From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #341 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Saturday, December 22 2001 Volume 05 : Number 341 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Dec 2001 11:14:35 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) wrote in message news:<20011220224007.02613.00000212@mb-mu.aol.com>... > Richard said: > > < sorry) their hatred of our freedoms. I think that's shallow, but very > convenient, nonsense.>> > > I think it's shallow to completely dismiss it as any part of that hatred. I think it is pretty shallow to think that it is by any stretch a majority reason for why people hate us (assuming they hate us and not love us or lie somewhere inbetween hate and love, in the limbo..). Recent surveys of people outside the US suggest that most people dislike us because of our unfair foreign policy and our power (i.e. not freedoms, but our wealth) and seeming disreguard for the growing gap between rich countries and poor countries. You can chalk this up to talking out of my butt because I am not going to dig up the survey, but if I remember correctly, many americans thought it was because of our freedoms, with many foreigners, that reason really didn't register on the map (or was very insignificant). > < international terrorism is substantially soluable without resort to > mass bombs and violence.>> > > Pieces of your theory are undoubtedly correct, but as a whole (or at least as > whole as I've read it) I would argue against some of it. I'm curious as to what parts of this theory you would argue against. [snip] > Altruism and charity...I'm lost. [snip - i wish i had the time, but alas i don't] > < wants of actual real live flesh and blood people.>> > > Not to sound all dramatic, but quite personally, my parents are neither > communist nor libertarian but quite honestly seriously do not have money to > spare. And not because we're being all self-indulgent, etc. read Richard's post again. he didn't say that the only people who didn't *give* money to charity were communists and libertarians, but they were the only people he knew who didn't *like* charity. "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 2001 12:01:23 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point "A.J. LoCicero" wrote in message news:<3C22211A.CF9F67EB@locicero.org>... > at Eric wrote: > > The day the electoral > > college is replaced will be the day that all of the sudden no presidential > > candidates cares about the interests of citizens living in Alaska, Delaware, > > Rhode Island, etc. > > Why? Since the Electoral College is proportional, what is the difference? I have news for you AJ, the Electoral College is *not* proportional. If that was the case, then there wouldn't be any problem. The fact of the matter is that it *isn't* and that its skewed to places where the population density doesn't justify the weight of it's vote in the system. To belabour my point, a state's electoral college representation is made up of a sum of the number of representivies for that state in the congress. We'll take an easy state, like alaska. Alaska has 3 votes in the electoral college system. 2 for it's senators (non-proportional) and 1 for it's house representitive (proportional). Hopefully, this shows you that Alaska's relative weight in the election is skewed because its votes are actually worth more than a state like California (if not, I could probably do some math in a follow up post). In general it looks like this: state electoral votes = senators (non-pro) + house (pro), except the district of columbia which has 2 votes but no representation in the congress. if the electoral college was proportional, it would look more like the house. > Candidates today don't care much about those states. They focus on California, > Michigan, Ohio, Texas, New York, etc. They don't care because there are a few states with a significantly high population density that the non-proportional bits aren't as significant. They also don't care because you can add up a bunch of the small states and have it equal out only to california in the system. > In most cases that one electoral vote isn't going to be a big deal to them. > In the case of a CLOSE election like the > last one, that system skewed interests out of all semblance of reality and gave > the election of the US president essentially to a popular vote of Floridians. Actually, by putting the election solely into florida's hands, you grossly overstate florida's significance. If the electoral college was proportional, minus 2 from every state and keep the district of columbia. Bush loses even with taking florida by 6.5 votes. (unless my quick math is wrong, I came out with 211 votes). > I'm sorry Eric but that is just totally fucked. There is absolutely no excuse > for a system that does that. Certainly not. Bill ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 2001 12:16:38 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point "Josh Drury" wrote: > Good point. If I may take it one step further, they not only focus mainly > on the most populous states but specifically on the most populous areas of > those states. You'll see candidates campaign no doubt in L.A., NYC, > Detroit, Houston, etc., and occasionally in some carefully selected Anytown, > USA, but certainly not in every town. First, why would you campaign in every town? its rediculous to think that anyone running for president could campaign in every town in the US, the country is just too damn big and there are too many places with a population. Second, why should someone who is going to represent the majority of americans *have* to campaign in alaska or hawaii or montana? These places represent such a small portion of the population as a whole beyond that, states issues are brought to the federal level by the respresentitives of that state (in theory) not the president, he should be concerned about national issues. > Should the electoral college break > things down further, like by county? No, there are still regional > discrepancies. regional issues are to be taken up by your local representitive, not the president. that's why we have a house of representitive and senators. > How about taking it to the extreme, and have every single > person represented? you mean one person, one vote? how novel. > Then the electoral college could pick a winner based solely on popular vote. > Better yet, scrap the electoral college and have the popular vote count for > everything. I have no clue what you're talking about here. the electoral college is *only* used in electing the president. senators are done by popular vote, representitives are done by popular vote but within districts that are mapped out ahead of time (you can think of this for senators as well, just that their districts comprise the borders of the state they represent). This is the same as far as I am aware for most lower governmental posts (like mayor races, etc). "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 2001 23:38:03 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: his point "wild" Bill said: <> I don't think anything that contributes toward a hatred or dislike is insignificant, especially considering the supposedly insignificant things quite often grow to be very significant. But..I didn't say it was a major part, I said don't dismiss it completely as *some* part. <> The biggest thing would be that *everything* can be solved without violence. <> Another busy person. :) Lemme know when you do have the time. <> I know, it's just that it sounded like he was saying that anyone who *doesn't* give charity is bad or something. And I just wanted to make that distinction clear. Ln ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #341 ********************************************