Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThis is one of a series of posts on electoral reform and just democracy. You can read the first post in the series here.
Quick: When did we elect the President last year? If you said November 4th, you're more than a month off. Try December 15th. That's when the electoral college convened in each state to formally ‘elect' Barack Obama president. Despite overturning the popular vote in 2000, efforts to establish direct election of the president– which would require amending the Constitution – have been unable to gain traction in Congress. Now two election reform organizations, relative newcomer National Popular Vote and the more established FairVote, have a promising proposal to use the electoral college for the very end it was intended to circumvent.
On April 28th, Washington became the fifth state in the nation to enact legislation in favor of a national popular vote for president. "Being a blue state since '88, in the primary cycle we draw some attention, but in the general election we draw very little attention from the national campaigns," says State Senator Joe McDermott, the prime sponsor of the bill in the Washington state Senate and a former elector himself. "National Popular Vote would blow that open. Whether the Democrat won by 52 or 57 percent would make a difference nationally. Assuming Washington was still a blue state, what the margin was suddenly becomes important."
When it comes to how electors are awarded, all the Constitution has to say on the matter is that: "Each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in Congress."
The plan for direct election of the president first advanced by National Popular Vote (NPV) is nothing short of ingenious: Instead of awarding electors by Congressional district (as both Maine and Nebraska do) or by state, states would award their electors to the winner of the popular vote in the country as a whole. This would only go into effect once states representing a majority of electoral votes had passed similar legislation. With Washington joining Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, and Hawaii, we're about a quarter of the way to transforming the way we elect a president.
"We seem to have a national election for president, but when you look under the hood you realize it's really just an election by a handful of states," says NPV Chairman John Koza. "Every vote is not equal. We have a system where votes in certain states and certain years are very important, and two-thirds of the voters every year are basically ignored." A report by FairVote bears this out: even in an election in which the political map seemed to be transformed, just ten – or a fifth – of the states enjoyed almost 90% of campaign events. Almost half those events took place in a mere three states: Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Rob Richie, FairVote's executive director, is succinct on this disparity: "Big state, small state – it's all swing state versus spectator state."
A report from the Nonprofit Voter Engagement Network describes in stark detail how lopsided this contest is: 95 percent of the $495 million the candidates, parties, and interest groups spent on TV advertising in the final six weeks of the campaign went to 15 battleground states. More than half that prodigious sum was shoveled into Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia alone. And voters respond: voter turnout in those same 15 swing states averaged seven points higher than voter turnout in the spectator states. Whether that's driven merely by their swing state status or the increased attention it brings from the campaigns, the states that the electoral college favors are those most closely divided along partisan lines.
"The Electoral College system fails to realize some fundamental principles of what representative democracy should be about," says FairVote's Richie. "One is that every voter's participation should be equal and that the candidate with the most votes wins. That I'm of equal weight with someone who lives in Florida. And right now I'm not." In 2008, Florida was second only to Ohio, with 15% of campaign events being held in the state. "Equality needs to be at the core of democracy, but the current system just throws it out the window."
The last time there was a serious effort to dissolve the electoral college was in the late ‘60s, when a proposed Constitutional amendment made it through the House but not the Senate. The elections of 1960 and 1968 both saw a fair amount of chicanery in the electoral college; during the former electors in Alabama, Oklahoma, and Louisiana all attempted to deny John F. Kennedy (the "labor Socialist nominee" in the words of one Republican elector) the presidency. In 1968, one ‘faithless' Republican elector went so far as to cast his vote for unrepentant segregationist George Wallace instead of Richard Nixon (a move that remains legal).
The history of the electoral college is intertwined with that of slavery and segregation. While the college itself was adopted as much if not more out of political compromise than anti-democratic principle, it effectively imported the three-fifths compromise (under which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of distributing seats in the House) into the selection of the president. "That was intended. That certainly was something of which the Southerners were very much aware," says George C. Edwards III, a scholar of the presidency and author of Why the Electoral College is Bad for America.
As Alexander Keyssar noted in a keen analysis published in the New York Review of Books, with the 15th Amendment and the subsequent collapse of Reconstruction (the result of a deal bartered through the electoral college), the South effectively came to enjoy a five-fifths advantage, as African-American men were counted as citizens but effectively denied the right to vote. And the electoral college continues to frustrate attempts to exercise voting power today; Rob Richie observes that in 1976, 3 out of 4 African-Americans lived in states where they made up 5 percent of the electorate, and therefore constituted a swing vote. Today, as Edwards observes, "There's a lot of blacks concentrated in the deep south. Their votes are basically irrelevant, because they can't be aggregated across the country."
