Re: br1n: My big salvo

[Bryon Daly]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:17:32 -0500, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> > BTW, the population of DC is higher than Wyoming.
> 
> Yes.  But it only gets 3 votes, as per Amendment XXIII.  See
> 
> http://www.fact-index.com/t/tw/twenty_third_amendment_to_the_united_states_constitution.html
> 
> How does the population of DC compare to states that have 4 electoral
> votes?  That would be more telling, I think.

Wyoming: 493,782 pop, 3 ev (smallest pop)
DC: 572,059 pop, 3 ev
Vermont: 608,827 pop, 3ev
:
Rhode Island: 1,048,319 pop, 4ev  (43rd rank pop, smallest pop state with 4ev)

Info from:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml
http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Bryon Daly]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:07:15 -0400, John D. Giorgis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> At 06:48 PM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
> >And of course if all the states did this, then it wouldn't be a
> >disadvantage to anyone.
> 
> No, it would disproportionately benefit the largest States.For example,
> 1/52nd of the vote in California would move one Electoral Vote - or about
> 2%.You would need to move 1/9th of the vote, about 11%, in Colorado to
> similarly pick up an Electoral Vote.   In Alaska, that would be 1/3rd.
> It would clearly be much more profitable to campaign in California than in
> smaller States under such circumstances.

But 1/52 of CA's registered voters (using year 2000 figures from here:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00.htm ) is 300K voters. 
1/9 of CO's registered voters is 250K voters, and 1/3 of AK's
registered voters is 158K voters.  So smaller states would require
less voters to be convinced in order to shift one EV.  I don't think
I'd call that disproportionally benefitting the large states.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College

[Bryon Daly]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:01:10 -0400, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 04:22:16PM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
> 
> > My main problem with the system as it is now, I suppose, is that if
> > you're a Kerry supporter in, say, Alabama or a Bush supporter in
> > Massachusetts, your vote has zero potential for impact on the race,
> > *even if the race is extremely close from a nationwide perspective*.
> 
> I assume you mean to imply "close" between the leading two candidates.
> 
> But what makes your "race is extremely close from a nationwide
> perspective" between the leading two candidates criterion special? There
> are more than 2 people running, but the race is not close between,
> eg., Nader and Bush.

I didn't really see it as a criterion so much as an attempt to
highlight the disparity.  The point I'm trying to make is that while
in some places, a few handfuls of votes may decide all the electors
for the state, in other locations, potentially millions of votes for
the candidate who lost that state won't have any effect on the state's
electors or the national  outcome - even though it's for the same
election, voting for the same candidates, at both locations.

Now that I think about it further, I think part of my communication
problem is that I've been muddling together a few different concerns
and comparing apples and oranges in terms of trying to
compare/contrast "voter impact", in a way..  I'll try to sort it out
better below.

> If you change your criterion to make it more equitable, then it would be
> something like, in an N candidate race, each candidate polls close to
> 1/N of the votes.
>
> > I don't mean this in some nihilistic "it just doesn't matter" kind
> > of way.  What I mean is that a vote for Bush or Kerry in Iowa or PA
> > is infinitely more important that one in MA/AL. I'd prefer if every
> > person's presidential vote was of equal value regardless of which
> > state they lived in.
> 
> A vote for Bush or Kerry is infinitely more important than one for
> Nader.  WOuld you prefer every person's vote was of equal value
> regardless of which candidate whose views they share?

Perhaps yes, if by that you mean that I'd prefer a vote is a vote is a
vote, regardless of where you're voting from or who you're voting for.
Or in other words, if we used the straight nationwide popular vote to
determine the presidential election so that per-state results did not
mask out or quantize the results.  Or if we used my second
alternative, there'd be at least a chance for Nader or other third
party candidates to get an electoral vote.

> > The root cause of that problem, as I see it, is that most states award
> > the winner of the state's popular vote all of the state's electoral
> > vote.  That means that whether only one person voted for the loser or
> > 49.9% or the people did, its essentially treated as if 100% voted for
> > the winner as far as the EC is concerned.
> 
> I don't think that is the root cause of your objection. If you had
> a nationwide popular election (no EC), and pollsters surveyed a
> representative sample of 100,000 people just before the election, their
> survey would have only a 0.3% margin of error. If it came out, say,
> 50.5% to 49.5%, then everyone voting for the 49.5% candidate would, in
> high likelihood, be voting for the loser. You could say that the problem
> is that in a winner takes all election that 49.5% of the votes are
> wasted unless the race is closer than 0.3%. Which doesn't make a lot of
> sense to me, but that is very similar to what you are saying above.

There is a difference (or at least I perceive one).   My point above
is actually based on the same objection/concern as the worst-case
scenario I mentioned.  Let me try to explain my thoughts in a
(hopefully!) less muddled way...

As I see it, the state "winner takes all EV's" unnecessarily forces a
winner/losers to be declared on the per-state level.  Doing so throws
away all the voter selection information *prematurely*.  Sure, in the
end of any election, you have to gather all the votes, pick a winner
and say "tough luck" to the 49.5% (or whatever) loser(s) but that
shouldn't be done until the highest levels of vote collection.

I see the electoral college as acting essentially as proxies for the
will of the voters.  When a state gives all its EV's to its winner,
that essentially introduces an error factor where those EV's may only
represent 50% of the state's voters.  It's almost like a rounding
error: the winner gets "rounded up", while the losers get "rounded
down".  Looking at CA with almost 34 million residents, let's pretend
that Kerry wins there with 50% of the vote to Bush's 42% to Nader's
8%.  Kerry then gets 55 electoral votes ostensibly representing CA's
34 million residents but really only representing 50% of the voters. 
If we can assume that the voters generally mirror the population's
politics - that's in essence 17 million people being represented by
the wrong guy.

Re: Embryonic Stem cells may stop birth defects

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Oct 11, 2004, at 4:54 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Of course, for an athiest or some agnostics these questions are
meaningless.
Buddhists too. Buddhism teaches, specifically, that there is no such 
thing as a soul. (The rationale is quite simple: It cannot be 
detected!)

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Amanda Marlowe]

I lost a chunk of my email over the weekend, so please forgive me if someone's
posted this article before in this thread. This is a mathematical argument
about why we should keep the electoral college that I stumbled across quite by
accident the other day:
http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/math-against-tyranny/

Gave me some food for thought...

Amanda


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: Fight The Future: RFID Driver's Licenses - Now WithAdded 'Papers Please'

[Dave Land]

Julia,
I've heard a few people comparing the reading of biometrics to be
equivalent to the "mark of the Beast".
Has anyone seen a website with this sort of sentiment?  I'd be
interested in reading what someone has written about it, instead of
someone's vague misgivings.  I'd be better equipped for a civil 
argument
on the subject afterwards.
Here's one: http://www.cryingvoice.com/Endtimes/Mark9.html
You'll find plenty of others via Google. Some of them connect the
end of the world and biometrics (and RFID and pretty much anything
else, including credit cards) with the Catholic church and so forth.
But also see: http://www.av1611.org/666/whatis.html, which includes a
section that concludes that the verses in the Revelation that refer to
the Mark of the Beast seem to actually /rule out/ microchip implants,
biometrics, barcodes and so forth, because they are not specifically
associated with his name/number.
Anyway, have fun in the land of the lost.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: Fight The Future: RFID Driver's Licenses - Now With Added 'Papers Please'

[The Fool]

> From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I've heard a few people comparing the reading of biometrics to be
> equivalent to the "mark of the Beast".
> 
> Has anyone seen a website with this sort of sentiment?  I'd be
> interested in reading what someone has written about it, instead of
> someone's vague misgivings.  I'd be better equipped for a civil
argument
> on the subject afterwards.

Barcodes have '666' built right in.  The two thin bars are a six and
normal barcodes have 6-some numbers-6-more numbers-6.

This is where the mark o' the beast iz at:
<>

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Caminiti Smiles

[Julia Thompson]

"Robert G. Seeberger" wrote:
> 
> How about those Astros?!!
> 
> xponent
> Finally Maru
> rob

YES!

Thanks for letting me know!  :)

Julia

rooting for a Sox-Astros WS, and if she can't have that, it would be
nice for at least *one* of those two teams to make it
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: Fight The Future: RFID Driver's Licenses - Now WithAdded 'Papers Please'

[Julia Thompson]

I've heard a few people comparing the reading of biometrics to be
equivalent to the "mark of the Beast".

Has anyone seen a website with this sort of sentiment?  I'd be
interested in reading what someone has written about it, instead of
someone's vague misgivings.  I'd be better equipped for a civil argument
on the subject afterwards.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: br1n: My big salvo

[Julia Thompson]

Dan Minette wrote:
 
> BTW, the population of DC is higher than Wyoming.


Yes.  But it only gets 3 votes, as per Amendment XXIII.  See

http://www.fact-index.com/t/tw/twenty_third_amendment_to_the_united_states_constitution.html

How does the population of DC compare to states that have 4 electoral
votes?  That would be more telling, I think.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Caminiti Smiles

[Robert G. Seeberger]

How about those Astros?!!



xponent
Finally Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Scouted: Fight The Future: RFID Driver's Licenses - Now With Added 'Papers Please'

[The Fool]

> From: The Fool
 
> <>
> 
> RFID Driver's Licenses Debated  
> 
> 
> By Mark Baard
> 
> 09:50 AM Oct. 06, 2004 PT
> 
> 
> Some federal and state government officials want to make state driver's
> licenses harder to counterfeit or steal, by adding computer chips that
> emit a radio signal bearing a license holder's unique, personal
> information.
> 
> . 
> In Virginia, where several of the 9/11 hijackers obtained driver's
> licenses, state legislators Wednesday will hear testimony about how
radio
> frequency identification, or RFID, tags may prevent identity fraud and
> help thwart terrorists using falsified documents to move about the
> country.
> 
> Privacy advocates will argue that the radio tags will also make it easy
> for the government to spy on its citizens and exacerbate identity
theft,
> one of the problems the technology is meant to relieve.
> 
> Virginia is among the first states to explore the idea of creating a
> smart driver's license, which may eventually use any combination of
RFID
> tags and biometric data, such as fingerprints or retinal scans.
> 
> "Nine of the 19 9/11 terrorists obtained their licenses illegally in
> Virginia, and that was quite an embarrassment," said Virginia General
> Assembly delegate Kathy Byron, chairwoman of a subcommittee looking
into
> the use of so-called smart driver's licenses, which may include RFID
> technology.
> 
> The biometric data would make it harder for an individual to use a
stolen
> or forged driver's license for identification. The RFID tags would make
> the licenses a "contact-less" technology, verifying IDs more
efficiently,
> and making lines at security checkpoints move quicker.
> 
> Because information on RFID tags can be picked up from many feet away,
> licenses would not have to be put directly into a reader device. If
there
> was any suspicion that a person was not who he claimed to be, ID
checkers
> could take him aside for fingerprinting or a retinal scan.
> 
> States need to adopt technologies that can ensure a driver's license
> holder is who he says he is, said Byron.
> 
> Federal legislators may also require states to comply with uniform
"smart
> card" standards, making state driver's licenses into national
> identification cards that could be read at any location throughout the
> country. The RFID chips on driver's licenses would at a minimum
transmit
> all of the information on the front of a driver's license. They may
also
> eventually transmit fingerprint and other uniquely identifiable
> information to reader devices.
> 
> But federal mandates for adding RFID chips to driver's licenses would
> create an impossible burden for states, which will have to shoulder the
> costs of generating new licenses, and installing reader devices in
their
> motor vehicle offices, said a states' rights advocate.
> 
> "It could easily become yet another unfunded federal mandate, of which
we
> already have $60 billion worth," said Cheye Calvo, director of the
> transportation committee at the National Conference of State
> Legislatures.
> 
> Drivers with E-ZPass tags on their windshields can already cruise
through
> many highway toll booths without stopping, thanks to RFID technology.
> 
> RFID tags, which respond to signals sent out by special reader devices,
> have in some tests demonstrated broadcast ranges up to 30 feet. Reader
> devices have proven to possess similar "sensing" ranges. This is what
has
> some privacy advocaters worried, including one testifying tomorrow
before
> the Virginia legislators.
> 
> "The biggest problem is that these tags are remotely readable," said
> Christopher Calabrese, council for the American Civil Liberties Union's
> Technology and Liberty Program. 
> 
> RFID tags inside driver's licenses will make it easy for government
> agents with readers to sweep large areas and identify protestors
> participating in a march, for example. Privacy advocates also fear that
> crooks sitting on street corners could remotely gather personal
> information from individual's wallets, such as their birth dates and
home
> addresses -- the same information many bank employees use to verify
> account holders' identities.
> 
> Information from card readers could also be coupled with global
> positioning system data and relayed to satellites, helping the
government
> form a comprehensive picture of the comings and goings of its citizens.
> 
> Driver's licenses with RFID tags may also become a tool that stalkers
use
> to follow their victims, said Calabrese. "We're talking about a
potential
> security nightmare."
> 
> But opponents of the use of RFID and other technologies in driver's
> licenses and state issued ID cards are conflating RFID's technological
> potential with its potential for abuse by government authorities, said
> Robert D. Atkinson, vice president at the Progressive Policy Institute.
> 
> "Putting a chip or biometric data on a driver's license doesn't change
> one

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Damon Agretto]

> But doesn't near universal literacy, mass-media and
> particularly 
> television change all that?
> It seems to me that, whether they use it wisely or
> not, all Americans 
> now have the ability to make an informed decision
> about their leaders, 
> which certainly wasn't the case 200 years ago.

