Why Right Wing Is Petrified of Letting Voters, Not Electoral College, Pick Presidents

[edthecynic]

Ok, here's a question for all of you Physics Geeks. Why is the "universal constant" in the special theory of relativity?

You are as bad in wording your question as the phony Phantom.

Do you mean "what?"
The speed of light is the universal constant.

 

[theunbubba]

Ok, here's a question for all of you Physics Geeks. Why is the "universal constant" in the special theory of relativity?

You are as bad in wording your question as the phony Phantom.

Do you mean "what?"
The speed of light is the universal constant.

No dude. I mean Einstein's Fudge Factor.

Oh and by the way, you just told Phantom that the speed of light is not a constant, so how can it be the "universal constant"?

I meant WHY you dumbass. Why is it there? The fudge factor. Stop being so damned arrogant.

Here, maybe this will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok, here's a question for all of you Physics Geeks. Why is the "universal constant" in the special theory of relativity?

You are as bad in wording your question as the phony Phantom.

Do you mean "what?"
The speed of light is the universal constant.

Thank you for the absolute proof you are not a physicist.

 

[edthecynic]

Ok, here's a question for all of you Physics Geeks. Why is the "universal constant" in the special theory of relativity?

You are as bad in wording your question as the phony Phantom.

Do you mean "what?"
The speed of light is the universal constant.

No dude. I mean Einstein's Fudge Factor.

Oh and by the way, you just told Phantom that the speed of light is not a constant, so how can it be the "universal constant"?

I meant WHY you dumbass. Why is it there? The fudge factor. Stop being so damned arrogant.

Here, maybe this will help:
Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did no such thing. That was someone else. Recent experiments at CERN have clocked neutrinos at a speed greater than the speed of light. It has not been replicated by others yet and there is no theoretical foundation for it as yet, so it is still open to question.

And if you meant the "cosmological constant" you shouldn't have said "universal constant."

 

[edthecynic]

Ok, here's a question for all of you Physics Geeks. Why is the "universal constant" in the special theory of relativity?

You are as bad in wording your question as the phony Phantom.

Do you mean "what?"
The speed of light is the universal constant.

Thank you for the absolute proof you are not a physicist.

And thank you for absolute proof you never studied physics.

 

[theunbubba]

You are as bad in wording your question as the phony Phantom.

Do you mean "what?"
The speed of light is the universal constant.

No dude. I mean Einstein's Fudge Factor.

Oh and by the way, you just told Phantom that the speed of light is not a constant, so how can it be the "universal constant"?

I meant WHY you dumbass. Why is it there? The fudge factor. Stop being so damned arrogant.

Here, maybe this will help:
Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did no such thing. That was someone else. Recent experiments at CERN have clocked neutrinos at a speed greater than the speed of light. It has not been replicated by others yet and there is no theoretical foundation for it as yet, so it is still open to question.

And if you meant the "cosmological constant" you shouldn't have said "universal constant."

First, I went back and read through the thread again. It was Quantum that made the claim that light speed was variable. Sorry about that.
CERN was not directly involved with the experiment you cite. They debunked it.
You are still arrogant though.

So to answer the question. It's there to make things balance when nobody has a real answer. Kind of like the God theory. God did it. It's just as good as most of current cosmology today.

 

[Steelplate]

I would say so, but I speak for myself. Not my party, nor my race, nor my religion, nor anything...just me. However, remember I am a teacher so before I agree to that I would have to insist that a system of education was created where students are not brainwashed by a liberal agenda. That easy enough...focus on teaching kids HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. I would also raise the voting age to 35

How about the ones that are brainwashed on a CON-servative agenda? Oh... I forgot, the right doesn't brainwash or lie, or behave politically, or do anything wrong.

If you're an educator, you're a bad one if you have that narrow of a world view.

Yeeeeeahhhhhh...I run into SO many conservative colleagues as I teach at the university. In the entire faculty I am not called one of "the four horsemen of the GOP" for nothing. There's literally four of us that aren't flaming liberals.

That is irrelevant. What you suggested in your post is that only the Conservative agenda is valid. Any other is "brainwashing". That premise is flawed and false. Maybe you should teach yourself HOW to think before you decide to teach others how to think. I mean, if you want to teach them HOW to think, and you personally think Everything but the Con-servative agenda is wrong....then you are dictating to them your agenda.

Is that what you want? Their style of "so-called" brainwashing is bad... but YOUR style of Brainwashing is what they need? Man, for a College Professor... You don't really get the "Critical thinking" stuff very well, do you? Critical thinking is not only supposed to be directed at your opposition... it's supposed to be directed at yourself and your agenda.

