Die Checky Die

[Saint Peter 0]

what's to hate, sweetcheeks?

i <3 it when you talk dirty

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Click the +QUOTE button under each post you want to quote so it turns to -QUOTE.At the bottom of the screen, hit ADD REPLY (not the REPLY button under a specific post, but underneath those).

oh wow, learn something new every day.. what I did was unnecessarily hard.

I usually quote someone, make my reply, then copy the whole thing.. then quote someone else, reply to that post, then paste the other message under my reply.

You're a dummy!

[Balloon guy 158]

I usually quote someone, make my reply, then copy the whole thing.. then quote someone else, reply to that post, then paste the other message under my reply.

It's easier to just quote someone, then after replying, copy the first post and paste it under your reply, go into that post and change the ID and post number and copy paste the coresponding post into the now corrected post atribute and continue posting.It just takes effort

[checkymcfold 0]

Click the +QUOTE button under each post you want to quote so it turns to -QUOTE.At the bottom of the screen, hit ADD REPLY (not the REPLY button under a specific post, but underneath those).

w00t

I usually quote someone, make my reply, then copy the whole thing.. then quote someone else, reply to that post, then paste the other message under my reply.

no.

You're inability to know proper forum posting methods?

"you're" (sic) inability to speak english?

i <3 it when you talk dirty

i <3 when you fill me with the holy spirit.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Just because I know it'll get deleted if I post the image here.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

oh great, now i've got the Nightman song in my head again.THAT WASN'T THE HOLY SPIRIT!!!!!!!!!

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Great, now everybody's going to be quoting everybody and adding their own little response just because they can.

[hblask 1]

apportioning EC votes along popular voting lines would just be a measure of popular vote with some problems with rounding. it'd AT MOST reflect a 25 EC swing on a national scale if one candidate ran especially good with the rounding process. if you're gonna go that direction, though, you may as well go straight to the popular vote, imo.

Yeah, I think that's probably correct, but it'd take a mathematician to figure it out for sure, I think. Also, it would be prone to political shenanigans (gerrymandering anyone?), and I'm not sure there would be much to gain. I don't like the popular vote idea, because of reasons mentioned earlier, but none of the other methods seem particularly good either.Mathematicians and scientists have studied various methods, and there are some good ones. One is that you get to apportion your votes among the candidates, so they give you 10 votes, and you can give 6 to Obama and 4 to McCain, or all 10 to Obama, etc. That way, you not only get a vote, you get to indicate the strength of that vote, and you can throw a few votes to third parties. This method gives very high satisfaction ratings with the result.Another plan is the instant runoff, where you rank the candidates. So you might vote 1. Mickey Mouse, 2. Nader, 3. McCain 4. Obama. If no candidate gets 50% of the votes, and Mickey Mouse got the least, all Mickey Mouse votes go to their second choice, so Nader gets this person's vote, and the total is calculated. Still not 50%, and Nader is lowest? Now this person voted for McCain, and recalculate. This also gives excellent results, based on satisfaction surveys of people who've tried it (in lab situations, anyway).Both of these methods suffer a serious flaw that can best be expressed in just a few words: Florida, 2000, hanging chads, retirees.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Great, now everybody's going to be quoting everybody and adding their own little response just because they can.

Nuh uh....

[checkymcfold 0]

Yeah, I think that's probably correct, but it'd take a mathematician to figure it out for sure, I think. Also, it would be prone to political shenanigans (gerrymandering anyone?), and I'm not sure there would be much to gain. I don't like the popular vote idea, because of reasons mentioned earlier, but none of the other methods seem particularly good either.

yea, it's actually not too hard to figure out. i used to play a mathematician on tv .

Mathematicians and scientists have studied various methods, and there are some good ones. One is that you get to apportion your votes among the candidates, so they give you 10 votes, and you can give 6 to Obama and 4 to McCain, or all 10 to Obama, etc. That way, you not only get a vote, you get to indicate the strength of that vote, and you can throw a few votes to third parties. This method gives very high satisfaction ratings with the result.

tbh i don't think that people are smart enough for this, like, at all. that only works if everyone is clear on what the various numbers along the scale actually mean. like, today, most people would vote very close to 9s and 10s for one and 0s or 1s for the other, but in terms of their policy differences, it should logically be impossible to have more than a 7/3 or similar split. if people aren't clear on the rules (and i'd argue that it'd be unreasonable to expect them to be in such a system), the game will never work.

Another plan is the instant runoff, where you rank the candidates. So you might vote 1. Mickey Mouse, 2. Nader, 3. McCain 4. Obama. If no candidate gets 50% of the votes, and Mickey Mouse got the least, all Mickey Mouse votes go to their second choice, so Nader gets this person's vote, and the total is calculated. Still not 50%, and Nader is lowest? Now this person voted for McCain, and recalculate. This also gives excellent results, based on satisfaction surveys of people who've tried it (in lab situations, anyway).Both of these methods suffer a serious flaw that can best be expressed in just a few words: Florida, 2000, hanging chads, retirees.

the ranking in order thing is seriously problematic because in an election like this year's, i'd bet that if you were choosing between ron paul, mccain, obama, and nader, the vast majority of people would put mccain on one end and obama on the other, even though those two are probably closest to each other among the four in terms of policy. people are really, really stupid, henry. you have to protect them from themselves sometimes.