NPV's Koza reports that national popular vote legislation already has sponsors in all 50 states; over the last four years bills have passed 27 separate legislative chambers in 17 states. Some of this support has even come from battleground states, with chambers in Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado all passing a version of the bill. National polls have consistently shown support in the 60-70% range for direct election of the president.
Even with this broad support, governors in Vermont, Rhode Island, and California have vetoed the legislation, suggesting those states are out of reach for the moment (Schwarzenegger killed the bill not once but twice). Nor is it certain that the legislation will retain the ground it has gained: in Washington the opposition is attempting to gather the roughly 120,000 signatures necessary to force a public referendum in November. At the same time New Mexico, Colorado, and Massachusetts have all come close to joining the states which have rallied behind a national popular vote.
In New Mexico, a lesser swing state in 2008, [[at #12 on FV's list of battlegrounds]] State Representative Mimi Stewart sponsored national popular vote legislation that passed the House but not the Senate during this year's session. "I think it'll be fairly easy to pass the national popular vote out of the House again," Rep. Stewart says. "Our work really is in the Senate." She's hopeful that Governor Bill Richardson will make the bill a priority for the legislature's 2010 session.
In Colorado, the State Senate passed a bill twice in previous sessions only to see it die in the House; this year State Representative Andy Kerry sponsored a version of the bill that finally passed the House only to see it die in the Senate. "I've carried bills dealing with renewable energy, education, all sorts of things," says Rep. Kerr. "When I go to my town hall meetings and make appearances around the state – this is the bill people talk about. Ten years ago, most people couldn't tell you what the electoral college was, let alone how it worked. Since the election of 2000 especially, but 2004 as well, people are starting to understand better that in the 21st century the winner-take-all system that 48 of the states have really isn't in the best interests of the country." Although the Colorado state legislature has ended its 2009 session, Rep. Kerr plans to reintroduce the bill, perhaps as early as 2010.
With 12 electoral votes, Massachusetts would be a significant victory for a national popular vote. In the 2007-2008 session, the bill nearly made it to the governor's desk. "Massachusetts has changed the way it apportions its electors eleven times in its history," says State Representative Garrett Bradley, who sponsored the legislation in the House. "I never understood the electoral college, even in school. When I try to explain it to my 9-year-old, I can't do it. If I can't explain it to my kids, then something's wrong. I can't explain how the person with the most votes doesn't win." He continues: "Nobody ever campaigns in Massachusetts. They only come here for money; they know we're going to vote Democratic. Let's get it back in play."
FairVote's Rob Richie believes a national popular vote is "very much in play for 2012," and John Koza agrees with him. Richie argues it would remake the political map: "There's value in a long-term investment in the infrastructure of participation. Parties will have greater incentive to build themselves and make their case over time, and in all parts of the country."
It's a vision of a country in which there are no spectator states or swing states, in which volunteering is just as relevant in New York, California,Texas or Alabama as in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida or Virginia,and in which every vote is finally equal.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
"Despite overturning the popular vote in 2000, efforts to establish direct election of the president– which would require amending the Constitution – have been unable to gain traction in Congress."
Right...and given we haven't seen that again, nor given history are likely to for ANOTHER 100 years (Hayes-Tilden-1876, Bush-Gore-2000)....
it's unlikely we will see any traction now.
Plus, we've got a FEW other things on the plate that captures the public imagination...like the economy, wars, environment, education, etc.
Non-starter....next?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 09:24am
Any sort of vote reform ought to include a discussion of "blackbox" voting. IMHO it is far too open to tampering, difficult audit , and maybe not even a legal means of recording a citizens vote.
Posted by H-daddy at 05/14/2009 @ 09:39am
I still believe a better compromise would be to have all states adhere to Maine's system of the distribution of electoral votes. By congressional district and the state-wide winner awarded the additional two votes.
Posted by peter1313 at 05/14/2009 @ 09:54am
<The history of the electoral college is intertwined with that of slavery and segregation.... "That was intended. That certainly was something of which the Southerners were very much aware," says George C. Edwards III, a scholar of the presidency and author of Why the Electoral College is Bad for America.>
Katrina and Mr Edwards seem to have a different history than I do. Nowhere is there even a suggestion in Federalist 68 of the Electoral College being necessary or a "compromise" to the South as they state.
<The Federalist No. 68 The Mode of Electing the President Independent Journal
Wednesday, March 12, 1788
[Alexander Hamilton]
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.>
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 10:20am
Why not also reform the Senate? If making every vote of equal weight is the real goal, which it is not!
With 100 Senators for 300 million people, senatorial district should be carved up based on 3 million people districts, simple to do with a computer!
Also, the country voted 53% for Magic, so, we should have 53 Dem Senators, no? If not, it's clearly UNFAIR.....bwahaha....
Come on, don't we all have something better to do? I know I do!
Posted by Happy at 05/14/2009 @ 10:41am
Here's something better to do.....
Quotable Quote from George Will:
"The administration's central activity -- the political allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption."
The looting of Chrysler bondholders to benefit the UAW was just the appetizer, the main course, carving on the GM Turkey, is on tap!
Posted by Happy at 05/14/2009 @ 10:44am
In short, bad idea KVH. There is a reason why the Consitution built in the electoral college and gave each state two senators. That's to enable each individual state to have a function in federal government.
While initiatives like this one are more democratic in the sense of people directly electing the President, they will also likely have the effect of cutting down on dissident voices and led to what the Federalist papers call the tyranny of the majority. I continue to like the idea of 50 democratic experiences in 50 democratic states where people can vote with their feet and each state has a say in the larger federal system. Measures like this one, move us closer to a single state and are less good when looked systemicly.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/14/2009 @ 10:57am
And since this is a Consitutional article that will inevitably bring in LVL, I wanted to share this link for him, relevant quote:
"My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation...By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party."
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/05/is_the_conserva.html
Posted by srjenkins at 05/14/2009 @ 10:58am
Non-starter....next?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 09:24am
Wrong. This is just as important to our democracy as any other issue.
Sometimes I question your motives, Mask. Plus the argument that too much else is on the table right now just doesn't fly with me. I hear this argument over and over about potential torture prosecutions. We have enough government, enough sub-committees, and enough judiciary to handle issues across a broad spectrum. The question is whether or not the political will exists to get this done.
Posted by HAL9000 at 05/14/2009 @ 11:00am
The electoral college is outdated and should be scrapped. To make sure the elections are on the up and up, the federal government should regulate all of the federal elections in each state and also invite a third party to verify that the elections are carried out in an honest matter.
As it stands now, each state regulates itself and if that state is corrupt (see Florida) we end up with a president the people didn't elect.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 11:00am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 10:20am
Hamilton seems to argue that somehow the people will choose electors to the EC who are "philosopher-kings" or something....when they're just as ordinary and indistinquished as any other citizen.
So...why the extra level between the vote for President and the popular will?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 11:25am
A shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the last 12 presidential elections (and, of course, did elect the second-place candidate in 2000). In 1976, for example, Jimmy Carter led Gerald Ford by 1,682,970 votes nationwide; however, a shift of 3,687 votes in Hawaii and 5,559 votes in Ohio would have elected Ford. In 2004, President George W. Bush was ahead by about 3,500,000 popular votes nationwide on election night; however, the outcome of the election remained in doubt until Wednesday morning because it was not clear which candidate was going to win Ohio's 20 electoral votes. In the end, Bush received 118,785 more popular votes than Kerry in Ohio, thus winning all of the state's 20 electoral votes and ensuring his reelection. However, if 59,393 voters in Ohio had switched in 2004, Kerry would have ended up with 272 electoral votes (two more than the 270 required to be elected to the Presidency). This would have nullified Bush's lead of 3,500,000 popular votes nationwide.
The prediction of "the coming debacle in the Electoral College" made by the 1992 book Wrong Winner should be taken seriously.
Posted by mvy at 05/14/2009 @ 11:37am
The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention. A smaller fraction of the county's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 30%). Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
Posted by mvy at 05/14/2009 @ 11:38am
the additional two votes.
Posted by peter1313 at 05/14/2009 @ 09:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
i tend to agree. i like a certain amount of local autonomy, but detest the "winner take all" nature of most states' system.
take my state. pretty solidly red (2nd lowest IQ in the nation, you understand), but certain areas are not. one or two districts are either in play or as cosistantly dem as any northeastern state.
sooo...adopting the maine option sounds pretty solid, enhances the autonomy of local areas which do not trend with the rest of the state, and preserves a certain amount of state autonomy...
federal system, you know...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 11:41am
The Founding Fathers intended that the Electoral College would consist of "wise men" who would deliberate on the choice of the President and select the best candidate and provide a buffer against the will of the people. However, the Founding Fathers did not anticipate the emergence of political parties. When George Washington declined to run for a third term in 1796, political parties emerged immediately. In 1796, both competing Federalist and anti-Federalist parties nominated their presidential candidate at the national meeting (a caucus of the party's members of Congress). As soon as there were national nominees, virtually all the candidates for presidential elector made it known that they would be willing "rubberstamps" who would vote for their party's nominee when the Electoral College met. All but one of the presidential electors in 1796 dutifully voted as expected. The expectation that presidential electors should "act" and not "think" was thus established in the 1796 election and has persisted to this day. Of the 22,000+ electoral votes cast for President in the nation's 56 presidential elections, only 11 were cast in an unexpected way.
Posted by mvy at 05/14/2009 @ 11:42am
The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.
So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections, but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
Posted by mvy at 05/14/2009 @ 11:46am
The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.
Posted by mvy at 05/14/2009 @ 11:47am
Posted by srjenkins at 05/14/2009 @ 10:58am
SRJ,
Interesting reading from Judge Posner, but it should be no surprise that I disagree with most of his conclusions
And there are still intellectual voices in the conservative movement, even if they are not the dominant ones at this moment.
Here are a few with their own criticisms of Judge Posner's article
<Unfortunately, as Judge Posner has softened and dialed back his focus to consider, as he puts it, the "conservative movement" beyond the matters of his particular expertise and experience, he's offered up a very shallow critique that's essentially indistinguishable from that which a particularly bright member of the mainstream media -- but someone informed only by the mainstream media, and disinclined to dig beneath its canards and biases -- would create while ostensibly trying to stand in the shoes of conservatives>
Attorney William Dyer
http://tinyurl.com/odm7zs
<The bottom line is that Posner is not now and never has been a conservative in any meaningful sense of the term. I addressed this issue a long time ago, concluding that Posner's documented record puts him in opposition to virtually every major conservative principle.
In sum, the left is going to try to spin this as an internal critique (see, e.g., Jonathan Singer), but what Posner has to say about the state of conservatism is no more an internal critique of the movement than what, say, Yglesias has to say.>
Professor Steven Bainbridge (continued in next post)
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 11:48am
One of the premises of Katrina Vanden Heuvel's article is that in this day and age votes are not equal because only a small handful of states have the preponderence of campaign events and the voter turnout was higher in those states.
The problems are:
1. In this day and age with the modern technology voters can access all kinds of information in real time on the events during the election cycle, the positions of the various candidates, all kinds of opinions about the candidates.
2. People who are concerned about their country (good or bad) should need no inducements to go and vote -- they should want to be active participants in their democracy and should not need "campaign events' in their location to spur them into going and voting. Why should people have to be begged or convinced to go and vote?
Once again, as always, Katrina Vanden Huevel is wrong. All votes are equal in this country now.
Question: Is Katrina going to argue with Karl Rove on this topic the next time she "pushes back" against him on the ABC Sunday Morning talk show "This Week"? Probably not a good idea, she totally failed the last time she "pushed back" against Mr. Rove!
Posted by sjchermak at 05/14/2009 @ 11:48am
This argument has consistently gone back and forth, and KVH conveniently misses the other half of the equation. If you it strictly based on nationwide popular vote, the election becomes all aboutthe high-population states. You'll have reliable conservative and liberal majorities in particular states, and so you choose not to campaign in small states where you have a majority (so McCain wouldn't campaign in the Northeast, etc.). This means that the impact of tons of voters being ignored is completely non-unique; that's what selective campaigning entails no matter what system you design. Of course, you could inflate the influence of smaller-population states, but then you give unequal voting power to individual citizens of different states.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/14/2009 @ 11:48am
Prof Bainbridge continued
<Indeed. My own disgust with the rampant anti-intellectualism and faux populism of the current GOP was documented in these pages long ago. (See also here.)
Having said that, however, let me immediately disassociate myself from the implicit assumption in Posner's post (as in so much else of his work) that religious discourse is inherently anti-intellectual (or, at least, non-intellectual).
It's been aptly observed of Posner's writings that:
Religion (Posner generally lumps all religions together) is generally relegated to the opposite end of the intellectual paradigm and is viewed by Posner as subjective, "local," "provincial" and anti-intellectual. Throughout his article, Posner gives Christian theism the most severe criticism, which explains why it ranks at the bottom of his intellectual paradigm. This is because the good judge believes that Christian theism lacks the intellectual cogency to change the mind of any thinking person.
Given the things Posner has had to say about religion over the years, I doubt he would agree. After all, as Martha Nussbaum noted of Posner's work on sex, Posner launched an "assault on religious moralism about sex' with the "strategic aim of shocking the pious." 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1689, 105-06. Of the same body of work, Jane Larson observed that "Posner's moral neutrality and hostility to religiously based morality links him to the broader economics tradition, as well as to a morally skeptical version of classical liberalism." 10 Const. Comment. 443, 451-52.
So excuse me if I take Posner's critique with a grain of salt>
http://tinyurl.com/pq3h45
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 11:55am
apparently,
not all votes are created equal.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 11:58am
If anyone is genuinely concerned about the possibility that a candidate could win the Presidency in a nationwide popular vote by winning 100% of the popular vote in the 11 largest states, they should note that the situation is even worse under the current system. Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the popular vote in the 11 largest states, a mere 26% of the nation's popular votes.
Moreover, the margins generated by any of the nation's largest states are not overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally in 2004. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were in seven non-battleground states:
* TX -- 1,691,267 (R) * NY -- 1,192,436 (D) * GA -- 544,634 (R) * NC -- 426,778 (R) * IL -- 513,342 (D) * CA -- 1,023,560 (D) * NJ -- 211,826 (D)
So, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (TX and FL) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for George W. Bush in 2004, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for John Kerry.
Moreover, the largest popular vote margins are not necessarily generated by the largest states. For example, UT (with only 5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004--larger than the margin generated for Kerry by NJ, the 9th largest state (with 15 electoral votes). Oklahoma (with only 7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004--larger than the margin generated by either NJ and NC.
The most important point is that, under a national popular vote, every vote would be equal. There is nothing special about a vote cast in a big state versus a vote cast anywhere else.
Posted by mvy at 05/14/2009 @ 12:04pm
Hamilton seems to argue that somehow the people will choose electors to the EC who are "philosopher-kings" or something....when they're just as ordinary and indistinquished as any other citizen.
So...why the extra level between the vote for President and the popular will?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 11:25am
If you read Federalist 68, it is precisely a concern about "popular will" that led to the Electoral College.
It was concern with the very thing we see in most presidential elections, the mass populace making choices primarily on emotion rather than reason; the mass populace who know little if anything about the constitution, about foreign policy, market economics,and history.
that is why Hamilton and the Founders believed that each state would select educated and informed electors to make these decisions.
I have posted here on a number of occasions that I fully agree with that principle. It is why we do not have elections of the president by popular vote. We are not a pure democracy; we are a Constitutional Republic.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 12:09pm
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
Posted by mvy at 05/14/2009 @ 12:12pm
Posted by mvy at 05/14/2009 @ 11:38am
Feel free to outline the role of state government in the federal system, with direct voting of senators in states and electoral votes being determined by the national popular vote.
"The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines."
The most definitely do. You need to think harder about this issue and how changes like these enable the federal government to gain power to the point where it can launch wars of aggression or detain people without access to a judicial system at will.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 11:48am
Sounds like a discussion between a fiscal conservative and social conservative. I've never been one to think of conservatives as a single coherent group, anymore than I'd be inclined to call all "progressives" statists. Left-libertarians do exist, even if its often convenient for culture warriors to pretend we don't.
I am not seeing any conservatives thinkers explaining the theory with any competence these days. Who's carrying the banner in the tradition of say, Russell Kirk - who also didn't have much regard for neoconservatives? I might read more conservative thought if I could find someone with some rigor to their ideas.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/14/2009 @ 12:18pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 11:55am
Well, welcome to the club, LVL. There is a sizable contingent of "progressives" that have religious bigotry so bad that they would want people thrown in jail if it were based on race, rather than religion. So, it was only a matter of time before that was seen with more parity in the conservative tent.
That said, I think his comments are interesting about there not being good conservative political theorists. If you know different, I'd be open to reading whoever you think is doing good work.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/14/2009 @ 12:23pm
that is why Hamilton and the Founders believed that each state would select educated and informed electors to make these decisions.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 12:09pm
wouldn't prophets be a better choice?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 12:33pm
Let's keep everyone conned by the notion that voting matters at all. It's the opiate of the people! And is a joke. The banks, insurance industry, and wealthy elite own the country and it's government. Weather Dems or Repugs are in 'control' or not, they are just the paid-bitches of the Corporate lesser gods. Voting won't change that. Just read the news; change you can beleive in is becoming the same shit we had before.
Posted by william91919 at 05/14/2009 @ 12:39pm
file this one, mask:
Leaked Agenda: Bilderberg Group Plans Economic Depression
Elitists divided on whether to quickly sink economy and replace it with new world order, or set in motion long, agonizing depression
On the eve of the 2009 Bilderberg Group conference, which is due to be held May 14-17 at the 5 star Nafsika Astir Palace Hotel in Vouliagmeni, Greece, investigative reporter Daniel Estulin has uncovered shocking details of what the elitists plan to do with the economy over the course of the next year.
Details of the economic agenda were contained in a pre-meeting booklet being handed out to Bilderberg members. On a more specific note, Estulin warns that Bilderberg are fostering a false picture of economic recovery, suckering investors into ploughing their money back into the stock market again only to later unleash another massive downturn which will create "massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead," according to a Canada Free Press report.
According to Estulin, Bilderberg is assuming that U.S. unemployment figures will reach around 14% by the end of the year, almost doubling the current official figure of 8.1 per cent.
Estulin's sources also tell him that Bilderberg will again attempt to push for the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, a key centerpiece of the agenda to fully entrench a federal EU superstate, by forcing the Irish to vote again on the document in September/October despite having rejected it already, along with other European nations, in national referendums.
•••••
no, sir, i'm not agreeing with this -- just want you to file it away and check back in december. research can be fun!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 12:43pm
We are not a pure democracy; we are a Constitutional Republic.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 12:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
True. So you you disagree with the decision in Bush v. Gore as federalist encroachment?
Posted by OneVote at 05/14/2009 @ 12:50pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 12:43pm
What's the original news source, FROSTY?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 12:54pm
that is why Hamilton and the Founders believed that each state would select educated and informed electors to make these decisions.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 12:09pm
Do we do that? Are they all "educated and informed"?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 12:55pm
Excellent post KVH. Hendrik Hertzberg was on the N.P.V. panel in Mass with Akhil Reed Amar, the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale, and had a great post on his blog at The New Yorker:
"We don't have to guess that this was the overriding motivation for going with 'electoral' instead of popular votes. You won't read about it in the Federalist Papers, but you can in the private diary James Madison kept at the Constitutional Convention. The Amar brothers pinpoint some evidence. On June 1st, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, the man who contributed the phrase 'We the People' to the preamble, expressed support for popular election, noting that 'Experience, particularly in N. York & Massts, shewed that an election of the first magistrate by the people at large, was both a convenient & successful mode.' On July 19th, Madison summarizes a speech of his own: 'There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.' Now that civil war and the Voting Rights Act have allegedly "obviated this difficulty" for good, it might be time to liberate ourselves from that voters should be subjected to an elaborate process of 'substitution.'"
http://www.newyorker.com/ online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2009/04/a-great-amarican.html
You can read Amar's original atricles about halfway down. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/amar1.html
Posted by hdthoreau at 05/14/2009 @ 12:55pm
What's the original news source, FROSTY?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 12:54pm
you know how to google.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
Hasn't this country had troubles with the Electoral College ever since 1800 with the Jefferson-Burr tie vote?
What would happen to "National Popular Vote" in an election where the popular vote was so close (closer than 1960 or 1968, say) that both sides could claim that they "really" won and that some of the other's votes were fraudulent and that the electors should "do the right thing" and vote for their candidate?
Posted by Mistral at 05/14/2009 @ 1:02pm
that is why Hamilton and the Founders believed that each state would select educated and informed electors to make these decisions.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 12:09pm
Do we do that? Are they all "educated and informed"?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 12:55pm
No, we have allowed the system to be corrupted by both parties. So, now we have political cronyism at varying levels in each state.
That said, there is still the likelihood that state electors are more informed than the average voter.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 1:02pm
The last election showed how an unaccomplished purveyor of pure perfidy gifted only with charisma and good speech writing can sway the immoral, the foolish young, and the uneducated to elect him President. Fortunately this is an aberration and that is thanks to the electorial college process.
It would be truely mindless to turn every election into a popularity contest where only the most populus states and mega cities control the fate of the nation. But, that of course is the venue of socialist totalitarianism which KVH and leftist apparently hunger and thirst for!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:36pm
You have to wonder just exactly what they were really thinking when they came up with the electoral college.
Did they think the population was just dumber than a pile of rocks and might vote for the village idiot to become president?
Or, were the people drawing up the rules well to do people and looked at the rest of the public as a possible threat to their power?
I tend to think it was a combination of the two, but my money is more on the latter one. The wealthy will protect what is theirs, and they don't want anybody voting away their wealth. See, it's ok to start wars and let the populace die for your business interests, but it's not ok to share the wealth you accumulate over the bodies of dead soldiers. That's blood money and the well to do believe it's theirs.
Where's the profits from the Iraq oil? Which oil companies are tapping in there now? Why are oil prices going back up and nobody is saying anything?
All countries are run by the elite and the laws of all countries are designed to protect the elite, not the masses.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 1:37pm
r, were the people drawing up the rules well to do people and looked at the rest of the public as a possible threat to their power?
should have been.....were the people drawing up the rules (well to do people) and looked at the rest of the public as a possible threat to their power?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 1:39pm
While I agree with everything you say, Katrina, I wonder if, years and years AFTER we dissolve the Electoral College, we might find ourselves in a situation where literally hundreds of people vie for the presidency. Yes, the Republicans (or their successor) and the Democrats will still field candidates, but with the abolition of the College, every person who WANTS to run for president gets his or her vote counted. Won't EVERY election, then, end up in the House (Senate for VP), as these hundreds--maybe thousands of people--split the vote? If we DO actually eliminate the EC, we'll have to do it carefully and be sure we put mechanisms in place to deal with this eventuality. There are options out there, but we do NOT want to do run-off elections. Maybe an instant run-off process like is practiced in other countries. I believe Ireland uses such a plan. Anyway: there IS a solution, but simply eliminating the Electoral College is not a reasonable one.