First of all, even though just about every American
has access to media in some form or another, that
info-feed would have to be unbiased for each person to
be able to make an unbiased decision themselves.
Nothing is absolutely unbiased.

But more germane to this discussion is the idea that
people can always be relied on to make a rational,
informed decision. There are, I'm sure, plenty of
people who will vote for Kerry because he's better
looking, or for Bush because he has that "down home
feel." More insidious, there's also the possibility
that someone might vote for Candidate X because he
promises to send all Muslims to Concentration Camps.
The purpose of the Electorial College, then, is to
ensure a reasonable candidate is elected that will
protect the rights of ALL Americans, rather than
campaign and get elected because he/she hates one
group and promises to "do something" about them.
Although the Electorial College traditionally votes
along the lines of their electorate, they are NOT
required to do so. 

The justification is of course in the Federalist
Papers, essay #68 (Hamilton). I'm too lazy to cite,
but a quick Google search should get the results...

Damon.
> 
> Cheers
> Russell C.
> 
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> 
> 


=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: Legends Aussie Centurion Mk.5/1




___
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Russell Chapman]

Bryon Daly wrote:
Translation: states where your vote doesn't mean squat, especially if
you're in the minority party there.  Both parties know who will win so
neither will expend much effort (if any) in these places.
and to add a quote from Dr Brin...
"If you find it persuasive, please share it with undecideds - and 
decided conservatives who have at least an open mind - in battleground 
states."

There's all the evidence you need that Bryon is right - not even the 
most vehement activists can be bothered persuading voters in the decided 
states...

Cheers
Russell C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Russell Chapman]

Damon Agretto wrote:
The Electorial College is in place so that the
American People will be prevented from electing a
Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
something that happened at my University for Student
Body President. 
Although the system can nerf election results
occasionally, I think its a good system with some very
good thought behind it.
But doesn't near universal literacy, mass-media and particularly 
television change all that?
It seems to me that, whether they use it wisely or not, all Americans 
now have the ability to make an informed decision about their leaders, 
which certainly wasn't the case 200 years ago.

Cheers
Russell C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis

[John D. Giorgis]

At 10:16 AM 10/12/2004 +1000 Russell Chapman wrote:
>> After all, remember that due to
>> redistricting, a straight re-run of the 2000 election would produce a
>> 278-260 Bush win.   
>
>I think I now understand the US EC voting better now, except this one 
>thing - I thought it was already done as Byron has suggested - that each 
>electoral district represented one vote in the EC, and the party with 
>the most votes in that district scored that vote.

In 48 US States and the District of Columbia, the candidate with a
plurality of votes is awarded all of the State's or District's electors.

In Nebraska and Maine, the same process is used to award one elector for
each of two Congressional Districts and then two more electors are awarded
to the candidate with the statewide plurality.

The US Constitution specifies that each State Legislature may determine how
to allocate their State's electors in each year.   

> From reading the preceding emails, it seems the state's total popular 
>is everything, but then I can't see how re-districting has any effect. 
>It's not like the line between OH and PA suddenly got moved. How does 
>redistricting change the result at the EC?

Each State is awarded Two Electors and One additional Elector for each
Member of the House of Representatives.   Since the number of
Representatives in the House is fixed at 435 by law, after each decennial
Census some States gain and lose Members in the House of Representatives.

>Oh, and as a curiousity - does the EC actually meet - do representatives 
>from each state actually gather in a room in DC and put ballot papers in 
>a box?

The electors for each State meet in their respective State Capitols on
December 18th to cast their votes.   These votes are then sent to Congress,
and the first act of the new Congress will be to count and certify the
votes of the electors.
   http://slate.msn.com/id/1006679

Here is another helpful FAQ: 
 http://slate.msn.com/id/1006385

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: rationalizer drift

[JDG]

At 04:49 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 d.brin wrote:
>One of my key points in my Salvo is that the rest of the world 
>accepted a unipolar world, led by the USA, under Bill Clinton.  Most 
>not only accepted it tacitly, they accepted it IN PRINCIPLE.  Only 
>the French and Chinese seemed interested in discussing how to 
>re-establish multipolarity and Balance of Power.

You forgot the Russian Federation - which was far more explicit in its
statements of desire for "multipolarity" than France was under Clinton.
India also made quite a few grumblings about multipolarity during this time
- even going so far as to increase its diplomatic ties with China.
US-India relations, of course, increased a great deal under Bush and BJP.

And of course, it is clear that the DPRK, Iraq, Iran, Zimbabwe,
Burma/Myanmar, Yugoslavia/Serbia&Montenegro, Syrian Arab Republic, Sudan,
Taliban Afghanistan, Morocco, Cuba, Angola, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Malaysia, Indonesia, South Africa, Belarus,
Liberia, and Libyan Arab Jamahirriya did not either - based upon their
forceable denunciations of  US policy during this time period.  

In addition, the members of the Non-Aligned Movement - which encompasses
most of the countries of the developing world - could also hardly be
described as accepting unipolarity "in principle" during this time period.
   

To the extent that US unipolarity was accepted by any of the above during
this time period, it clearly was more a "tacit" concession of the
inevitable - not a happy acceptance of the principle. 

And of course, even today, the US can count on countries like UK,
Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Czech Rep.,
Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Philippines, Uzbekistan,
Denmark, Portugal, Israel, and the primary opposition parties of Germany
and Spain as happy to accept US leadership - including the War in Iraq.

>Why? Because of Cowboy rationalizations for immature use of Pax 
>Americana power.  Read the excerpt below  Are we prepared to embrace 
>this as the standard for offensive military action for all nations of 
>the world?  Would the world be a safer place?

This article was a caricature of the doctrine of pre-emption.

JDG

___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Christopher Reeve Dies

[Jim Sharkey]

Here's a link to a nice little tribute picture by one of my favorite web cartoonists:
Main page (pic is currently the top news post): 
http://www.pvponline.com
Picture alone:
http://www.pvponline.com/images/news/tribute.gif

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Russell Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think I now understand the US EC voting better
> now, except this one 
> thing - I thought it was already done as Byron has
> suggested - that each 
> electoral district represented one vote in the EC,
> and the party with 
> the most votes in that district scored that vote.
>  From reading the preceding emails, it seems the
> state's total popular 
> is everything, but then I can't see how
> re-districting has any effect. 
> It's not like the line between OH and PA suddenly
> got moved. How does 
> redistricting change the result at the EC?

State populations change as well, so the number of
votes that different states get will change.  If Bush
wins the same states in this election that he won in
2000, he will win (I think) 8 more votes.
> 
> Oh, and as a curiousity - does the EC actually meet
> - do representatives 
> from each state actually gather in a room in DC and
> put ballot papers in 
> a box?
> 
> Cheers
> Russell C.

Yes, actually.  It's done in the Capitol and is
overseen by the Vice President.  It can be quite
amusing - in 1988 Vice President Bush oversaw his own
election by the EC and, in one case, had to prompt a
delegate who cast his state's votes but forgot to say
who that he cast them _for_.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



___
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: br!n: My big salvo

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: br!n: My big salvo

I forgot a title.


> Bush
>  pop (mil)  elect. Vote   pop/vote (thou)
> stage 1 67.8 133  510
> stage 2 96.7 187  517
> stage 3114.3222  515
> stage 4139.0264  527
> 
  Kerry
>  pop (mil)  elect. Vote   pop/vote (thou)
> stage 1  86.3 150  575
> stage 2101.9 179  569
> stage 3121.9 217 562
> stage 4139.0264  562
> 

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: br!n: My big salvo

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: brin: My big salvo



>
> So, does that mean you were cherry-picking my 2004 analysis? ;-)

Huh?  All I left out from my last analysis was , and I quote from your
post:

"NV - 5, NM - 5, IA - 7, WI - 10, OH - 20, PA - 21, FL - 27, and NH - 4"

So lets step through the population and electoral vote numbers.  I know our
electoral vote numbers match, and I got population numbers for 2000 and
2003 from two different sources and the results vary slightly...as one
might expect.

Below, are my calculations for your stages 1-4.  Each time you stopped and
gave comparative numbers, I labeled it a stage.
Bush
 pop (mil)  elect. Vote   pop/vote (thou)
stage 1 67.8 133  510
stage 2 96.7 187  517
stage 3114.3222  515
stage 4139.0264  527


 pop (mil)  elect. Vote   pop/vote (thou)
stage 1  86.3 150  575
stage 2101.9 179  569
stage 3121.9 217 562
stage 4139.0264  562


Nowhere do I get anything close to your numbers.

I have a hunch I know what you did.  I think you averaged the ratios.  I
took the ratio of the sums of the population and electoral votes.  The
latter has to represent the real advantage in an election.  If you don't
believe me, I'd be happy to walk through a hypothetical example.


> Overall, I find it very difficult to believe that the Electoral College
>is atrociously weighted towards the Republicans.

I don't doubt it.  But, my question is can you either accept my population
numbers or help me see how they are wrong?  My source for the numbers given
above is:

http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-17451_28388_28392-83199--,00.html

http://tinyurl.com/42nv6

You could also show me why using sums is wrong...but I'm pretty sure that's
what happens in the votes.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis

[Russell Chapman]

John D. Giorgis wrote:
After all, remember that due to
redistricting, a straight re-run of the 2000 election would produce a
278-260 Bush win.   
I think I now understand the US EC voting better now, except this one 
thing - I thought it was already done as Byron has suggested - that each 
electoral district represented one vote in the EC, and the party with 
the most votes in that district scored that vote.
From reading the preceding emails, it seems the state's total popular 
is everything, but then I can't see how re-districting has any effect. 
It's not like the line between OH and PA suddenly got moved. How does 
redistricting change the result at the EC?

Oh, and as a curiousity - does the EC actually meet - do representatives 
from each state actually gather in a room in DC and put ballot papers in 
a box?

Cheers
Russell C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

re: brin: My big salvo

[David Brin]

> >A lack of skepticism toward one's own motives is
> the> >sure fire sign of a romantic.

> That's great! Pure gold in words. Can I quote ya?

Sure. It's all part of the notions at:
http://www.davidbrin.com/tolkienarticle1.html

Anyone who doubts my "balance" should hear me talk
about the Naderites and reflexive lefty ideologues,
some time.  They are exactly the same as the
neocons... romantics who want a divided country rather
than one united by pragmatism.

I'll shortly post a "second salvo" that dissects the
neoconservative movement in minute detail.

Meanwhile, appended below is raw text of an addendum
to the 1st salvo, followed by the root HTML so you can
find the links:
-

Web sites for the undecided... or concerned
conservatives:

Beyond Pat Buchanan (cited below), many notable
conservatives have stood up to disown the weird and
divisive clique presently operating our US Government
without check or balance. Some of the following
articles, by or about well-respected conservatives -
who also happen to be worried adults - may shed some
light.

A former special assistant to Ronald Reagan and
Heritage Foundation Fellow ponders real conservatism.

John Eisenhower re: fiscal irresponsibility.

William F. Buckley re: an irresponsible war based on
deceit.

Core conservative establishment figure George Will,
Representative Henry Hyde, GOP lobbyist Stephen Moore
and conservative commentator Tucker Carlson have all
joined the tide, turing away from bizarre neocons bent
on repeating Vietnam. 

See a Libertarian's perspective. 

Also worth a look: administration predictions about
Iraq vs real events. 

A relatively neutral fact check organization compares
rhetoric to truth. 

And some cogent words from the other side. One of many
examples that being rich doesn't have to make you an
ally of rip-off artistes. Many in the American
'aristocracy" support an open, accountable and
responsible civilization. Even if it means stepping
forward, helping pay for defend it... while other sons
do the fighting.

And see just one way both liberals and conservatives
could come together... an example of how freedom can
march ahead in smart, agile and more judo-like ways,
instead of using blugeons and repeating every mistake
of Vietnam. 



Other Indictments:
"Tax and Spend" ...um... DEMOCRATS?

Under Clinton, Federal spending as a percentage of GDP
declined every year for eight years, from 22.1% in
1992 to 18.4% in 2000. That's every... single...year.

Federal % of GDP increased every year under Bush.
Every... single...year. Now over 20% and rising. (See
White House site.) 

Federal spending increased over 30% with only 1/4 of
that related to military and "homeland defense".
"Pork" has burgeoned. 

If these figures cause cognitive dissonance don't turn
away. Be grownup about reconsidering old cliches.

=

Web sites for the undecided... or concerned
conservatives:
Beyond Pat Buchanan (cited below), many notable
conservatives have stood up to disown the weird and
divisive clique presently
operating our US Government without check or balance. 
Some of the following articles, by or about
well-respected conservatives - who also happen to
be worried adults - may shed some light.