 

[Steelplate]

I would say so, but I speak for myself. Not my party, nor my race, nor my religion, nor anything...just me. However, remember I am a teacher so before I agree to that I would have to insist that a system of education was created where students are not brainwashed by a liberal agenda. That easy enough...focus on teaching kids HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. I would also raise the voting age to 35

HOW to think like a CON$ervative, you mean, which is to not think at all.

"Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid."
- Kin Hubbard

No I mean how to reach their own conclusions. Let me quote a former dean at a university I worked "we don't want (the students) the think for themselves. We want them to do what we tell them to do and think what we tell them to think." And yes he was a flaming liberal who had a doll of Bush full of pins and hanging from a noose on his desk lamp. There's your "lets all just get along, peaceful, non-vitriolic, idealistic liberal mind" pal.

So... because a colleague has a Bush VooDoo doll, you assign that shit to all of us? Nice. Let's see, I've seen all kinds of vitriol from most of you CON-servatives on this board, and I still don't think that people like you are the mainstream of the GOP. I still think that you are the radical right, small in numbers in the real world... but well represented in a forum where you get to go batshit crazy anonymously.

 

[edthecynic]

No dude. I mean Einstein's Fudge Factor.

Oh and by the way, you just told Phantom that the speed of light is not a constant, so how can it be the "universal constant"?

I meant WHY you dumbass. Why is it there? The fudge factor. Stop being so damned arrogant.

Here, maybe this will help:
Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did no such thing. That was someone else. Recent experiments at CERN have clocked neutrinos at a speed greater than the speed of light. It has not been replicated by others yet and there is no theoretical foundation for it as yet, so it is still open to question.

And if you meant the "cosmological constant" you shouldn't have said "universal constant."

First, I went back and read through the thread again. It was Quantum that made the claim that light speed was variable. Sorry about that.
CERN was not directly involved with the experiment you cite. They debunked it.
You are still arrogant though.

So to answer the question. It's there to make things balance when nobody has a real answer. Kind of like the God theory. God did it. It's just as good as most of current cosmology today.

You are still wrong.
Neutrinos may have traveled faster than the speed of light - BlogPost - The Washington Post
Scientists at CERN, the world’s largest physics lab, announced a startling finding yesterday that would be enough to make Albert Einstein roll over in his grave: Subatomic particles, called neutrinos, have been found to be traveling faster than the speed of light.

CERN (Anja Niedringhaus - AP) If true, this development would break a fundamental pillar of physics. Einstein’s special theory of relativity has always told us nothing is supposed to move faster than the speed of light, 299,792,458 meters per second.
CERN scientists are now asking others to verify the measurements before claiming the discovery to be true.

 

[Steelplate]

So in other words you base it upon your own bullshit opinion. Gotcha.

I trust my observations more than your bullshit fantasy.

Uh huh.....so you are suggesting that universities are not dominated by liberal instructors, liberal administrators, and a liberal agenda? I assume you got your GED and left it at that.

Anyone who listens to Rush or Beck will tell you the same damned thing... Just because YOU parrot it, doesn't make you necessarily an educator....nor does it make it true.

 

[editec]

Oh I suspect that both parties do NOT WANT to jettison the ELECTORAL COLLEGE system.

A very good reason for this is because the Electoral college gives the PARTIES enormous power even over their own rank and file members.

Remember citizens that Electorial college players do NOT have to vote according to how their party members voted.

Basically the EC is the complete refutation of the democractic aspect of our elections.

The PEOPLE can voted any way they please.

The Electorial college can completely ignore the outcome of the popular vote.

 

[bripat9643]

There's a lot of people who live in rural ares who would like their vote for president to count, my district has never went the way I voted, my vote for president has never counted for shit.

Your vote will count less if we dispense with the electoral college. Only the votes of people who live in cities will matter.

 

[bripat9643]

That is irrelevant. What you suggested in your post is that only the Conservative agenda is valid. Any other is "brainwashing". That premise is flawed and false. Maybe you should teach yourself HOW to think before you decide to teach others how to think. I mean, if you want to teach them HOW to think, and you personally think Everything but the Con-servative agenda is wrong....then you are dictating to them your agenda.

Is that what you want? Their style of "so-called" brainwashing is bad... but YOUR style of Brainwashing is what they need? Man, for a College Professor... You don't really get the "Critical thinking" stuff very well, do you? Critical thinking is not only supposed to be directed at your opposition... it's supposed to be directed at yourself and your agenda.

