basically taken away a large portion of the working poor's discretionary income. No matter how you try to force it, flat taxes are fundamentally unfair.

Elected SCOTUS judges is even worse. There are enough politicians without making what amounts to a constitutional court effectively a third legislature with the power to veto the others.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 5, Insightful) 248

Even in countries with effective third parties, where FPTP is in play, it almost always tends towards a two-party system, with a third parties playing spoiler, but almost never becoming a governing party. FPTP almost inevitably shuts out third parties from power. There can be unique situations where FPTP multiparty Parliamentary countries can enter a period of minorities, this is particularly true in Canada during the mid 2000s until 2011, where a strong regional party in Quebec managed to destabilize the national parties enough to force two hung Parliaments, and it happened in the UK in 2010, where a strong regional party in Scotland (the SNP) wrestled enough votes from Labour to deprive it of power, but a similar effect with UKIP deprived the Conservatives of an absolute majority. But all in all, these are fairly rare in FPTP legislative assemblies.

It should also be noted that in the UK, in particular, it has a huge lower house, 649 seats in the House of Commons as compared to 435 in the US House of Representatives, and the House of Lords with 798 seats as compared to the US Senate's 100. This far greater number of representatives must also be factored in to any modeling of how FPTP plays out, the UK has a lot more room for third parties to find their niche with smaller Parliamentary constituencies than US districts.

If you truly want to give third parties a shot at significant power, you need to move to some sort of proportional representation. Even normal instant-runoff systems are not truly proportional, and are vulnerable to certain strategies that can give unfair advantage (with the exception of multi-member district STV, which is roughly proportional). But I'm not sure how that would even play out in US presidential elections, where by and large, the game has been rigged to make third party runs for the White House all but impossible. You'd have to make some big changes to the way the electoral college works, or abandon it entirely, but that seems pretty damned unlikely to me, since the intent of the electoral college was to create a sort of hybrid popular vote/state vote system, and any support for amending it after the 2000 election seems to have long since failed, though perhaps a very close election (which this one might be), might bring back demands to reform or eliminate the electoral college (though what kind of voting would replace it isn't clear).

Slashdot Top Deals

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson