Re: "Unilateral Disarmament"

1

North Carolina is close to doing the same thing.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 6:45 AM
horizontal rule
2

Hmm. Pwned by not reading the linked article.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 6:49 AM
horizontal rule
3

2: Man, that third kid is really taking a toll.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 6:52 AM
horizontal rule
4

You have no idea.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 6:52 AM
horizontal rule
5

Eh, you're still in that first six weeks or so, before they get a little more organized. You'll probably be back on track by October.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 6:57 AM
horizontal rule
6

Apo could you get the older kids going as research assistants? Maybe bribe 'em with beer?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:06 AM
horizontal rule
7

My mom said it doesn't get wore after the fourth.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:07 AM
horizontal rule
8

Incidentally, I think the conclusion is a weird one to make after the most recent congressional election. Smaller population groups, no matter how thinly sliced demographically, are going to be more dynamic than large population groups. Sample size, baby!

That said, no way should California go first. Texas first, then we'll talk.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
9

7: you have three older siblings?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
10

9: She was talking about driving tours of Scotland.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:11 AM
horizontal rule
11

Try this one on for size, however: Instead of granting the baseline 2 to the winner, split them unless the winner gets more than {arbitrary}60%{/arbitrary} of the statewide vote. Democrat would be campaigning in Utah and Republican would be campaigning in Connecticut right up to the end.

But agree wholeheartedly with 8.2. And by extension it should only be done on a national scale.


Posted by: froz gobo | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:23 AM
horizontal rule
12

Well, I think we can say that the experiment with direct democracy through constant misleading ballot initiatives has failed. Why? The concept of an informed electorate presumes that advertising doesn't exist. The electorate is not informed.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:25 AM
horizontal rule
13

12: yeah I hate ballot initiatives. Smaller quanta in national elections raise the dim possibility of localized (and plausibly informative?) messaging, though, which would be neat.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:32 AM
horizontal rule
14

Reading the comments to the first link, to Saiselgy's, leads me to ask:

Is there a name for the kind of trolling St/v/ S/il/r is doing there? Are there names for the types, so familiar to us all? I've read "concern troll" but that doesn't seem to fit here.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
15

Smaller quanta in national elections raise the dim possibility of localized (and plausibly informative?) messaging, though, which would be neat.

There are already bills in lots of states committing to do this smaller-quanta thing IF AND ONLY IF something like 2/3 of states ratify it. It's a collective action problem. What California is doing now is 100% funded by an evil Republican law firm that specializes in misleading ballot initiatives.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
16

14: racism?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
17

15: yes. Bad. Agreed.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
18

Actually Sailer is not being racist in that thread. His comment serves to make the following point:

- You guys are paranoid, this thing that I support and that has a good chance of happening will never happen. Please stop thinking about it.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:39 AM
horizontal rule
19

18: it's just my default guess when it comes to him. Can't figure out why anybody ever takes him seriously.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:42 AM
horizontal rule
20

Yeah, given our luck, North Carolina will pass this just in time for a string of narrow Democratic victories.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:46 AM
horizontal rule
21

Interesting. I don't think I realized that the Maine/Nebraska allocation was actually based on votes in each district. Aside from the ways in which changing this stuff is always grinding someone's sacred cow into hamburger, is there anything that prevents allocating EC votes based on percentage of the popular vote in the state?


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:49 AM
horizontal rule
22

EC votes are allocated however the state legislature says they are. Whether allowing it to be decided by ballot measure violates the Constitution remains an open question, though given this Court's deference to GOP electoral fortunes, I can safely predict a 5-4 split in favor of it.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:53 AM
horizontal rule
23

I incorporate by reference all my comments over at Saiselgy's place.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
24

I can safely predict a 5-4 split in favor of it.

Way to drop the ball, seizures.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
25

This kind of thing makes me wonder if there are Republicans paid to just keep up with the latest popular ideas from the left and twist them to their own purposes.

"Hmm, treatment instead of prison for nonviolent drug offenders. Interesting... but not as interesting as putting them in internment camps!"


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
26

14

SS is suggesting that MY blog more about what interests SS rather than what interests MY. I don't know if this has a name but it is a fairly common complaint in comment sections.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
27

there are a bunch of people at MYs blog who drop in on almost every post to tell MY what he should write about, how he has no right to write about a certain topic, how he's too X,Y and Z to know anything about the topic, etc.. trolls, every one of them.


Posted by: cleek | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
28

26: For this tactic, I propose the name blog-hogging. For the summary posted at 18, the more mundane 'lying' and 'dissembling' will do.


Posted by: Doug | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
29

Sausagely's troll problems seem to have gotten markedly worse since he moved to The Atlantic. I liked his Al, who at least could be counted on to provide interesting basketball thoughts and inappropriate athletic boosterism of our alma mater.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
30

28: I propose "backseat blogging."

"You should pass that red car. It would be quicker if you took 34th Street. Why are you going so fast?"


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
31

I propose "backseat blogging."

Sexist.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 10:05 AM
horizontal rule
32

I propose "backseat blogging."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 10:08 AM
horizontal rule
33

31: I'm not the one implying that backseat drivers bloggers are primarily of any particular gender.

The sexism is in your mind.


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
34

Could a state pass a law saying that the electoral votes automatically go to the candidate of a given party? Or that its electors must always abstain?


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 10:19 AM
horizontal rule
35

34: Yes, as far as I can see.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...

It's just practice for it to be based on the election, not constitutional law.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 10:30 AM
horizontal rule
36

suggesting that MY blog more about what interests SS rather than what interests MY. I don't know if this has a name but it is a fairly common complaint in comment sections.

I've heard this generally referred to as complaining about the flavour of the free ice cream.


Posted by: emir | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 10:50 AM
horizontal rule
37

34/35: When I get into a state legislature I'm going to sponsor a bill under which one of the state's electors goes to the candidate who finished second in the popular vote, with the rest going to Harold Stassen.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
38

This measure isn't on the ballot yet, right? The article implies it still needs signatures (though since the people running it were involved in the recall, they have a good chance of finding them).


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
39

Really, the Republicans' antics in the last 8 years demonstrate the need for a new constitutional convention. I propose that we get Sweden to write one up for us.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 08- 1-07 12:32 PM
horizontal rule