The premise isn't flawed. Students get nothing but a steady diet of Marxism and almost every university in the country. Many surveys on the subject have shown that virtually all professors in the humanities and social sciences are left-wingers. Anyone who has been to college knows this from personal experience.

You're just a god damned liar who refuses to admit the truth. No left-winger will ever admit that government universities are brainwashing institutions. Brain washing doesn't work when you know you're being brain washed. Furthermore, the public will soon lose its enthusiam for funding higher education if they knew the truth.

 

[American Horse]

There's a lot of people who live in rural ares who would like their vote for president to count, my district has never went the way I voted, my vote for president has never counted for shit.

Your vote will count less if we dispense with the electoral college. Only the votes of people who live in cities will matter.

With that post . . . Oc shows his ignorance on several levels.

 

[Intense]

By Steven Rosenfeld

A movement to reform the Electoral College and elect the president based on the national popular vote has half the states it needs.

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell calls it “absurd and dangerous.” The Wall Street Journal says it deserves to “die.” The Heritage Foundation calls it “unconstitutional.” The Washington Post calls it “flawed.” A Republican National Committee resolution says it is a radical, un-American, “questionable legal maneuver.”

It is awarding the presidency to the candidate who wins the most votes.

“The United States is not a democracy and shouldn’t be,” said Michael Munger, Duke University’s Political Science Department chairman and a 2008 Libertarian gubernatorial candidate attacking it at a League of Women Voters forum. “There is NO moral force in the majority. It is just what most people happen to think.”

These right-wingers are truly worried that a plan reforming the way the president-electing Electoral College works is gaining legal ground and could bring the biggest change in the political landscape in decades. The National Popular Vote plan would replace the current system, in which states award Electoral College delegates to whomever wins the presidential vote in that state, with a new interstate agreement where a participating state’s delegates would be bound to the national popular vote winner.

In other words, as soon as states with a total of 270 Electoral College delegates sign on—and they are halfway there—presidential elections where one state swayed the outcome, such as Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000, would be no more.

“It is born from a frustration of a system that is inherently broken, a system that allots two-thirds to three-fourths of resources in a presidential campaign in the last six or seven weeks to six states. That isn’t democracy,” said Pam Wilmot, Common Cause’s National Popular Vote coordinator. “We cannot and should not have a small number of states deciding the outcome of presidential elections for the rest of us.”

The idea that voters across the country—not just in politically split battleground states—would elect the president scares the Republican Party and arch conservatives on so many levels. It would upend the way candidates and political parties and consultants now work to retain their power and influence. It would force presidential nominees and parties to campaign in more racially diverse states, more cities and suburbs, addressing those communities and their concerns.

“We need to kill it in the cradle before it grows up,” McConnell told a Heritage Foundation audience last December.

Right-wingers say these changes are terrible, and not just because they might empower Democrats and relegate the GOP as it now exists to history’s dustbin. But even worse, they say this is a constitutional coup because the founders’ great insight was that some branches of the government—such as the presidency and Senate—had to be set apart from the passions of majority opinion and the tyranny of mob rule.

Much More: Why the Right Wing Is Petrified of Letting Voters, Instead of the Electoral College, Pick Presidents | Election 2012 | AlterNet

I, for one, would prefer one person, one vote, in a Presidential Election, with no Electoral College or Delegates voting Proxy. I truly believe a great number, are disenfranchised by the system, as it is, and as a result, don't even Register, let alone, Vote. Incorporating one person, one vote, we could debate having 50 mini elections, winner take all, V.S. one Big count where Every Vote goes where it is intended. That would be an interesting Debate.

 

[del]

It is, however, unconstitutional for a state to enter into a compact with another state for any reason.

and setting a threshold or predicating an activity based on the activity of another state isn't entering a compact with another state

words have meaning

thanks for playing

are you a physikist like ed?

Are you trying to be a lawyer? Do you really think the courts will look at a deliberate agreement, written into the laws in the states that are participating in this fiasco, that it will not happen until enough states agree, and that each state must report its vote total to the other states, and not conclude that is a compact?

no, i'd never try to be a lawyer; i lack the fundamental amorality.

having not read the proposed legislation, i won't comment on the specifics, but i would say that a compact, as referred to in the constitution, would require a signed agreement between 2 or more states.

 

[Intense]

There's a lot of people who live in rural ares who would like their vote for president to count, my district has never went the way I voted, my vote for president has never counted for shit.

Your vote will count less if we dispense with the electoral college. Only the votes of people who live in cities will matter.

