Academic journals typically have an editor or group of editors who work for little or no pay. These editors decide whether a submission should proceed to peer review, select the reviewers, and oversee the communication between the reviewers and the submitting authors. Academics do this work for free because it is considered to be part of the vocation of creating and expanding knowledge. Publishers were necessary in the past because they handled the logistics of typesetting and printing and distributing the material, but now authors are able to typeset their own papers and distribute them through the internet.
The Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR) exempifies this change. Much of the editorial board of the Machine Learning Journal collectively resigned to form JMLR as an open-access journal. The new journal had all of the prestige and experience that the old one used to have, with virtually none of the costs, and is doing just fine.
First, it's going get get dumped the first time the "wrong" candidate wins the popular vote by 0.001% and some blue state has to vote all red or vice versa. Imagine all whining about the 'stolen' election in Florida, but an order of magnitude more annoying.
Maybe, but I doubt it. Under this system, the electoral college becomes a mere formality. People will of course be curious about how their state voted, but the determining factor is the popular vote, not the electors. It's a lot easier to justify "one person, one vote" than "one person, a variable number of votes according to a 250-year-old compromise that depends on your state's relative population."
Secondly, it's a huge incentive to cheat wildly in counting the votes. In order to prevent rampant cheating, you'd have to get all the States to agree on a single voting procedure and/or control of their election systems by the Federal government. If the latter's the case, you're right back to needing to amend the Constitution.
I don't follow. How is it more of an incentive to cheat wildly when you have to fake a 1-2% swing in 122 million votes nationwide compared to, say, the 5.5 million votes in Ohio?
Finally, there are plenty of States that aren't going to want this. If urbanization continues then a small number of urban centers will be setting policy for vast areas of the US about which they know little and care less. How many bitter gun-clinging, religious, 'fly over' states want to give over their power of self-determination to LA or NY?
By the same logic, right now we have rural areas disproportionately setting policy for urban areas. Under a popular vote plan, the rural areas would receive attention that more closely reflects their population. Is this a problem? Moreover, those states, and rural regions of those states, would still have disproportionate representation in the Senate and gerrymandered congressional seats: this proposal is only for presidential elections.
Also, I doubt the opposition would be that stiff in most states. There were only 19 states, worth only 189 electoral college votes, with a partisan advantage of more than 20 points in 2012 (i.e. more partisan than 60/40, ignoring 3rd parties). A national popular vote would allow the votes of the losing 40%+ in the other states and districts to still count.
Hmm, 100% of the States agree to this to make the change...
Alternately, 75% of the States have to agree for a Constitutional Amendment.
Yah, it's sooooo much easier to get the States to bypass the amendment process....
Read the article (here's the link again). Only 270 electoral votes' worth of states need to agree for this change. This is because a state is constitutionally allowed to allocate its electors in any way that it wants. Under the national popular vote compact, each state agrees to allocate their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of what the state's own citizens do. Once enough states agree to this, it doesn't matter if the other 268 votes' worth of states decide to go along or not. The winner of the popular vote is guaranteed to get the 270 electoral college votes needed to win.
cat file.csv | perl -ne '@a=split/,/; $tmp = $a;
Here is your UUOC award
It's worth pointing out that it goes the other way too. Any doctoral student from the US working/studying at a lab somewhere else will most likely be supported by grants to that lab, not with money from the US.
Where do you think Grant money comes from?
...from the government or other organization of "somewhere else," of course. I'm an American pursuing a PhD in Scotland, and all of my fees and living expenses are covered by funds ultimately either from the Scottish government or tuition to my university (and this tuition is zero for Scottish and EU students, except England, Wales, and Northern Ireland).
Health insurance is insurance. It survives because it takes calculated risks, and the general public is not a very good risk health-wise. The value and the problem with insurance is that it faces the reality that there are limited resources out there head-on. Now you may well be correct to say that using those resources for the benefit of only those who can pay is unfair, but what criteria do you use to ensure fair distribution?
The general public is a much better risk than the current system, which contains a disproportionate number of people who need more expensive treatments because they've been avoiding relatively cheap preventative care, or show up to the emergency room with no coverage at all. The health care reform prioritizes preventative care and universal coverage. You're right that the general public is a worse bet than only NBA players, but it's a much better bet than what we're covering now.
Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.