A former special assistant to Ronald Reagan and
Heritage Foundation Fellow ponders http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/10/conservatives/print.html";>real
conservatism.
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657";>John
Eisenhower re: fiscal irresponsibility.
http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/063004.aspx";>William
F. Buckley re: an irresponsible war based on
deceit.
Core conservative establishment figure George
Will, 
Representative Henry Hyde, GOP lobbyist
Stephen Moore and conservative
commentator Tucker Carlson have all http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/books/review/10FOERL.html";>joined
the tide, turing away from bizarre neocons bent on
repeating Vietnam.  

See a http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/news_flankingaction.html";>Libertarian's
perspective. 


Also worth a look:  administration predictions about Iraq vs real events.

A relatively neutral http://www.publicintegrity.org/";>fact
check organization compares rhetoric to truth.

And some http://www.georgesoros.com/";>cogent words from
the other side.  One of many examples that
being rich doesn't have to make you an
ally of rip-off artistes.  Many in the American
'aristocracy" support an open,
accountable and responsible civilization.  Even if it
means stepping forward, helping pay for defend it...
while other sons do the fighting.
And see just one way both liberals and conservatives
could come together... an example of how freedom can
march ahead in smart, agile and more judo-like
ways, instead of using blugeons and repeating every
mistake of
Vietnam.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[John D. Giorgis]

At 06:48 PM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
>And of course if all the states did this, then it wouldn't be a
>disadvantage to anyone.

No, it would disproportionately benefit the largest States.For example,
1/52nd of the vote in California would move one Electoral Vote - or about
2%.You would need to move 1/9th of the vote, about 11%, in Colorado to
similarly pick up an Electoral Vote.   In Alaska, that would be 1/3rd.
It would clearly be much more profitable to campaign in California than in
smaller States under such circumstances.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[Bemmzim]

 
In a message dated 10/11/2004 3:26:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John  Kerry, of course, meant by "global test" that America must not just
lay out  its causes, but that we must get some form of international
approval -  beyond the approval of getting at least 21 out of 30 formal US
Allies to  support the Iraq War as Bush did, and apparently beyond getting
UN Security  Council approval as we did during the first Gulf War (which
Kerry voted  against.)



He meant that we must test our actions in the arena of international  
politics. That does not mean that we must require intenational  approval but we must 
interact with othe nations of the world in a way  that keeps them and us 
involved with each other. As never before we live in  close conjunction with the 
rest of the world. What we do affects everyone else  but it is important to 
realize that we need the rest of the world for  economy and way of life to thrive. 
Military might is not enough anymore. We  need the rest of the world to deal 
with us without  resentment. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College

[Erik Reuter]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 04:22:16PM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:

> My main problem with the system as it is now, I suppose, is that if
> you're a Kerry supporter in, say, Alabama or a Bush supporter in
> Massachusetts, your vote has zero potential for impact on the race,
> *even if the race is extremely close from a nationwide perspective*.

I assume you mean to imply "close" between the leading two candidates.

But what makes your "race is extremely close from a nationwide
perspective" between the leading two candidates criterion special? There
are more than 2 people running, but the race is not close between,
eg., Nader and Bush.

If you change your criterion to make it more equitable, then it would be
something like, in an N candidate race, each candidate polls close to
1/N of the votes.

> I don't mean this in some nihilistic "it just doesn't matter" kind
> of way.  What I mean is that a vote for Bush or Kerry in Iowa or PA
> is infinitely more important that one in MA/AL. I'd prefer if every
> person's presidential vote was of equal value regardless of which
> state they lived in.

A vote for Bush or Kerry is infinitely more important than one for
Nader. WOuld you prefer every person's vote was of equal value
regardless of which candidate whose views they share?

> The root cause of that problem, as I see it, is that most states award
> the winner of the state's popular vote all of the state's electoral
> vote.  That means that whether only one person voted for the loser or
> 49.9% or the people did, its essentially treated as if 100% voted for
> the winner as far as the EC is concerned.

I don't think that is the root cause of your objection. If you had
a nationwide popular election (no EC), and pollsters surveyed a
representative sample of 100,000 people just before the election, their
survey would have only a 0.3% margin of error. If it came out, say,
50.5% to 49.5%, then everyone voting for the 49.5% candidate would, in
high likelihood, be voting for the loser. You could say that the problem
is that in a winner takes all election that 49.5% of the votes are
wasted unless the race is closer than 0.3%. Which doesn't make a lot of
sense to me, but that is very similar to what you are saying above.

> It seems to me that with this system, a worst case scenario could
> result in up to nearly 75% of the voters voting for the candidate that
> loses.  That's extremely unlikely, of course, but a possibility that
> illustrates the flaw, I think.

I think this objection makes more sense than your "root cause" above. I
didn't check if your 75% number is correct, but if it is, I would
challenge anyone to come up with a rationale for how an election would
be "fair" if 75% of the votes cast went to a losing candidate.

However, as you say, it would be very unlikely. To improve your
criterion, we probably need to quantify it. Something along the lines
of "the expected unfairness index" of an election system, which would
(roughly) be the sum of

  (probability_i) x (unfairness_i) 

for all possible unfair outcomes. Probability can be
calculated, but "unfairness" would need to be quantified in
some manner, and offhand I don't have a simple way (unless 1 -
probability_of_casting_the_deciding_vote summed over all voters would
work). Although this line of thought strikes me as rather obvious -- I
would bet that a number of political scientists have written papers on
something along these lines.


> 2) get all the states to abandon the "winner takes all" EC vote
> allocation and go to something that allocates votes in a way more
> proportional to the popular vote. (Either a straight proportion, or
> the by-district thing).

In this paragraph, I am going to guesstimate some numbers, but I'd
welcome any more accurate and/or supported numbers anyone can supply if
I am far off.

Currently, I think the pollsters survey around 900 - 3000 people per
state per week. This results in a margin of error of 1.8% to 3.3% in
estimating the way the state will vote. So, if you live in a small state
that is polling, say, 52% to 48%, then most people will feel that their
vote "counts" because it is not possible to confidently predict the
outcome of the state without surveying a lot more people.

In contrast, if we adopted your proposal (2), the outcome will be very
similar to your proposal (1) where the nationwide popular vote decides
the election (there is a slight difference, as you say, because low
population states get a little extra ooomph, but the difference is
relatively small). Imagine then that these pollsters poll 100,000 people
randomly selected across the country, which is the equivalent number
of people as 2000 x 50 states. The result is a margin of error of only
0.3%. As I pointed out above, in a 50.5% to 49.5% race with a 0.3%
margin of error, it is very likely that the people voting for the 49.5%
candidate are voting for the loser. So you have 49.5% of the people
casting a "non-decisive vote".

It is not at all obvious that t

Re: Embryonic Stem cells may stop birth defects

[Robert Seeberger]

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Ronn! wrote:
>> Though probably not on the embryos they are harvested from . . .
>>
> Which of course are never going to be "born"
>>
And which are likely to be destroyed in any case, meaning that the
existence of those embryos who "became" for the purpose of engendering
life in less than fertile couples could again find purpose in
preserving life with an almost miraculous form of healing, or else be
relegated to a midden heap.

Cells from these embryos have the potential to live on far past any
normal human's lifespan, possibly bringing a better life to thousands
of people.

In a sense they would a sort of ultimate organ donor. If these embryos
had the consciousness to be able to understand the choice between
being trash and being healing, I have no doubt what choice they would
make.

I know this is a pretty weird argument to make, especially in this (or
this kind of) forum.
Are there little souls in clinical freezers of fertility clinics
waiting to go to hell on the day when their flesh is processed to heal
the mind and flesh of many?
Do souls come into being on slides or in test tubes in a clinical
enviroment?
If so, what is so holy about a womb?
Is there half a soul in a sperm and half in an ova?

I think the question is less "when does life begin?" and more "when
does soul begin?"

Of course, for an athiest or some agnostics these questions are
meaningless. But for people with moderate to strong belief in God or
gods these questions are of primal importance.

xponent
What Is A Soul Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

re: brin: My big salvo

[Travis Edmunds]

From: David Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: re: brin: My big salvo
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:07:51 -0700 (PDT)

A lack of skepticism toward one's own motives is the
sure fire sign of a romantic.
Allow me but a moment to interject, and to offer a digressive thought 
followed by it's own requisite question:

That's great! Pure gold in words. Can I quote ya?
As you may know, a Brin is much more quotable than an Edmunds.
-Travis "Edmunds" Edmunds
_
Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® 
SmartScreen Technology. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

rationalizer drift

[d.brin]

One of my key points in my Salvo is that the rest of the world 
accepted a unipolar world, led by the USA, under Bill Clinton.  Most 
not only accepted it tacitly, they accepted it IN PRINCIPLE.  Only 
the French and Chinese seemed interested in discussing how to 
re-establish multipolarity and Balance of Power.

Now, meetings are rife on every continent.
Why? Because of Cowboy rationalizations for immature use of Pax 
Americana power.  Read the excerpt below  Are we prepared to embrace 
this as the standard for offensive military action for all nations of 
the world?  Would the world be a safer place?

More important, is it wise EVEN IF YOU WANT CONTINUATION OF PAX 
AMERICANA POWER IN A UNIPOLAR (AMERICA-LED) WORLD?

The New Bush Doctrine is: "If you even seem to us to be thinking 
about trying to game the system toward behaving the way we don't 
like, then we have a right to charge in."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/politics/11preempt.html?oref=login
October 11, 2004
NEWS ANALYSIS: FOREIGN POLICY
A Doctrine Under Pressure: Pre-emption Is Redefined
By DAVID E. SANGER
CRAWFORD, Tex., Oct. 10 - Under pressure to explain anew his decision 
to invade Iraq in light of a damaging report from the C.I.A.'s top 
weapons inspector, President Bush appears to be quietly redefining 
one of the signature philosophies of his administration - his 
doctrine of pre-emptive military action.

Traditionally, pre-empting an enemy is all about urgency, striking 
before the enemy strikes. In the prelude to the invasion in March of 
last year, Mr. Bush and his aides stopping short of saying Saddam 
Hussein posed an "imminent" threat. Still, they used urgent-sounding 
language at every turn to explain why they could not afford to wait 
for inspectors to complete their work, or for the United Nations 
Security Council to come to a consensus on authorizing military 
action. "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final 
proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom 
cloud," he said in a speech delivered Oct. 7, 2002.

But the C.I.A. report released last week, written by Charles A. 
Duelfer, described the evidence as anything but clear and the peril 
as far from urgent. Mr. Hussein's military power began waning after 
the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the report concluded. While Mr. Hussein 
most probably wanted to rebuild his illicit weapons, there is no 
evidence he had started by the time Mr. Bush was delivering that 
speech.

So over the last five days, with some subtle changes of language and 
a new previously undiscussed justification for the war, Mr. Bush 
appears to have expanded the conditions for a pre-emptive military 
strike. He no longer talks about urgency. Instead, for the first 
time, he has begun to argue that a military invasion is justified if 
an opponent is seeking to avoid United Nations sanctions - "gaming 
the system" in his words.

"We did not find the stockpiles we thought were there," Mr. Bush told 
supporters in Waterloo, Iowa, on Saturday. "But I want you to 
remember what the Duelfer report said. It said that Saddam Hussein 
was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. And why? 
Because he had the capability and knowledge to rebuild his weapon 
programs."

Taken at face value, Mr. Bush appears to be saying that under his new 
standard, a country merely has to be thinking about developing 
illicit weapons at some time. "He's saying intent is enough," said 
Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor who under the Clinton administration 
headed the National Intelligence Council, the group that assesses for 
the president when countries have trespassed that hard-to-define line.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis

[Alberto Monteiro]

Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> 90% of people called for polls hang up.
>
21.5% of all statistics are true
92.5% of all statistics are false

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College

[Alberto Monteiro]

Damon Agretto wrote:
>
> The Electorial College is in place so that the
> American People will be prevented from electing a
> Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
> something that happened at my University for Student
> Body President. 
>
No, that's not the reason for the Electoral College: Rio
de Janeiro doesn't have this horrible thing, and yet we
elected a chimp for Mayor in 1988 [the first and last time 
that Cesar Maia was defeated in an election to Mayor; 
he got the 3rd place]. The votes for Macaco Tiao were
invalidated, and someone else was elected.

The Electoral College exists to prevent a sindical leader to
be elected, like Brazil did with Lula in 2002.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Bryon Daly]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:37:15 -0400, John D. Giorgis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:49 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
> >> Bush States Never in Doubt:
> >> AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN
> >> Kerry States Never in Doubt:
> >> HI, CA, IL, DC, MD, NY, VT, MA, CT, RI
> >
> >Translation: states where your vote doesn't mean squat,  especially if
> > you're in the minority party there.
> 
> I categorically reject this conclusion in the strongest possible terms.
> 
> First, why is it that you think "your vote" in an election decided by 10%+
> of the vote means less than "your vote" in an election decided by 527
> votes?In either case, the changing of a single vote does not change the
> outcome.

My problem is that the nationwide presidential election is broken down
into 50 separate statewide elections that vary from "blowout for one
party" to "incredibly tightly contested".

As I said in my reply to Erik, as I see it, a vote for Bush or Kerry
in Iowa or PA is
infinitely more important that one in MA/AL. I'd prefer if every
person's presidential vote was of equal importance, value and impact
regardless of which state they lived in.

> Moreover, I think that it is exceptionally dangerous to suggest, as you do,
> that a vote for a minority party, "doesn't mean squat."The importance
> of democracy is that the *process* matters, and that seeing your side tally
> up a minority of votes confers legitimacy to the fact that your particular
> minority is in power.   It ensures that grievances are addressed through
> peaceful means.

Making yourself heard is certainly of value; I was speaking in terms
of chances of actual impact on the election result.

> The corollary to your argument is that American democracy would be
> healthier if all of elections were split almost exactly 50-50, and decided
> by as little as one vote.   I think that this is a false assumption - and I
> think that it is a good thing that certain politicians are able to build
> such a strong consensus around their views as to win substantial majorities.

I don't think what I'm arguing implies this at all, and I have no
problem with strong concensus or states having substantial majorites. 
My problem lies in the fact that the votes for the losing party are
essentially quantized to 0 at the state level rather than being
allowed to have impact at the national level.

> Additionally, it is worth noting that no matter what system you use for
> "tallying up" the votes, be it winnner-takes-all EC, congressional district
> EC, proportional EC, or straight popular vote, there will always be a
> single winner and everyone else will be "losers."Under your logic, the
> votes of the 40.56% of Americans who voted for electors for Mondale-Ferraro
> in 1984 "didn't mean squat" because "both parties [knew] who will win."
> And what about the votes of the 56%+ of Americans who cast votes for
> electors pledged to *other* candidates than Clinton-Gore in 1992? or the
> nearly 51% of Americans who did so in 1996?

I have no problem with there being winners and losers of national
elections.  I just don't want that quantization being done on a
per-state basis, particularly since many states are pre-disposed to go
one way of the other.

> Thus, I again reiterate this in the strongest possible terms - we do not
> simply count votes for the winners, we count *everyone's vote.*   To say
> otherwise is to slowly undermine the democratic-republican system of
> governance.

Yes.  I just would like them *all* to be counted (or have some impact)
at the national level, rather than truncated at the state level.

> >Is this really a desirable system for a democracy (or, ok, a
> >republic)?  Any good justifications for it?  Why should we want the
> >voters in a handful of states have so much influence over the final
> >results?  Why isn't there more call for change?
> >
> >I had thought that after winning the popular vote but losing the
> >election, that at least the dems would push for some changes, but they
> >seem content with the status quo, and that puzzles me a bit.
> 
> Is the system desirable?Well, for one thing it was a fairly important
> part of the deal that sealed the creation of the United States of America
> as a nation-state in the first place.Thus, it is arguable that any
> attempt to ditch it would smack a bit of "bait-and-switch."

I meant the is the nitty-gritty details of the system, which makes
just a small handful of states the main determinants of the election,
while other states are free to be left out in the cold because one
party's victory is virtually insured.  Is *that* desirable?

I will also point out that there is a constitutional amendment
process, that while not to be undertaken likely, is there to make
changes possible, so I wouldn't consider a proposal to change the EC
system "bait and switch", especially not after 200+ years!

But, as I stated in my last post, I'm not especially advocating
gettin

Re: brin: My big salvo

[The Fool]

> From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> At 02:29 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
> >The quoted passage has nothing to do with the two
> >places where you openly stated you were quoting me. 
> >Not paraphrasing but quoting.
> 
> Not true:
> 
> At 08:06 PM 10/2/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
> [snip]
> >> It is ludicrous to call
> >> it a, quote,
> >> "official" viewpoint of Christianity 
> >
> >Your use of quotes here is dishonest to a degree that
> >borders on despicable..
> 
> 
> >Go visit the apocalypts' web sites to see whether THEY
> >think W agress with them.  Just as Black americans
> >called Bill Clinton "the first black US president" the
> >apocalypts call W "one of us".
> 
> Out of curiosity, which websites would these be?

Tom Delay.  Bill Frist.  Zell Miller.  Trent Lott.  Rick Santourum. 
Antonin (more orgies) Scalia.  All Christian Reconstructionist AKA
Dominionists. AKA 'apocalypts'.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

re: brin: My big salvo

[JDG]

At 02:29 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
>The quoted passage has nothing to do with the two
>places where you openly stated you were quoting me. 
>Not paraphrasing but quoting.

Not true:

At 08:06 PM 10/2/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
[snip]
>> It is ludicrous to call
>> it a, quote,
>> "official" viewpoint of Christianity 
>
>Your use of quotes here is dishonest to a degree that
>borders on despicable..


>Go visit the apocalypts' web sites to see whether THEY
>think W agress with them.  Just as Black americans
>called Bill Clinton "the first black US president" the
>apocalypts call W "one of us".

Out of curiosity, which websites would these be?

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[John D. Giorgis]

At 05:04 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
>> For example, if one assigns all of the States on the basis of the 2000
>> Presidential vote, and divides 2003 population by 2004 electoral votes,
>you
>> get:
>> 461,913 Blue Staters per Electoral Vote
>> 453,567 Red Staters per Electoral Vote
>
>If one does something just slightly different, one sees a more significant
>difference.  Look at the states where the difference in the popular vote is
>> 5%.  There are 20 states with 200 electoral votes for Bush, and 15 states
>with 200 electoral votes for Gore.  This leaves 141 votes in the "swing
>states".
>
>In the Bush states, there are 494k voters per electoral vote, while in the
>Gore states, there are 550k.  This is a much more significant difference.
>
>I didn't cherry pick 5% either.  I tried 10%, but that left too many "swing
>state" votes.  Even so, the same trend was there.
>
>Again, using your analysis for 2004, one gets similar results.

Actually, if you use my analysis for 2004, and only exclude the final group
of swing States, you get:

456,997 per EV in Democratic States, and
447,490 per EV in Republican States.

So, does that mean you were cherry-picking my 2004 analysis? ;-)

Even better, if you allocate those battlegrounds as follows: PA and NH to
the Democrats, and FL, OH, WI, IA, NV, and NM to the Republicans - an
extremely possible outcome, you get:

456,809 per EV in Democratic States, and
457,120 per EV in Republican States

Overall, I find it very difficult to believe that the Electoral College is
atrociously weighted towards the Republicans.

JDG

___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

re: brin: My big salvo

[JDG]

At 02:34 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
>
>> They aren't lies if you sincerely believe them to be
>> true. 
>
>Far, far, far worse.  To be led into war by men who
>believed such fantasies.
>
>History shows they are following the Tonkin Gulf
>script to the letter.
>
>And now imaginary "blueprints" for brave South
>Vietnamese... er... Iraqi local forces to "very soon"
>take over and let our boys go home...
>___
>http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
>
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[Gary Denton]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:15:09 -0400, John D. Giorgis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:46 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
> >> And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans
> >> were happy with the
> >> outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992
> >> elections.
> >
> >Typically and utterly and diametrically opposite to
> >the truth.
> 
> In what way?
> 
> Bush 2000 - 47.87%
> 
> Clinton 1992 - 43.01%
> 
Typically meaningless - Clinton had by far the highest percentage of
vote of the candidates.  Clinton governed centrist, a major criticism
of the GOP was that he kept stealing their programs,  and Perot
supporters were split on which of the two major candidates was their
second choice.  - Gore had the highest percentage of the vote but was
not elected President.  Bush after promising to govern in a modest
bi-partisan manner governed hard-right and supported the GOP back room
deals that have removed any input from the Democratic party.

Doesn't matter, as voters see the two candidates side by side they are
making their decisions.  My Christian GOP-leaning upper-income sister
after watching the two debates has decided to vote for Kerry rather
than the angry elitist candidate who can't admit he has made mistakes.
.
Of course, she is probably basing this on Kerry being taller and looks
more presidential.

Gary Denton
-- 
#2 on google for liberal news
"I don't try harder"
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: brin: My big salvo


> At 02:37 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
> >> >The monsters have a huge advantage going in, folks.  With home bases
> >> >in Confederate and rural states, they get up to 30 extra electoral
> >> >votes.
> >>
> >> 30 Extra?
> >
> >I'm not sure it is 30, but Bush has the advantage that his voters, on
> >average, have higher weighed votes than Kerry voters.
>
> As I pointed out in my Electoral College Analysis reply to Byron, this is
a
> popular misconception that just plain isn't true.This is because,
> Democrats get 3 "charity" EV's from DC, DE, and VT (somewhat offsetting
AK,
> MT, ND, SD, WY)and dominate the lower end of the 4 EV tier with HI, RI,
ME
> and somewhat Democrat-trending NH.
>
> For example, if one assigns all of the States on the basis of the 2000
> Presidential vote, and divides 2003 population by 2004 electoral votes,
you
> get:
> 461,913 Blue Staters per Electoral Vote
> 453,567 Red Staters per Electoral Vote

If one does something just slightly different, one sees a more significant
difference.  Look at the states where the difference in the popular vote is
> 5%.  There are 20 states with 200 electoral votes for Bush, and 15 states
with 200 electoral votes for Gore.  This leaves 141 votes in the "swing
states".

In the Bush states, there are 494k voters per electoral vote, while in the
Gore states, there are 550k.  This is a much more significant difference.

I didn't cherry pick 5% either.  I tried 10%, but that left too many "swing
state" votes.  Even so, the same trend was there.

Again, using your analysis for 2004, one gets similar results.

Dan M.




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[David Brin]

--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> At 01:46 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
> >> And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans
> >> were happy with the
> >> outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992
> >> elections.
> >
> >Typically and utterly and diametrically opposite to
> >the truth.
> 
> In what way?
> 
> Bush 2000 - 47.87%
> 
> Clinton 1992 - 43.01% 

Dan and I have already dealt with the Perot/Nader comparison.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

re: brin: My big salvo

[David Brin]

> They aren't lies if you sincerely believe them to be
> true. 

Far, far, far worse.  To be led into war by men who
believed such fantasies.

History shows they are following the Tonkin Gulf
script to the letter.

And now imaginary "blueprints" for brave South
Vietnamese... er... Iraqi local forces to "very soon"
take over and let our boys go home...
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

re: brin: My big salvo

[David Brin]

The quoted passage has nothing to do with the two
places where you openly stated you were quoting me. 
Not paraphrasing but quoting.

Go visit the apocalypts' web sites to see whether THEY
think W agress with them.  Just as Black americans
called Bill Clinton "the first black US president" the
apocalypts call W "one of us".


--- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> At 01:07 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
> >> A low blow.   The only word I quoted before was
> >> "officially."   The point
> >> of the quote was to draw attention to the fact
> that
> >> the sort of
> >> millenialist movement you were describing is far
> too
> >> decentralized to be
> >> accurate described as having "official"
> positions. 
> >
> >This is utter sophistry.  You QUOTED ME! ANd the
> >quotations were false.
> 
> For the record, I reprint the relevant section of my
> post.   You will note
> that the only quotation marks appear around the word
> "officially."
> 
> >>As for lecturing me about schaedenfreude. again,
> it is
> >>your fearless leader who openly supports an
> idological
> >>movement that officially looks forward to 150,000
> >>people getting a special pass to heaven, then
> millions
> >>suffering in a pre-ordained stage show battle, and
> the
> >>BILLIONS being cast down to roast in hell.
> >
> >The above is a gross caricature of Christianity,
> and instead reflects the
> >view of only a narrow sect.  It is ludicrous to
> call it a, quote,
> >"official" viewpoint of Christianity   This
> caricature reflects neither my
> >views, nor those of the President, nor those of the
> majority of Christians
> >in this country.   And please don't try to tell me
> that everyone who has
> >ever bought a "Left Behind" book subscribes to the
> above viewpoint.  
> 
> As Nick Arnett has noted, your above quoted passage
> is demonstrably false.
>  Bush has "openly support[ed]" Christianity, but has
> not openly supported
> any of the millennialist thinking you have
> described.
> 
> As Dan Minette has noted, this error on your part
> left you open to many
> honest misinterpretations.   Now that your intent
> has been explained by
> others, I have conceded that I was mistaken to
> conclude that you were
> talking about Christianity.  It was, however, my
> honest reading of that
> passage at the time.   As he said, "a bit more
> precision and a bit less
> steam would go a long way in helping us obtain your
> meaning."
> 
> JDG
> 
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[John D. Giorgis]

At 01:46 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
>> And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans
>> were happy with the
>> outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992
>> elections.
>
>Typically and utterly and diametrically opposite to
>the truth.

In what way?

Bush 2000 - 47.87%

Clinton 1992 - 43.01% 

JDG

___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: brin: My big salvo


> At 02:37 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
> >> So?Bush got a higher percentage than Clinton did in 1992.
> >
> >The point is that he got less than Gore did in 2000. More people wanted
> >Clinton than wanted either Bush or Perot.  Fewer people wanted Bush than
> >wanted Gore.
>
> And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans were happy with the
> outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992 elections.

If Perot were a far right wing politician, like Nader is far left wing, you
might have had a point.  But, he wasn't.  He was a maverick centralist "a
plague on both your houses" option.  I remember vividly the polls at the
time that show him getting roughly a third of the votes before he dropped
out for a while (in June I think), and Clinton and Bush I being roughly
equal after he dropped out.  Nader voters in 2000, on the other hand,
condemned Gore for being too much like Bush II.

Even so, if Bush II got more votes than Gore, but less than Gore+Nader, I
would have groused at the Nader voters, not the system.  The point is Bush
II got fewer voters than Gore, but won because the natural bias of the
electoral college favors the Republicans...at least according to your
analysis. :-)

BTW, the population of DC is higher than Wyoming.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

re: brin: My big salvo

[JDG]

At 01:07 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
>> This is pretty pathetic, even by your standards.  
>
>Yes, your insults are customary and shrugged off.

This would be as opposed to your usual polite and reasoned discussion on
this List? For example, the following?:
>The one person I know will not actually read or absorb
>ot study my "salvo" is you, John.  So please, unless
>you do so, opt out of this.  Go follow this mad
>alliance of kleptocrats, apocalypts and neocon
>Imperialists.  
[snip]
>A lack of skepticism toward one's own motives is the
>sure fire sign of a romantic.

I would mention your susceptibility to chain mail about hurricanes here, to
name just one example, but that would be too easy

>I will repeat what he SAID below.  Moreover, if you
>HAD READ my "salvo" at
>http://www.davidbrin.com/neocons.html
>you would see that I never once mention asking for
>permission in describing the long list of successes
>and failures of Pax Americana interventions.

Its not my fault that your "salvo" is hardly an endorsement of John Kerry.
 Remember, John Kerry voted *AGAINST* the First Gulf War - the one
supported by the largest allied coalition since at least World War II, if
not ever, and the one with a gold-plated United Nations Security Council
endorsement.   John Kerry is hardly the flag-bearer for the "Pax Americana"
movement of you describe.   

That probably explains why you spend so little time in your salvo,
ostensibly on the upcoming election, talking about John Kerry and his
policies.   In fact, you mention "Kerry" just once in its entire length -
and at that in the final paragraph and at that only in passing.   You have
clearly damned Kerry with your faint praise.   How else can we interpret
your grand "salvo" on the upcoming election where you can only lambaste
your opponents, and can't find a single word to say in favor of your side?   

>>  Hell, even George Bush agreed we should do that -
>> that's why Bush wanted
>> FIFTEEN MONTHS after the "axis of evil" speech
>> before attacking Iraq, which
>> is why he sought unanimous passage at the United
>> Nations of Security
>> Council resolution 1441,  and why he sent Colin
>> Powell to the United
>> Nations to lay out the causes that were leading the
>> US to take its actions.
>
>Excuse me.  But EXPLAINING  to the world does not mean
>telling relentless lies 

They aren't lies if you sincerely believe them to be true.   Aren't you the
one who just noted that everyone is susceptible to evidence that reconfirms
what they already want to believe?

>and then bullying and bribing
>to get your way.  Then interpreting resolutions as
>they were never meant.

Never meant?   

UNSC Resolution 678 (1990): The Situation Between Iraq and Kuwait
..
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the government of Kuwait,
to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660
(1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international
peace and security in the area.



UNSC Resolution 1441: The Situation Between Iraq and Kuwait
...
The Security Council, recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in
particular its resolutions 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990

The legal justification for this war was open-and-shut by a plain reading
of the text.   UNSC 1441 was passed unanimously by the UNSC (including
*Syria*, China France, and Russian Federation), Iraq clearly did not comply
with UNSC 1441, and UNSC 1441 was clearly "subsequent to" UNSC 678.

>> John Kerry, of course, meant
>
>I have had enough of this.  Here are his actual words.
>
>"No president, through all of American history, has
>ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt
>in any way necessary, to protect the United States of
>America.  But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got
>to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that
>passes the global test where your countrymen, your
>people, understand fully why you're doing what you're
>doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it
>for legitimate reasons."

This "global test" hardly sounds like making a simple "open declaration."

21 of 30 US allies supported the Iraq War.   Colin Powell went to the
United Nations.   The Bush Administration spent 15 months presenting their
case.If this is "failure" under John Kerry's global test, if Gulf War I
is "failure" under John Kerry's global test - then what is a passing
grade?

The world may never know.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

re: brin: My big salvo

[JDG]

At 01:07 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
>> A low blow.   The only word I quoted before was
>> "officially."   The point
>> of the quote was to draw attention to the fact that
>> the sort of
>> millenialist movement you were describing is far too
>> decentralized to be
>> accurate described as having "official" positions. 
>
>This is utter sophistry.  You QUOTED ME! ANd the
>quotations were false.

For the record, I reprint the relevant section of my post.   You will note
that the only quotation marks appear around the word "officially."

>>As for lecturing me about schaedenfreude. again, it is
>>your fearless leader who openly supports an idological
>>movement that officially looks forward to 150,000
>>people getting a special pass to heaven, then millions
>>suffering in a pre-ordained stage show battle, and the
>>BILLIONS being cast down to roast in hell.
>
>The above is a gross caricature of Christianity, and instead reflects the
>view of only a narrow sect.  It is ludicrous to call it a, quote,
>"official" viewpoint of Christianity   This caricature reflects neither my
>views, nor those of the President, nor those of the majority of Christians
>in this country.   And please don't try to tell me that everyone who has
>ever bought a "Left Behind" book subscribes to the above viewpoint.  

As Nick Arnett has noted, your above quoted passage is demonstrably false.
 Bush has "openly support[ed]" Christianity, but has not openly supported
any of the millennialist thinking you have described.

As Dan Minette has noted, this error on your part left you open to many
honest misinterpretations.   Now that your intent has been explained by
others, I have conceded that I was mistaken to conclude that you were
talking about Christianity.  It was, however, my honest reading of that
passage at the time.   As he said, "a bit more precision and a bit less
steam would go a long way in helping us obtain your meaning."

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 12:16 AM
Subject: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis



> Bush States Never in Doubt:
> AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN
> 133 EV's
> About the closest State up here is Montana, which Clinton won once,
thanks
> only to a huge showing by Perot.   Otherwise, these States are as solidly
> Republican as it gets.
>
> Kerry States Never in Doubt:
> HI, CA, IL, DC, MD, NY, VT, MA, CT, RI
> 150 EV's
> Republicans might have dreamed about California, but these States have
all
> become very reliably Democratic.
>
> Bush States That Were Thought About, But Never Really "In Play":
> AR, LA, TN, NC, VA,
> 54 EV's - 187 EV Total
> Clinton/Gore gave the Democrats an opening in the South, but without a
> hometown hero, there was really no shot in AR or LA.   There was some
> thought that Edwards might make Kerry competitive in the "New South"
states
> of NC and VA, but Edwards was a one-termer in NC and not really
established
> there, and the suburbs of DC and Charlotte will need a few more cycles of
> growth before they reverse their old South routes.
>
> Kerry States That Were Thought About, But Never Really "In Play"
> WA, DE, NJ
> 29 EV's - 179 Total

I just did a little thought experiment.  Lets assume that the electoral
college did not favor small states, but treated voters in large and small
states equally.  If that were the case, and electoral college votes were
assigned according to population, then Kerry would be leading 188 to 178
according to John's analysis (instead of trailing 179 to 187).  So,
according to John's analysis, there is a 19 electoral vote bias for the
Republicans compared in the sure and "never in doubt" states.  In other
words, if the vote from the "never in doubt" states for the two candidates
are equal, the Republicans will have a 19 electoral vote advantage that
must be overcome by the Democrats.

Now, lets add the pretty sure states, as John did. That gives a Kerry lead
of 228 to 211.  This is drastically different from a Bush lead of 222 to
217...representing a 22 electoral vote advantage.

If this voting pattern and the trend of close elections continue, we might
have a number of times when the Democrat loses the election while getting
more votes than any other candidate. Indeed, if Kerry wins the popular vote
by less than 1%, I'd bet that it would be the _most likely_ outcome.

Dan M.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[David Brin]

Let's see the full list, John.

Giving the dems ME and NH bodes ill for this being
untendentious, given a scan of voting history.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: br!n: My big salvo

[Horn, John]

> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis

> Ahem not *all* of us.   Some of us believe that removing 
> Saddam Hussein from power was a right and good thing.

Did you even *read* the article from David?

 - jmh
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: brin: My big salvo

[Horn, John]

> Behalf Of d.brin

> What a bunch of wusses those Founding Fathers were!  "... a decent

> respect for the opinions REQUIRES that they declare the causes
which 
> impel them..."  [snort]  Dubya wouldn't feel "required" to seek
out 
> the "opinions" of the French and other foreign America-haters, I
can 
> tell you that!

Let's face it, in today's terms the Founding Fathers were a bunch of
Liberal, Extremist Wackos!  And look what happened once THEY got
into power.

Sheesh.

 - jmh
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[David Brin]

> And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans
> were happy with the
> outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992
> elections.

Typically and utterly and diametrically opposite to
the truth.

I showed how in my last message.  What utter sophistry.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Oct 11, 2004, at 1:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no way that the electoral college can function in the manner 
that you suggest and even if it could it has surely failed to prevent 
the election of a hamster.
Hey now. Hamsters are reasonably intelligent. Just because they, like 
Bush, tend to regard newspaper as toilet material is no reason to draw 
unfair parallels.

I'd agree with EC concerns. There are better systems in place now in 
other countries that we'd do well to consider. I'm fond of runoff 
elections. Had they been in place in 2000, Gore would have taken the 
house. (Since most dual votes for Nader would have reverted to single 
ones for Gore.)

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[JDG]

At 02:37 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
>> So?Bush got a higher percentage than Clinton did in 1992.
>
>The point is that he got less than Gore did in 2000. More people wanted
>Clinton than wanted either Bush or Perot.  Fewer people wanted Bush than
>wanted Gore.

And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans were happy with the
outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992 elections.

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[John D. Giorgis]

At 02:37 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
>> >The monsters have a huge advantage going in, folks.  With home bases
>> >in Confederate and rural states, they get up to 30 extra electoral
>> >votes.
>>
>> 30 Extra?
>
>I'm not sure it is 30, but Bush has the advantage that his voters, on
>average, have higher weighed votes than Kerry voters.

As I pointed out in my Electoral College Analysis reply to Byron, this is a
popular misconception that just plain isn't true.This is because,
Democrats get 3 "charity" EV's from DC, DE, and VT (somewhat offsetting AK,
MT, ND, SD, WY)and dominate the lower end of the 4 EV tier with HI, RI, ME
and somewhat Democrat-trending NH.

For example, if one assigns all of the States on the basis of the 2000
Presidential vote, and divides 2003 population by 2004 electoral votes, you
get:
461,913 Blue Staters per Electoral Vote
453,567 Red Staters per Electoral Vote

Not as big a difference as you might expect.   

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 10/11/2004 8:47:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Damon Agretto <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> writes:

>The Electorial College is in place so that the
>American People will be prevented from electing a
>Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
>something that happened at my University for Student
>Body President. Also, by having that disconnect from
>the will of the majority of Americans, the Electors
>(theoretically) can prevent a candidate that will come
>into office that will opress a minority willfully
>("Tyrrany of the Majority" and all that).

That may or may not have been the original intent but at no time in recent history 
have electors not voted for the winner of the popular votes in their states. There is 
no way that the electoral college can function in the manner that you suggest and even 
if it could it has surely failed to prevent the election of a hamster. 
>
>Although the system can nerf election results
>occasionally, I think its a good system with some very
>good thought behind it.

Thought over 200 years ago. Times have changed. We need to get rid of it. 
>Damon.
>
>=
>
>Damon Agretto
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
>http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
>Now Building: Legends Aussie Centurion Mk.5/1
>
>
>
>        
>__
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
>___
>http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Bemmzim]

>Translation: states where your vote doesn't mean squat, especially if
>you're in the minority party there.  Both parties know who will win so
>neither will expend much effort (if any) in these places.
>
>Even though I'm planning to vote for the guy who will win my state, I
>resent the fact that my vote won't matter at all *regardless* of who I
>voted for.
States where your vote has disproportional voting power. 
>Both parties will expend great efforts (and $$$) to win votes in these
>places.
>
>Is this really a desirable system for a democracy (or, ok, a
>republic)?  Any good justifications for it?  Why should we want the
>voters in a handful of states have so much influence over the final
>results?  Why isn't there more call for change?
>
>I can only posit cynical behavior on behalf of BOTH parties to
>maintain their own strongholds at the expense of fairness.
>
>I had thought that after winning the popular vote but losing the
>election, that at least the dems would push for some changes, but they
>seem content with the status quo, and that puzzles me a bit.
>
>Personally, I'd love to see the whole electoral college system flushed
>and have the popular vote decide things.  But I do understand the
>concerns that residents of the small pop states have that they'd be
>entirely ignored if that was the case 
A direct election would not disenfranchize voters in small states. It would 
enfranchize the rest of us. Small states get their protection from the fact that each 
state has only two Senators and from the fact that their congressional districts are 
more likely to be unified than in large states where many politically disparate groups 
exist.

The only person every american votes for is the President of the United States. All of 
our votes should count the same.

>But it seems to me that the biggest problem isn't so much the EC
>itself, so much as the "winner takes all" setup that awards all the
>electoral votes to the state pop vote winner so that that the winner
>gets all the electoral votes whether he wins by a 99% margin or a 50
>vote margin.  That just seems unnecessary and wrong to me.  It would
>be very easy to allocate the electoral votes directly proportional to
>the pop vote, or give each district one electoral vote, with the 2
>other EC votes going to the overall pop vote winner.
>
>> ... Lastly, while there is an initiative
>> on the ballot to split Colorado's EV's, it is nearly inconceivable that
>> Colorado would choose to commit electoral suicide in this way - and that's
>> probably more said about that than it is worth. 
>
>You say "electoral suicide", I say "democracy".  :-)  That measure
>could conceivably give up to 50% of the CO voters some impact on the
>election that would otherwise be written off.  Why can't (or
>shouldn't) every state do this?
>
>-bryon
>___
>http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Bryon Daly]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:01:16 -0400, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:55:05AM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
> 
> > I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think that
> > times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well any
> > longer, as it stands.  But really my main argument was the need to fix
> > the "winner takes the state" system rather than to toss the EC out
> > altogether.
> 
> Bryon:
> 
> Perhaps I'm not understanding your point. Could you summarize in a
> paragraph or so:
> 
> 1) the main problem(s) of the current system and
> 
> 2) your proposal to fix it?

My main problem with the system as it is now, I suppose, is that if
you're a Kerry supporter in, say, Alabama or a Bush supporter in
Massachusetts, your vote has zero potential for impact on the race,
*even if the race is extremely close from a nationwide perspective*. 
I don't mean this in some nihilistic "it just doesn't matter" kind of
way.  What I mean is that a vote for Bush or Kerry in Iowa or PA is
infinitely more important that one in MA/AL. I'd prefer if every
person's presidential vote was of equal value regardless of which
state they lived in.

The root cause of that problem, as I see it, is that most states award
the winner of the state's popular vote all of the state's electoral
vote.  That means that whether only one person voted for the loser or
49.9% or the people did, its essentially treated as if 100% voted for
the winner as far as the EC is concerned.  We don't have one national
election, we essentially have 50 statewide elections, of which quite a
few are foregone conclusions or nearly so.  It seems to me that with
this system, a worst case scenario could result in up to nearly 75% of
the voters voting for the candidate that loses.  That's extremely
unlikely, of course, but a possibility that illustrates the flaw, I
think.

The solutions I see are: 
1) dump the EC and just use the nationwide popular vote to decide the
presidential election.  But the little states (pop-wise) are given an
advantage within the EC system that I can see the merits of, the EC
would actually be useful if we ever had a strong 3rd party, and it
would require a constitutional amendment to change in any case, so I'm
not pushing/recommending this solution.
2) get all the states to abandon the "winner takes all" EC vote
allocation and go to something that allocates votes in a way more
proportional to the popular vote. (Either a straight proportion, or
the by-district thing).  Thus then, if the loser of a state gets 30%
of the vote, he'd get roughly 30% of the EC votes, and those voters
would then still have some impact on the national election scale.  And
there'd be far less likelihood that the loser of the popular vote
would win the election.  I think this allocation is decided on a
per-state basis, so no changes to the US Constitution should be
required.

I hope that clarifies things!

-Bryon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Embryonic Stem cells may stop birth defects

[Bemmzim]

>
>
>Though probably not on the embryos they are harvested from . . .
>
Which of course are never going to be "born"
>
>-- Ronn!  :)
>
>"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
>-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
>
>
>___
>http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[David Brin]

--- Dan Minette answered:
> > So?Bush got a higher percentage than Clinton
> did in 1992.

with:

> The point is that he got less than Gore did in 2000.
> More people wanted
> Clinton than wanted either Bush or Perot.  Fewer
> people wanted Bush than
> wanted Gore.

ALSO ! Perot's voters split pretty evenly as to who
would be their second choice, if we had a sensible
preferential ballot.

But nearly ALL of Naders' voters polled as utterly
despising all Bush policies while merely thinking Gore
too compromising with business interests.  ALL would
have second choiced Gore.

W ENTERED OFFICE WITH A CLEAR MAJORITY HAVING VOTED
AGAINST HIS PROGRAM.  Yet, he proceeded NOT to reach
out, but to declare a MANDATE.  Never ever meeting
with opponents.  Never reading any news but what's
pre-digested by his handlers.  Never reading books. 
Holding 1/10 as many news conferences as ANY other president
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

re: brin: My big salvo

[David Brin]

> A low blow.   The only word I quoted before was
> "officially."   The point
> of the quote was to draw attention to the fact that
> the sort of
> millenialist movement you were describing is far too
> decentralized to be
> accurate described as having "official" positions. 

This is utter sophistry.  You QUOTED ME! ANd the
quotations were false.



> This is pretty pathetic, even by your standards.  

Yes, your insults are customary and shrugged off.

> John  Kerry did not mean
> by "global test" that America must simply make a
> "declaration of causes."

Ah, so you are the grand mystical interpreter of what
an opponent means, never considering that this is what
you WANT HIM TO MEAN  in order to justify hating him. 
A lack of skepticism toward one's own motives is the
sure fire sign of a romantic.

I will repeat what he SAID below.  Moreover, if you
HAD READ my "salvo" at
http://www.davidbrin.com/neocons.html
you would see that I never once mention asking for
permission in describing the long list of successes
and failures of Pax Americana interventions.

INDEED I DO THE OPPOSITE.  Showing "balance" I lay
claim to Pax Americana freedom of action that makes
many liberals AND old fashioned conservatives shiver!



>  Hell, even George Bush agreed we should do that -
> that's why Bush wanted
> FIFTEEN MONTHS after the "axis of evil" speech
> before attacking Iraq, which
> is why he sought unanimous passage at the United
> Nations of Security
> Council resolution 1441,  and why he sent Colin
> Powell to the United
> Nations to lay out the causes that were leading the
> US to take its actions.


Excuse me.  But EXPLAINING  to the world does not mean
telling relentless lies and then bullying and bribing
to get your way.  Then interpreting resolutions as
they were never meant.

The above all amount to a Second Tonkin Gulf
Resolution, with a repetition of every monstrous
mistake of Vietnam, including dividing the USA down
the middle. THE STUPIDEST AND MOST DESTRUCTIVE THING
ANY PRESIDENT CAN DO IN A WAR.

> 
> John Kerry, of course, meant

I have had enough of this.  Here are his actual words.

"No president, through all of American history, has
ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt
in any way necessary, to protect the United States of
America.  But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got
to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that
passes the global test where your countrymen, your
people, understand fully why you're doing what you're
doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it
for legitimate reasons."
 

The one person I know will not actually read or absorb
ot study my "salvo" is you, John.  So please, unless
you do so, opt out of this.  Go follow this mad
alliance of kleptocrats, apocalypts and neocon
Imperialists.  

Any concerned American conservatives are welcome to
drop by 

http://www.davidbrin.com/neocons.html

and argue pros and cons sensibly.

With cordial regards,

David Brin 
www.davidbrin.com



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: re: brin: My big salvo


> At 12:03 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 d.brin wrote:
> >I will happily take brickbats and/or criticism about it and/or
> >suggestions for more material.  Just kindly do not quote me except
> >when citing words and opinions that I actually say.
>
> A low blow.   The only word I quoted before was "officially."   The point
> of the quote was to draw attention to the fact that the sort of
> millenialist movement you were describing is far too decentralized to be
> accurate described as having "official" positions.

I probably should have taken brin out of the last reply, but I think it
belongs in this one.  I found it rather difficult parsing the meaning of
your comments, because the most obvious meaning of a straight reading of
the text , was Bush was a Jehovah's Witness..since they are the only body
that I know of that takes the 144k literally.  I'm almost certain you
didn't think that, but I had to guess at the real meaning.

In other words, a bit more precision and a bit less steam would go a long
way in helping us obtain your meaning.  Misunderstanding is not the same as
twisting. I go toe to toe with John on a lot of topics, as my last few
posts show, but I can certainly see how he mistakenly parsed that meaning
from your text.

Dan M.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Fiscal Policy Time Constant

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Productivity Re: Br!n: some thoughts and quotes.



> We also suffered far less of the usual pain associated with recessions
this
> time around, again despite the bursting of an asset bubble.   Just
compare
> the relative economic pain of the previous two recessions to this one.

I find it quite curious that you credit Bush's policies with the shortness
and mildness of the 2001 recession (Q2 & Q3).  This was fairly early in his
term..the recession (by common measure) was over in Q4 of 2001, which was
less than a year into his presidency.

Over many posts you have argued that one cannot use the performance of the
ecconomy during Democratic and Republican terms as an indicator of the
results of different ecconomic policies.  Part of this was the long time
constants associated with fiscal policy.  I realize that many ecconomists
agree that monitary policies are best in adressing recessions/inflation,
because they are faster acting: over the 3-6 month time frame.  I've seen
arguements that the fiscal policies produce results in the 6-24 month time
frame from when they take place.

So, tax cuts in Q3 '01 will have an impact from Q1 of '02 to Q3 of '03.  If
the cuts are repealed in Q3 of '03, the effects of the tax cuts will phase
out from Q1 of '04 to Q2 of 05.

Given this assumption, Bush's tax cuts should have had no effect on the
recession of '01.  The only fiscal policy that would have an effect is
Clinton's.  His budget surpluses gave Greenspan the room he needed to cut
the interest rate as much as he did.

But, I'd be happy to give Bush some benefit of the doubt and agree that the
tax rebate checks did have an impact.  Rebate checks are a good way to
speed up impact...compared with cutting next year's taxes.  I've read
arguments by reasonable people that argue that the rebate checks were fast
enough to have an impact on the recession.  I would argue that Greenspan
deserves the most credit for the brevity of the recession, with Clinton and
Bush sharing the remaining credit.

But, I would argue that the tax cuts planned for 2005 do not have a
noticeable impact on the 2001 recession. Indeed, many of the tax cuts
focused on the higher income earners were back loaded, and only gradually
took effect.  To first order, these had nothing to do with the length or
severity of the 2001 recession.

In addition, if we agree that Bush's fiscal policy were having an impact
within 9 months of his taking office, then we need to agree that, as his
administration continued in office, his influence grew.  Thus, his fiscal
policies have more impact in 2002 than 2001, more in 2003 than 2002, etc.

Out of curiosity, John, what is your opinion on the time constant
associated with fiscal policies.  Sometimes you seem to argue that its >4
years, other times <1 year.  This may very well be my not understanding
exactly what you mean, so clarification would be helpful.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: brin: My big salvo

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: re: brin: My big salvo


> At 12:03 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 d.brin wrote:
> >I will happily take brickbats and/or criticism about it and/or
> >suggestions for more material.  Just kindly do not quote me except
> >when citing words and opinions that I actually say.
>
> A low blow.   The only word I quoted before was "officially."   The point
> of the quote was to draw attention to the fact that the sort of
> millenialist movement you were describing is far too decentralized to be
> accurate described as having "official" positions.
>
> Never mind the fact that the passage in question of yours was found to be
> demonstrably false.   As even Nick Arnett, noted, George Bush has *not*,
> quote, "openly" espoused the millenialism you described.
>
> As I noted in follow-ups this egregious error on your part led to some
> mistaken interpretations, in my case it was my mistaken - albeit
perfectly
> honest - interpretation that you were criticizing Christianity, since
> "Chrisitianity" is a far better match for an ideologoy "openly" espoused
by
> President Bush than millenialism.
>
> >Last week, the Bush-Cheney campaign launched TV ads, and Bush in his
> >political stump speech has been, attacking Kerry for proposing a
> >"Kerry Doctrine" that would consist of a "global test" before launch
> >a pre-emptive war.  That line of attack is based on this comment from
> >Kerry in the first debate:
> >
> >"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and
> >nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect
> >the United States of America.  But if and when you do it, Jim, you've
> >got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the
> >global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why
> >you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that
> >you did it for legitimate reasons."
> >
> >It struck me that I had heard of that "global test" before.  Imagine
> >the attack ads the Bush-Cheney could come up with based on this line:
> >
> >"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one
> >people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
> >another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
> >equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
> >them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
> >should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
> >
> >http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
> >
> >What a bunch of wusses those Founding Fathers were!  "... a decent
> >respect for the opinions REQUIRES that they declare the causes which
> >impel them..."  [snort]  Dubya wouldn't feel "required" to seek out
> >the "opinions" of the French and other foreign America-haters, I can
> >tell you that!
>
> This is pretty pathetic, even by your standards.   John  Kerry did not
mean
> by "global test" that America must simply make a "declaration of causes."
>  Hell, even George Bush agreed we should do that - that's why Bush wanted
> FIFTEEN MONTHS after the "axis of evil" speech before attacking Iraq,
which
> is why he sought unanimous passage at the United Nations of Security
> Council resolution 1441,  and why he sent Colin Powell to the United
> Nations to lay out the causes that were leading the US to take its
actions.
>
> John Kerry, of course, meant by "global test" that America must not just
> lay out its causes, but that we must get some form of international
> approval - beyond the approval of getting at least 21 out of 30 formal US
> Allies to support the Iraq War as Bush did, and apparently beyond getting
> UN Security Council approval as we did during the first Gulf War (which
> Kerry voted against.)
>
> >=
> >
> >The monsters have a huge advantage going in, folks.  With home bases
> >in Confederate and rural states, they get up to 30 extra electoral
> >votes.
>
> 30 Extra?