I live in a Big City, and I generally Vote Conservative. I am not alone, a Minority here, true, but not alone. Consider that. When we learn to limit what Government can do in playing favorites, and bribing people for support, that effect will be reduced. Remember the Millions who don't even vote anymore because of disillusionment. That has big potential.

 

[Intense]

and setting a threshold or predicating an activity based on the activity of another state isn't entering a compact with another state

words have meaning

thanks for playing

are you a physikist like ed?

Are you trying to be a lawyer? Do you really think the courts will look at a deliberate agreement, written into the laws in the states that are participating in this fiasco, that it will not happen until enough states agree, and that each state must report its vote total to the other states, and not conclude that is a compact?

no, i'd never try to be a lawyer; i lack the fundamental amorality.

having not read the proposed legislation, i won't comment on the specifics, but i would say that a compact, as referred to in the constitution, would require a signed agreement between 2 or more states.

Del for President!

 

[Trajan]

It was not that difficult to learn back then, basically you followed directions from a recipe.

Oh we have a name for people that cook like that.....shoemakers. Their food tastes like the soles of shoes. Shoe soles are more tender than the meat they cooked. You get the point.

My late father was a butcher, and if the meat was as tough as shoe leather then it was probably a bad cut of meat to begin with.

As a child I had no trouble mastering making the delicate flaky shells for cannolis, for example, cooking meat was a lot easier.

sooo you're still working mastering that first cannoli?

 

[American Horse]

By Steven Rosenfeld

A movement to reform the Electoral College and elect the president based on the national popular vote has half the states it needs.

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell calls it “absurd and dangerous.” The Wall Street Journal says it deserves to “die.” The Heritage Foundation calls it “unconstitutional.” The Washington Post calls it “flawed.” A Republican National Committee resolution says it is a radical, un-American, “questionable legal maneuver.”

It is awarding the presidency to the candidate who wins the most votes.

“The United States is not a democracy and shouldn’t be,” said Michael Munger, Duke University’s Political Science Department chairman and a 2008 Libertarian gubernatorial candidate attacking it at a League of Women Voters forum. “There is NO moral force in the majority. It is just what most people happen to think.”

These right-wingers are truly worried that a plan reforming the way the president-electing Electoral College works is gaining legal ground and could bring the biggest change in the political landscape in decades. The National Popular Vote plan would replace the current system, in which states award Electoral College delegates to whomever wins the presidential vote in that state, with a new interstate agreement where a participating state’s delegates would be bound to the national popular vote winner.

In other words, as soon as states with a total of 270 Electoral College delegates sign on—and they are halfway there—presidential elections where one state swayed the outcome, such as Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000, would be no more.

“It is born from a frustration of a system that is inherently broken, a system that allots two-thirds to three-fourths of resources in a presidential campaign in the last six or seven weeks to six states. That isn’t democracy,” said Pam Wilmot, Common Cause’s National Popular Vote coordinator. “We cannot and should not have a small number of states deciding the outcome of presidential elections for the rest of us.”

The idea that voters across the country—not just in politically split battleground states—would elect the president scares the Republican Party and arch conservatives on so many levels. It would upend the way candidates and political parties and consultants now work to retain their power and influence. It would force presidential nominees and parties to campaign in more racially diverse states, more cities and suburbs, addressing those communities and their concerns.

“We need to kill it in the cradle before it grows up,” McConnell told a Heritage Foundation audience last December.

Right-wingers say these changes are terrible, and not just because they might empower Democrats and relegate the GOP as it now exists to history’s dustbin. But even worse, they say this is a constitutional coup because the founders’ great insight was that some branches of the government—such as the presidency and Senate—had to be set apart from the passions of majority opinion and the tyranny of mob rule.

Much More: Why the Right Wing Is Petrified of Letting Voters, Instead of the Electoral College, Pick Presidents | Election 2012 | AlterNet

I, for one, would prefer one person, one vote, in a Presidential Election, with no Electoral College or Delegates voting Proxy. I truly believe a great number, are disenfranchised by the system, as it is, and as a result, don't even Register, let alone, Vote. Incorporating one person, one vote, we could debate having 50 mini elections, winner take all, V.S. one Big count where Every Vote goes where it is intended. That would be an interesting Debate.

It would. But a value of the EC (apart from all the others) is that something disastrous to the country could show up in a candidate's past and they have the option of throwing it into the house, or make the judgement call themselves. The founders were influenced by the fact that the larger electorate could be uninformed; viz. our lamestream media's ability to minimize information that harms their brothers and sisters, versus how they can hammer those they oppose, or they can throw so much up against the wall that judgements are almost impossible to make.