[hblask 1]

people are really, really stupid, henry. you have to protect them from themselves sometimes.

Which is why we need IQ tests for voting. Get above 100 or stay home. That will protect the stupid people from themselves.Of course, no Democrat would ever be elected again, and 98% of Republicans would be replaced.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Which is why we need IQ tests for voting. Get above 100 or stay home. That will protect the stupid people from themselves.Of course, no Democrat would ever be elected again, and 98% of Republicans would be replaced.

I'd take a Clinton/Obama combined IQ bet vs GW/McCain, and I'd lay 5-1.

[CaneBrain 95]

I'd take a Clinton/Obama combined IQ bet vs GW/McCain, and I'd lay 5-1.

5-1 are not fair odds.

[hblask 1]

I'd take a Clinton/Obama combined IQ bet vs GW/McCain, and I'd lay 5-1.

Clinton is a smart guy, I'm not sure it'd translate to IQ tests well. He's smart in other ways. Obama doesn't appear that bright to me, pretty much just average. GW finished near the top of his class, McCain near the bottom.So I think it'd be close, with Clinton and Obama in the middle, and McCain bringing the R's score way, way down. If I had to bet, I'd say Clinton-Obama win.Now, as for the people who vote for these people, that's another story

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Clinton is a smart guy, I'm not sure it'd translate to IQ tests well. He's smart in other ways. Obama doesn't appear that bright to me, pretty much just average. GW finished near the top of his class, McCain near the bottom.So I think it'd be close, with Clinton and Obama in the middle, and McCain bringing the R's score way, way down. If I had to bet, I'd say Clinton-Obama win.Now, as for the people who vote for these people, that's another story

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, and Obama taught constitutional law at the UofC, after graduating at the top of Harvard law. ... i think that correlates pretty well with IQ. Your idea of "Middle" is insane, if you think obama and clinton are in it. I would also take either of their IQ's against GW's.

[CaneBrain 95]

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, and Obama taught constitutional law at the UofC, after graduating at the top of Harvard law. ... i think that correlates pretty well with IQ. Your idea of "Middle" is insane, if you think obama and clinton are in it. I would also take either of their IQ's against GW's.

not to mention Bush was not in the "top of his class". He was a C student (like Kerry and Gore to be fair). Obama was a top student at Colombia and then the top student at Harvard Law. this is not close.

[hblask 1]

Could Obama figure this out?????? Could he????

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Could Obama figure this out?????? Could he????

are you saying Obama looks like a Gorrilla? Racist!!!!!

[vbnautilus 48]

not to mention Bush was not in the "top of his class". He was a C student (like Kerry and Gore to be fair).

Gore graduated Harvard cum laude.

[checkymcfold 0]

Which is why we need IQ tests for voting. Get above 100 or stay home. That will protect the stupid people from themselves.Of course, no Democrat would ever be elected again, and 98% of Republicans would be replaced.

lol, i can't even fathom what a US election would look like if we did that.just as a thought experiment, though (and the problems with using IQ as a barometer aside), i'd guess that a huge chunk of people that are sexually aroused by calling themselves "moderates" without understanding a thing about politics would fall out of the electorate and only those with logically consistent positions, which would fall on the fairly far left and fairly far right, would be able to form into political parties.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Gore graduated Harvard cum laude.

I also hope to cum laude, hopefully in a '69

[copernicus 0]

Don't be condescending, I understand the electoral college just fine. I just think it is an undemocratic anachronism that a modern democracy doesn't need.

good thing we arent a democracy.And your example doesnt dispute the value of the EC it enforces it. Why should the interests of 10 million California "surplus" voters over ride the interests 100 million voters in the other states, which is what would happen if their surplus votes would have resulted in the "other guy" winning.

[copernicus 0]

The electoral college as it rest right now is outdated. It was implemented before Television and Radio and the internet, now people in Montana and South Dakota have the same access to the nominees that I do living in CA.

??They have the same access to information about them, not the same input to their policy making, and they would have even less on a straight popular vote.

[copernicus 0]

What the hell is wrong with general election? what is wrong with one person, one vote? It's good enough for every other elected official in our country.

If the Federal Government were confined to Federal issues you'd be right. Unfortunately with the Feds having control of so many local and state issues, what is good for NY isnt good for Montana. (though notwithstanding our resident poster, wgaf about Montana?).

[El Guapo 8]

??They have the same access to information about them, not the same input to their policy making, and they would have even less on a straight popular vote.

Why would they have less? If electoral votes are distributed evenly with population, what is the difference?The primary reason to have the electoral system was to ensure that the candidates visited each states so the citizens could see and hear who they were voting for. This is not a valid reason any more with mass media.I am not saying we should go to a popular vote, because it brings up the same problem of the candidates focusing their attention on NY, LA, SF, Chicago, etc.