I'm not sure it is 30, but Bush has the advantage that his voters, on
average, have higher weighed votes than Kerry voters.

> So?Bush got a higher percentage than Clinton did in 1992.

The point is that he got less than Gore did in 2000. More people wanted
Clinton than wanted either Bush or Perot.  Fewer people wanted Bush than
wanted Gore.

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

re: brin: My big salvo

[John D. Giorgis]

At 12:03 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 d.brin wrote:
>I will happily take brickbats and/or criticism about it and/or 
>suggestions for more material.  Just kindly do not quote me except 
>when citing words and opinions that I actually say.

A low blow.   The only word I quoted before was "officially."   The point
of the quote was to draw attention to the fact that the sort of
millenialist movement you were describing is far too decentralized to be
accurate described as having "official" positions.   

Never mind the fact that the passage in question of yours was found to be
demonstrably false.   As even Nick Arnett, noted, George Bush has *not*,
quote, "openly" espoused the millenialism you described.

As I noted in follow-ups this egregious error on your part led to some
mistaken interpretations, in my case it was my mistaken - albeit perfectly
honest - interpretation that you were criticizing Christianity, since
"Chrisitianity" is a far better match for an ideologoy "openly" espoused by
President Bush than millenialism.

>Last week, the Bush-Cheney campaign launched TV ads, and Bush in his 
>political stump speech has been, attacking Kerry for proposing a 
>"Kerry Doctrine" that would consist of a "global test" before launch 
>a pre-emptive war.  That line of attack is based on this comment from 
>Kerry in the first debate:
>
>"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and 
>nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect 
>the United States of America.  But if and when you do it, Jim, you've 
>got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the 
>global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why 
>you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that 
>you did it for legitimate reasons."
>
>It struck me that I had heard of that "global test" before.  Imagine 
>the attack ads the Bush-Cheney could come up with based on this line:
>
>"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one 
>people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with 
>another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and 
>equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle 
>them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they 
>should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
>
>http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
>
>What a bunch of wusses those Founding Fathers were!  "... a decent 
>respect for the opinions REQUIRES that they declare the causes which 
>impel them..."  [snort]  Dubya wouldn't feel "required" to seek out 
>the "opinions" of the French and other foreign America-haters, I can 
>tell you that!

This is pretty pathetic, even by your standards.   John  Kerry did not mean
by "global test" that America must simply make a "declaration of causes."
 Hell, even George Bush agreed we should do that - that's why Bush wanted
FIFTEEN MONTHS after the "axis of evil" speech before attacking Iraq, which
is why he sought unanimous passage at the United Nations of Security
Council resolution 1441,  and why he sent Colin Powell to the United
Nations to lay out the causes that were leading the US to take its actions.

John Kerry, of course, meant by "global test" that America must not just
lay out its causes, but that we must get some form of international
approval - beyond the approval of getting at least 21 out of 30 formal US
Allies to support the Iraq War as Bush did, and apparently beyond getting
UN Security Council approval as we did during the first Gulf War (which
Kerry voted against.)

>=
>
>The monsters have a huge advantage going in, folks.  With home bases 
>in Confederate and rural states, they get up to 30 extra electoral 
>votes.  

30 Extra?

>The same ones that (by a margin of just one, plus Floridian 
>shenanigans) made W the first president in a century without a 
>plurality.

So?Bush got a higher percentage than Clinton did in 1992.

>It's going to take some lifting by all of us...

Ahem not *all* of us.   Some of us believe that removing Saddam Hussein
from power was a right and good thing.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

re: brin: My big salvo

[d.brin]

Hello gang.  Well here it is.  My "big salvo" of the political campaign.
It is intended to analyze the present administration by CONSERVATIVE 
standards and especially with an eye to what it takes to win 
strategic struggles - even war - in the 21st Century.

It involves HTML a lot in the use of sidebars and popouts, since I 
wanted the main linear argument to be short and undaunting.  So it 
cannot easily be emailed.  But you'll find it at:

http://www.davidbrin.com/neocons.html
I will happily take brickbats and/or criticism about it and/or 
suggestions for more material.  Just kindly do not quote me except 
when citing words and opinions that I actually say.

If you find it persuasive, please share it with undecideds - and 
decided conservatives who have at least an open mind - in 
battleground states.

Oh, and here's an item below.

Last week, the Bush-Cheney campaign launched TV ads, and Bush in his 
political stump speech has been, attacking Kerry for proposing a 
"Kerry Doctrine" that would consist of a "global test" before launch 
a pre-emptive war.  That line of attack is based on this comment from 
Kerry in the first debate:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and 
nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect 
the United States of America.  But if and when you do it, Jim, you've 
got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the 
global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why 
you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that 
you did it for legitimate reasons."

It struck me that I had heard of that "global test" before.  Imagine 
the attack ads the Bush-Cheney could come up with based on this line:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one 
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with 
another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and 
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle 
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they 
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
What a bunch of wusses those Founding Fathers were!  "... a decent 
respect for the opinions REQUIRES that they declare the causes which 
impel them..."  [snort]  Dubya wouldn't feel "required" to seek out 
the "opinions" of the French and other foreign America-haters, I can 
tell you that!

=
The monsters have a huge advantage going in, folks.  With home bases 
in Confederate and rural states, they get up to 30 extra electoral 
votes.  The same ones that (by a margin of just one, plus Floridian 
shenanigans) made W the first president in a century without a 
plurality.

It's going to take some lifting by all of us...
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis

[John D. Giorgis]

At 01:22 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Julia Randolph wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 01:16:31 -0400, John D. Giorgis
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> Consider, for example, this more detailed look:
>> 
>> Bush States Never in Doubt:
>> AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN
>> 133 EV's
>
>Odd.  I just get 96.

The Electoral Total is right but I did forget a couple States.

TX and WY are missing from the List.But then agin, there really isn't
any doubt.

Thanks for the fact check.

JDG


___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Another explanation for the hurricanes hitting Florida

[Dave Land]

On Oct 9, 2004, at 7:02 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Julia Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:53 PM
Subject: Another explanation for the hurricanes hitting Florida
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cyberwar-04l.html
Maybe Gaia doesn't like spam.
My Mom, who is a director for a Bigass Insurance company has always
said that 3/4 of all the insurance fraud in the US originates in
Florida.
Voter fraud
Insurance fraud
Spam
Think there is some ethical/moral connection?
The only time I experienced identity theft was by someone in
Hallendale, FL. Not surprisingly, Hallendale is within commute
distance of the credit-card issuer's offices.
Dave
Inside Job Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Bush's Tax Cut Plan

[Dan Minette]

> Yeah, that's the President's goal.   And mine.  Uh huh.   Accelerate
> pre-tax income inequality through adjustments in the tax rate.That
> makes a lot of sense.

 Let's look at the numbers: The tax cut plan that was passed has four
significant sections: the estimated 10 year cost of each is:

1) introduction of 10% tax bracket:   $383 billion
2) reduction of rates above 28%:  $560 billion
3) estate tax repeal:  $295 billion
4) child tax credit:$192 billion

#s 1 & 4 apply to most income bracketsalthough you have to pay at least
as much in taxes as the credit to get the benefit for #4. #2 applies to
couples making above $175,000/year.  #3 only applies to those with estates
worth more than $1,000,000.  Only 2% of the estates are subjected to this
tax, and only 4500 estates are responsible for half of the tax.

The source of this is:


http://www.uaw.org/publications/jobs_pay/01/0401/jpe02.html

Its clearly a partisan site, but they appear to have obtained numbers from
neutral sources.  If you wish to furnish different numbers, I'd be happy to
discuss how we can calculate the costs of the tax cut.

We can also see the breakdown of the annual benefit (once the tax break is
fully in place) by income bracket:

Income GroupAverage Income  % of Total Tax Cut
Lowest 20%   $9,300   0.90%
Second 20%   $20,600 5.30%
Middle 20%$34,400 8.50%
Fourth 20% $56,400   14.50%
Next 15%   $97,400   23.70%
Next 4% $210,000  9.50%
Top 1%  $1,117,000 37.60%

This is from:

http://www.inequality.org/bushtaxplan.html

Not an unbiased source, but they seem to obtain numbers from unbiased
sources.  Again, if you have different sources, I'd be willing to discuss
this.

 Kerry mentioned in the debate the top 1% now benefits from the tax cuts
more than the bottom 80% of income earners. This has not been brought up on
 any of the post debate "fact checks" that I have seen.  It has not been
directly countered by the Bush campaign...with hard numbers...so I think we
can rely on its accuracy.

> And I suppose that that's why the President lowered the bottom tax
bracked
> from 15% to 10%, and took millions of poor families off the tax roles?
> is that why Citizen's for Tax Justice - not exactly a conservative
group -
> concluded that Bush's first tax cut gave benefits to workers in
essentially
> the same proportion to which they pay taxes?

That's true in a very limited sense: if you only consider part of the tax
cut and look at only a fraction of the total tax bill.  It would be
inaccurate to say that only the wealthy had their taxes cut.  But, it would
not be inaccurate to say that the net winners are the most wealthy, and the
net losers are eveyone else.

There are two ways to look at this: taxes and loss future benefits.  For
wage earners in the lower tax brackets, the main tax burden is not income
tax, but the Social Security/Medicare tax.  For example, a family of 4 with
100,000 in self-employed income, one child qualifying for the child tax
credit, paying about $5500 for health insurance, and $15,000 in total
deductions (mortgage, real estate taxes,charitable contributions) would pay
income taxes of $8764 and Social Security/Medicare taxes of $13,466.   (as
calculated by TurboTax 2003)

The deductions I have quoted are quite modest for a homeowner.
(mortage+insurance+real estate taxes can be 28% of income according to the
general mortgage qualificaiton calculations).  For people employed by
others, half of the Social Security/Medicare tax is counted as part of the
total compensation...not wages, so the same person would only be earning
$93,267...but that would be enough to put the family income at about the
75% household income bracket.
(BTW, this is just with 1 wage earner, the discrepency would be greater if
both parents earned <~75k.)

So, lets take another family of four, employed with wage income of $50,000
with employer funded health insurance.  This family takes the standard
deduction, and has one child qualifying for the child tax credit.  Their
income tax is $3549, their SS/Medicare tax is $7602.

Second, only the wealthiest 2% need to worry about the estate tax.  Since
this is not an income tax, it "flies under the radar" when only the income
tax is mentioned.

In short, I'd argue that the fairest way to consider the change in the % of
Federal tax burden is to use the following ratio:  (reduction in total
Federal tax burden)/(total Federal tax burden).

The second point is the cost of these tax cuts.  The future ability of the
federal government to address the underfunding of Social Security and
Medicare is reduced when other debt is increased.  This means an increased
likelihood of reduced benefits/a larger reduction in benefits in the
future.  This reduction hits different income brackets fairly evenly.  So
the cost of the tax reduction

Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis

[Julia Randolph]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 01:16:31 -0400, John D. Giorgis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> Consider, for example, this more detailed look:
> 
> Bush States Never in Doubt:
> AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN
> 133 EV's

Odd.  I just get 96.
 
> Kerry States Never in Doubt:
> HI, CA, IL, DC, MD, NY, VT, MA, CT, RI
> 150 EV's

Check.
 
> Bush States That Were Thought About, But Never Really "In Play":
> AR, LA, TN, NC, VA,
> 54 EV's - 187 EV Total

Check.
 
> Kerry States That Were Thought About, But Never Really "In Play"
> WA, DE, NJ
> 29 EV's - 179 Total

Check.
 
> So, at this point it is Bush 187, Kerry 179 - a narrow Bush lead.
> 
> States That Appear to Be Conceded by the Kerry Campaign
> AZ, MO, WV, CO
> 35 EV's - 222 Total

Check.
 
> States that Appear to Be Conceded by the Bush Campaign
> OR, MI, ME, MN
> 38EV's - 217 Total

Check.

> This leaves the remaining solid battlegrouds of:
> NV - 5, NM - 5, IA - 7, WI - 10, OH - 20, PA - 21, FL - 27, and NH - 4
> 99 EV's Total

Check.

You left out a couple of states.  I think the people of Wyoming would
be disappointed in you

 Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Scouted: Klingons for KIerry

[Dave Land]

EXCLUSIVE: Straw-poll shocker! Fierce warrior race strongly backs 
Democrat.

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5539
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[John D. Giorgis]

At 03:49 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
>> Bush States Never in Doubt:
>> AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN
>> Kerry States Never in Doubt:
>> HI, CA, IL, DC, MD, NY, VT, MA, CT, RI
>
>Translation: states where your vote doesn't mean squat,  especially if 
> you're in the minority party there.