Posted by wrf1984 at 05/14/2009 @ 2:13pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 12:55pm </i>
It's actually worse than that, because his argument only means something if electors act independently. They don't. In virtually every state, the vote of the electors follows the popular vote. This means that any "special credentials" one could theoretically argue for don't mean anything.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/14/2009 @ 2:21pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:36pm
You keep telling yourself that, buddy.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 1:37pm
Now, are you read to take that position to its logical conclusions - to the Constitution. If so, then what? Or is it just masturbitic nihilism we've got going on here?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/14/2009 @ 2:24pm
Keep the electoral system. But don't make it a winner take all system, split the electoral votes proportionately with how the state voted. If a state voted 49/51 the and the state only has 3 electoral votes give the extra one to the winner. I think this would go a long way into making every vote count while not giving urban centers too much sway over results.
Again there is no perfect solution.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/14/2009 @ 2:45pm
"All votes are equal in this country now." Rubbish. Five mountain/northern plains states -- Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, and Idaho -- together have 16 electoral votes, and a cumulative 2000 population of 3.9 million. New Jersey (8.4 million) or Georgia (8.2 million) each gets only 15 electoral votes, despite having more than twice the population. The five states with double voting power are 91% white -- suggesting that however this system was intended, it now works as affirmative action for white rural voters. Capture a lot of small states with disproportionate voting power, and you have an unfairly strengthened chance to win the Presidency. Remind me what's so unfair about majority rule.
Posted by MZIMMERMAN at 05/14/2009 @ 2:59pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 1:02pm
So they're croneys...but smart croneys!
Gotcha!
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:00pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/14/2009 @ 2:21pm
Larry is an elitist, naturally. In the actual, non-blog definition of that term. Politically as well as religiously.
He likes the idea of a "small group of specially gifted folks" running the show rather than the "mob/hoi-polloi." (and naturally electing a Leader who gets invested with more power than the "mobbish" Legislature.)
He doesn't like democracies. He likes republics. Always amusing, because despite being a die-hard anti-Communist, his view on government more closely resembles the old Soviet Union, with a rubber stamp Politburo and a Presidium and Premier actually running things.
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:04pm
The electoral college was established at a time before television, before mandatory public education, before the internet, even before the Pony Express. The Founding Fathers did not trust an very uneducated and uninformed populace to elect a qualified man for President - Hamilton pretty much says that. I don't think this applies today. The Electoral College is outdated and inapplicable to today's America. We're a long way from the 18th century and its lack of education and communication. Not that I have any lost love for Republicans, but if you're one in Massachusetts, where I live, your vote for President doesn't count for anything, because the state always goes Democrat. That's just not how I think a democracy should work. Guillotine the EC!!!
Posted by bad_daddy at 05/14/2009 @ 3:21pm
Larry is an elitist, naturally. In the actual, non-blog definition of that term. Politically as well as religiously.
He likes the idea of a "small group of specially gifted folks" running the show rather than the "mob/hoi-polloi." (and naturally electing a Leader who gets invested with more power than the "mobbish" Legislature.)
He doesn't like democracies. He likes republics. Always amusing, because despite being a die-hard anti-Communist, his view on government more closely resembles the old Soviet Union, with a rubber stamp Politburo and a Presidium and Premier actually running things.
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:04pm
I'm glad you posted this Mask. This is about as definitive an example as could be expected about you.
You do not like our Constitutional Republic. Like most leftists, you believe it needs to be bent and twisted to serve your greater agenda of a progressive collectivism.
The Founders reflected the thinking of men like Socrates and Plato
Socrates openly taught that the principal fault of democracy was that it did not require proof of special knowledge in its leaders, that it surrendered the direction of the people's destinies to men without adequate experience in government, and that on the question of the morality of justice of a policy it treated the opinions of all citizens as equal in value.
That thinking led Socrates student Plato to the writing reflected in the Republic
<Democratic self-government does not work, according to Plato, because ordinary people have not learned how to run the ship of state. They are not familiar enough with such things as economics, military strategy, conditions in other countries, or the confusing intricacies of law and ethics. They are also not inclined to acquire such knowledge.>
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:24pm
Now, are you read to take that position to its logical conclusions - to the Constitution. If so, then what? Or is it just masturbitic nihilism we've got going on here?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/14/2009 @ 2:24pm
Just pointing out the truth. The laws are put in place first and foremost to protect those writing the laws. He who makes the rules gets to choose what those rules are and further more, who those rules will protect.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 3:26pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:24pm
Larry, none of that refuted my analysis of you. In fact, it confirmed it.
