North Carolina is close to doing the same thing.
Hmm. Pwned by not reading the linked article.
2: Man, that third kid is really taking a toll.
Eh, you're still in that first six weeks or so, before they get a little more organized. You'll probably be back on track by October.
Apo could you get the older kids going as research assistants? Maybe bribe 'em with beer?
My mom said it doesn't get wore after the fourth.
Incidentally, I think the conclusion is a weird one to make after the most recent congressional election. Smaller population groups, no matter how thinly sliced demographically, are going to be more dynamic than large population groups. Sample size, baby!
That said, no way should California go first. Texas first, then we'll talk.
9: She was talking about driving tours of Scotland.
Try this one on for size, however: Instead of granting the baseline 2 to the winner, split them unless the winner gets more than {arbitrary}60%{/arbitrary} of the statewide vote. Democrat would be campaigning in Utah and Republican would be campaigning in Connecticut right up to the end.
But agree wholeheartedly with 8.2. And by extension it should only be done on a national scale.
Well, I think we can say that the experiment with direct democracy through constant misleading ballot initiatives has failed. Why? The concept of an informed electorate presumes that advertising doesn't exist. The electorate is not informed.
12: yeah I hate ballot initiatives. Smaller quanta in national elections raise the dim possibility of localized (and plausibly informative?) messaging, though, which would be neat.
Reading the comments to the first link, to Saiselgy's, leads me to ask:
Is there a name for the kind of trolling St/v/ S/il/r is doing there? Are there names for the types, so familiar to us all? I've read "concern troll" but that doesn't seem to fit here.
Smaller quanta in national elections raise the dim possibility of localized (and plausibly informative?) messaging, though, which would be neat.
There are already bills in lots of states committing to do this smaller-quanta thing IF AND ONLY IF something like 2/3 of states ratify it. It's a collective action problem. What California is doing now is 100% funded by an evil Republican law firm that specializes in misleading ballot initiatives.
Actually Sailer is not being racist in that thread. His comment serves to make the following point:
- You guys are paranoid, this thing that I support and that has a good chance of happening will never happen. Please stop thinking about it.
18: it's just my default guess when it comes to him. Can't figure out why anybody ever takes him seriously.
Yeah, given our luck, North Carolina will pass this just in time for a string of narrow Democratic victories.
Interesting. I don't think I realized that the Maine/Nebraska allocation was actually based on votes in each district. Aside from the ways in which changing this stuff is always grinding someone's sacred cow into hamburger, is there anything that prevents allocating EC votes based on percentage of the popular vote in the state?
EC votes are allocated however the state legislature says they are. Whether allowing it to be decided by ballot measure violates the Constitution remains an open question, though given this Court's deference to GOP electoral fortunes, I can safely predict a 5-4 split in favor of it.
I incorporate by reference all my comments over at Saiselgy's place.
I can safely predict a 5-4 split in favor of it.
Way to drop the ball, seizures.
This kind of thing makes me wonder if there are Republicans paid to just keep up with the latest popular ideas from the left and twist them to their own purposes.
"Hmm, treatment instead of prison for nonviolent drug offenders. Interesting... but not as interesting as putting them in internment camps!"
14
SS is suggesting that MY blog more about what interests SS rather than what interests MY. I don't know if this has a name but it is a fairly common complaint in comment sections.
there are a bunch of people at MYs blog who drop in on almost every post to tell MY what he should write about, how he has no right to write about a certain topic, how he's too X,Y and Z to know anything about the topic, etc.. trolls, every one of them.
26: For this tactic, I propose the name blog-hogging. For the summary posted at 18, the more mundane 'lying' and 'dissembling' will do.
Sausagely's troll problems seem to have gotten markedly worse since he moved to The Atlantic. I liked his Al, who at least could be counted on to provide interesting basketball thoughts and inappropriate athletic boosterism of our alma mater.
28: I propose "backseat blogging."
"You should pass that red car. It would be quicker if you took 34th Street. Why are you going so fast?"
31: I'm not the one implying that backseat drivers bloggers are primarily of any particular gender.
The sexism is in your mind.
Could a state pass a law saying that the electoral votes automatically go to the candidate of a given party? Or that its electors must always abstain?
34: Yes, as far as I can see.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...
It's just practice for it to be based on the election, not constitutional law.
suggesting that MY blog more about what interests SS rather than what interests MY. I don't know if this has a name but it is a fairly common complaint in comment sections.
I've heard this generally referred to as complaining about the flavour of the free ice cream.
34/35: When I get into a state legislature I'm going to sponsor a bill under which one of the state's electors goes to the candidate who finished second in the popular vote, with the rest going to Harold Stassen.
This measure isn't on the ballot yet, right? The article implies it still needs signatures (though since the people running it were involved in the recall, they have a good chance of finding them).
Really, the Republicans' antics in the last 8 years demonstrate the need for a new constitutional convention. I propose that we get Sweden to write one up for us.