I categorically reject this conclusion in the strongest possible terms.

First, why is it that you think "your vote" in an election decided by 10%+
of the vote means less than "your vote" in an election decided by 527
votes?In either case, the changing of a single vote does not change the
outcome.

Moreover, I think that it is exceptionally dangerous to suggest, as you do,
that a vote for a minority party, "doesn't mean squat."The importance
of democracy is that the *process* matters, and that seeing your side tally
up a minority of votes confers legitimacy to the fact that your particular
minority is in power.   It ensures that grievances are addressed through
peaceful means.   

The corollary to your argument is that American democracy would be
healthier if all of elections were split almost exactly 50-50, and decided
by as little as one vote.   I think that this is a false assumption - and I
think that it is a good thing that certain politicians are able to build
such a strong consensus around their views as to win substantial majorities.

Additionally, it is worth noting that no matter what system you use for
"tallying up" the votes, be it winnner-takes-all EC, congressional district
EC, proportional EC, or straight popular vote, there will always be a
single winner and everyone else will be "losers."Under your logic, the
votes of the 40.56% of Americans who voted for electors for Mondale-Ferraro
in 1984 "didn't mean squat" because "both parties [knew] who will win."
And what about the votes of the 56%+ of Americans who cast votes for
electors pledged to *other* candidates than Clinton-Gore in 1992? or the
nearly 51% of Americans who did so in 1996?

Thus, I again reiterate this in the strongest possible terms - we do not
simply count votes for the winners, we count *everyone's vote.*   To say
otherwise is to slowly undermine the democratic-republican system of
governance.

>Is this really a desirable system for a democracy (or, ok, a
>republic)?  Any good justifications for it?  Why should we want the
>voters in a handful of states have so much influence over the final
>results?  Why isn't there more call for change?
>
>I had thought that after winning the popular vote but losing the
>election, that at least the dems would push for some changes, but they
>seem content with the status quo, and that puzzles me a bit.

Is the system desirable?Well, for one thing it was a fairly important
part of the deal that sealed the creation of the United States of America
as a nation-state in the first place.Thus, it is arguable that any
attempt to ditch it would smack a bit of "bait-and-switch."

Another good reason for it, is that geography is important.   First off,
all nation-states are based on some form of geography, to the extent that
they have national borders.   As a corollary to this, all wars of secession
are also based on secession.   One benefit of the EC, then, is that it
ensures that rural States brought into the political process - or more
accurately, it creates the perception that more rural Sates are brought
into the process.   Especially in cases when these rural States have a
broad consensus of political opinion, it could be very easy for dissidents
in said States to argue that "Others" in the distant, urban States, simply
don't understand them, blatantly ignore their interests, and that in an
electorate of 110 million votes, that their votes are simply lost.By
reducting the electorate to 538 Electoral College votes, it is much easier
to argue that a small State is carrying an impact with 3, 4, or 5 EV's.
(By the same token, it is hard to argue that CA and NY - which are
single-handedly keeping the Party which supports their broad consensus of
opinion afloat in the Electoral College - are being slighted by the
Electoral College process.)

One reason why there isn't more call from change, even from the Democratic
Party, is that it is exceptionally difficult to change the Constitution.
As of yet, there does not appear to be the broad-based outrage at the EC
that would be necessary to effect a Constitutional Amendment to change it.

Another reason is that somewhat surprisingly, the Electoral College doesn't
necessarily benefit Republicans as much as you might think.For example,
consider the list of States benefitting from the floor of 3 EV's.   

Republican:
WY, ND, AK, SD, MT

Democratic:
DC, VT, DE

In other words, the 3 EV floor benefits the Republican Party to the tune of
only 1 EV or 2 EV.   It is also worth noting that MT is the closest State
to picking up a 4th EV, and that the closest States to dropping from 4 EV's
to 3 EV's are RI, H

Re: New Movie: A Sound of Thunder

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Oct 10, 2004, at 5:40 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Humanity was not erased in the story.  When they got back home to the 
future, the results of the recent election had been reversed, with the 
more dictator-like candidate being elected instead of the more 
freedom-loving candidate (hence my allusion to the current political 
race), and that is when the hunter discovers the butterfly crushed in 
the mud on his boot and the safari guide shoots him (the titular 
"sound of thunder") for changing the future.  The end.
Yeah -- and the language on all the signs had changed as well, to 
something that looked, IIRC, pre-literate or Hooked on Phonics-like.

Which, when you think about it, brings a certain subliterate 
"president" to mind...

Hmm.
Anyone gone big game hunting recently...?
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Another explanation for the hurricanes hitting Florida

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Oct 9, 2004, at 8:59 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

From: "Julia Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cyberwar-04l.html
 Maybe Gaia doesn't like spam.

My Mom, who is a director for a Bigass Insurance company has always
said that 3/4 of all the insurance fraud in the US originates in
Florida.
Voter fraud
Insurance fraud
Spam
Vincent Lecavalier, the Keys, Mickey Mouse...where does it end?!
And all those Cubans. Former Cubans. You know, the ones who cry 
incessantly because their ill-got gains were stolen from them by 
Castro. The ones who've had a disproportionate effect on US politics 
for 50 years.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Erik Reuter]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:55:05AM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:

> I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think that
> times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well any
> longer, as it stands.  But really my main argument was the need to fix
> the "winner takes the state" system rather than to toss the EC out
> altogether.

Bryon:

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point. Could you summarize in a
paragraph or so:

1) the main problem(s) of the current system and

2) your proposal to fix it?

-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Bryon Daly]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:47:26 -0700 (PDT), Damon Agretto
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Electorial College is in place so that the
> American People will be prevented from electing a
> Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
> something that happened at my University for Student
> Body President. Also, by having that disconnect from
> the will of the majority of Americans, the Electors
> (theoretically) can prevent a candidate that will come
> into office that will opress a minority willfully
> ("Tyrrany of the Majority" and all that).

Except that the winning party gets to pick the electors, so if the
Hamster Dance party wins, we get pro-hamster electors and a hamster
president.  Same thing if the Tyranny Party gets elected.

The EC makes a lot of sense if there were 3+ presidential candidates
all getting substantial *electoral* votes.  Imagine if Nader was
popular enough to actually win some EC votes, (but not enough to be
anywhere near winning), while Kerry was also short of winning. 
Nader's electors, prefering Kerry over Bush, could side with Kerry,
perhaps putting him over the top.

But with a 2 party system where 3rd parties have little chance of
getting any electoral votes - especially because of the states'
"winner takes all" system - the EC doesn't serve much purpose, IMHO.

> Although the system can nerf election results
> occasionally, I think its a good system with some very
> good thought behind it.

I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think that
times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well any
longer, as it stands.  But really my main argument was the need to fix
the "winner takes the state" system rather than to toss the EC out
altogether.

-bryon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Damon Agretto]

The Electorial College is in place so that the
American People will be prevented from electing a
Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
something that happened at my University for Student
Body President. Also, by having that disconnect from
the will of the majority of Americans, the Electors
(theoretically) can prevent a candidate that will come
into office that will opress a minority willfully
("Tyrrany of the Majority" and all that).

Although the system can nerf election results
occasionally, I think its a good system with some very
good thought behind it.

Damon.

=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: Legends Aussie Centurion Mk.5/1




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:25 AM Monday 10/11/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
90% of people called for polls hang up.

Did you get that result from a poll?

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis

[Erik Reuter]

The data is really too close to call. People can analyze all they want,
it doesn't change the fact that the polls are within the margin of
error.

For example, Zogby and the Wall Street Journal come up with a Kerry win:


OCTOBER 6, 2004

The presidential debate has lifted John Kerry back to where he was in
our battleground analysis before the Republican convention energized the
Bush campaign.

The latest Zogby Interactive poll puts Mr. Kerry ahead of President Bush
in 13 of the 16 closely contested states -- two more states than the
Massachusetts senator led before the debate and the most since August.
The latest survey was conducted between last Thursday, after the debate
ended, and Tuesday afternoon, before vice-presidential contenders Dick
Cheney and John Edwards debated.

Mr. Kerry moved ahead in two states (Ohio and Nevada) and increased his
lead in seven others -- though Mr. Kerry's margin over Mr. Bush in Ohio,
Arkansas and Florida was negligible -- less than one percentage point.
Mr. Bush's lead narrowed in the three states (Missouri, Tennessee and
West Virginia) that he remains ahead of Mr. Kerry. Overall, seven of Mr.
Kerry.s leads are within the margins of error, while all of Mr. Bush.s
leads are.

If the results on Election Day matched Zobgy's numbers, Mr. Kerry would
win. Here's how:

To analyze Zogby's results, we begin by assuming that the District of
Columbia and the 34 states that aren't in the battleground poll will
vote for the same political party this November as they did in the 2000
election. Thus, Mr. Bush starts with 189 electoral votes and Mr. Kerry
with 172. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win.

To those numbers, we add the electoral votes from the latest poll,
regardless of the margins of error or the spread between the candidates.
Mr. Kerry's 13 states have 150 electoral votes, while Mr. Bush's three
have 27 votes. The bottom line: Mr. Kerry would have 322 electoral votes
and the president would have 216.

That 106-vote margin is far wider than the last analysis, on Sept. 20,
the president was just 56 electoral votes behind Mr. Kerry. 



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis

[Robert Seeberger]

90% of people called for polls hang up.



xponent
In November Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Christopher Reeve Dies

[Robert G. Seeberger]

His publicist calls Christopher Reeve a "courageous and inspirational
person" who provided hope to millions of people.

The star of the "Superman" movies who emerged from a paralyzing riding
accident as a worldwide advocate for spinal cord research died Sunday
at his home in New York state. He was 52.


Publicist Wesley Combs says Reeve was living proof that nothing is
impossible.

Reeve was being treated for a pressure wound that became severely
infected, resulting in complications. Such wounds are common in
paralyzed people. He suffered cardiac arrest.

Reeve's wife, Dana, thanked his personal staff of nurses and aides,
along with millions of fans for their love and support.

Reeve became active in support of better catastrophic injury
insurance. He also worked hard to overcome his paralysis, moving his
index finger in 2000.


xponent
Death Of Superman Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Fwd: Max Faget NASA pioneer 1921-2004, And Christopher Reeve 1952-2004

[Ronn!Blankenship]

Max Faget
<>
Christopher Reeve
<>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Embryonic Stem cells may stop birth defects

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:04 PM Sunday 10/10/04, The Fool wrote:
<>
Stem cells may stop birth defects

Though probably not on the embryos they are harvested from . . .

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis)

[Bryon Daly]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 01:16:31 -0400, John D. Giorgis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sure that other people here are following the election very closely, so
> I wanted to post some thoughts about where things stand, 3 weeks and 1
> debate before the election.
> 

Interesting analysis, John.  Thanks.

But it highlights what really frustrates me about the electoral college system:

> Bush States Never in Doubt:
> AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN
> Kerry States Never in Doubt:
> HI, CA, IL, DC, MD, NY, VT, MA, CT, RI

Translation: states where your vote doesn't mean squat, especially if
you're in the minority party there.  Both parties know who will win so
neither will expend much effort (if any) in these places.

Even though I'm planning to vote for the guy who will win my state, I
resent the fact that my vote won't matter at all *regardless* of who I
voted for.

> This leaves the remaining solid battlegrouds of:
> NV - 5, NM - 5, IA - 7, WI - 10, OH - 20, PA - 21, FL - 27, and NH - 4

Translation: states where your vote has disproportional voting power. 
Both parties will expend great efforts (and $$$) to win votes in these
places.

Is this really a desirable system for a democracy (or, ok, a
republic)?  Any good justifications for it?  Why should we want the
voters in a handful of states have so much influence over the final
results?  Why isn't there more call for change?

I can only posit cynical behavior on behalf of BOTH parties to
maintain their own strongholds at the expense of fairness.

I had thought that after winning the popular vote but losing the
election, that at least the dems would push for some changes, but they
seem content with the status quo, and that puzzles me a bit.

Personally, I'd love to see the whole electoral college system flushed
and have the popular vote decide things.  But I do understand the
concerns that residents of the small pop states have that they'd be
entirely ignored if that was the case (although it bugs me that this
system makes, say, an Alaskan voter's vote worth a fair bit more than,
say, a California voter's vote).

But it seems to me that the biggest problem isn't so much the EC
itself, so much as the "winner takes all" setup that awards all the
electoral votes to the state pop vote winner so that that the winner
gets all the electoral votes whether he wins by a 99% margin or a 50
vote margin.  That just seems unnecessary and wrong to me.  It would
be very easy to allocate the electoral votes directly proportional to
the pop vote, or give each district one electoral vote, with the 2
other EC votes going to the overall pop vote winner.

> ... Lastly, while there is an initiative
> on the ballot to split Colorado's EV's, it is nearly inconceivable that
> Colorado would choose to commit electoral suicide in this way - and that's
> probably more said about that than it is worth. 

You say "electoral suicide", I say "democracy".  :-)  That measure
could conceivably give up to 50% of the CO voters some impact on the
election that would otherwise be written off.  Why can't (or
shouldn't) every state do this?

-bryon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l