Oddly, your philosophical stance on "republics vs. democracies" is completely useless, since 99.999% of the electors do nothing more than re-affirm the popular vote.
The two examples in our history (Hayes and Bush) were rare alterations of that. Otherwise, the person "the mob" elected...became President.
So...how have we NOT had a "democratic self-government"???
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:32pm
Larry, none of that refuted my analysis of you. In fact, it confirmed it.
Oddly, your philosophical stance on "republics vs. democracies" is completely useless, since 99.999% of the electors do nothing more than re-affirm the popular vote.
The two examples in our history (Hayes and Bush) were rare alterations of that. Otherwise, the person "the mob" elected...became President.
So...how have we NOT had a "democratic self-government"???
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:32pm
I wasn't completely refuting your analysis. I was in part noting your own dislike for our Constitutional Republic and noting how the Founders patterned the constitution with much input from Socrates and Plato.
And I would think that both the Founders and conservatives like myself are more represented by the thinking of those philosophers, than your suggestion of Stalinist/communist rule.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:37pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:37pm
"Democracy is Stalinist."
I......see.
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:44pm
Or is it just masturbitic nihilism we've got going on here?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/14/2009 @ 2:24pm
whatever floats yer boat man...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 3:44pm
Or is it just masturbitic nihilism we've got going on here?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/14/2009 @ 2:24pm
you got a problem with nihilistic masturbation?
oh wait...maturbitic nihilism...
never mind...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 3:47pm
"Democracy is Stalinist."
I......see.
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:44pm
Once again, I never said that. YOU SAID that my views resembled communism.
I pointed out that my views in agreement with the Founders reflects Socrates and Plato.
Got to run,,,back tomorrow.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:52pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:52pm
Actually, I pointed out that your philosophy on authority resembled the Soviet model of authority...not Communism itself.
And it's pretty accurate. You have many times defended the "unitary executive" idea so popular a few years back and insisted the MAXIMUM amount of power for the Executive and the MOST restrictive for the Legislature, to the point where the Legislature is a mere "rubber stamp"...especially on matters like war.
Again...what does that sound like, if not the Politburo and the Presidium?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:54pm
Again...what does that sound like, if not the Politburo and the Presidium?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:54pm
But Mask, the Politburo doesn't have Old Glory flying over it and isn't graced by God!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 3:59pm
The looting of Chrysler bondholders to benefit the UAW was just the appetizer, the main course, carving on the GM Turkey, is on tap!
Posted by Happy at 05/14/2009 @ 10:44am
More neocon nonsense.
Is this the same rapidly-shrinking, renegotiating, backpedaling-on-two-tier-wages, ass-to-the-wall, formerly-behemoth UAW I'm thinking of?
IOW, a part of that MASSIVE, GIGANTIC, ALL-ENCOMPASSING, WHOPPING 14%
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 4:09pm
OR SO union labor pool in the U.S.?
That UAW?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 4:10pm
Wagoner's 30 mil parachute wasn't cheap either.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 4:11pm
I might favor the national popular vote IF there were uniform laws nationwide, sufficient, enforceable, and enforced.
Here are other reasons to be against the National Popular Vote agreement :
1)The national vote number is not accurate, it is the result of error prone counts in various states which usually would not matter except in close swing states.
2)There is no national recount law to correct those results.
3)Close elections can be expected to all end at the Supreme Court as voters could sue their Secretary of the State for using unreliable results.
Two Democrats opposed to the Agreement are Susan Bysiewicz, Secretary of the State of Connecticut and Mark Ritchie, Secretary of State of Minnesota. Mr. Ritchie's opposition is based, in part, on the fact that there is no national recount law that would provide a number that would have any hope of being credible.
Since state electors would be awarded by Secretaries of the State based on questionable results in other states, I can see close elections all ending up in the Supreme Court based on voters suing their Secretary and others states' Secretaries based on providing or relying on questionable results.
Also, in passing, I mention the merits of the candidates visiting every state is questionable:
Is a media centric concern. In recent elections almost all of the media money goes to out of state media moguls. Does the average voter in need more phone calls and candidate ads to be better informed? No. Do candidates have to visit a state for the election to be covered responsibly by the state's media? I doubt it.
Posted by LuWeeks at 05/14/2009 @ 4:16pm
....Politburo and the Presidium?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:54pm
Politburo, Presidium, and, the one that STILL stick in my ear, still makes me cringe....
"homeland"
can't stand it. Just not American, I'm sorry.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 4:19pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 4:19pm
I totally agree, makes me think of Nazi germany's references to vaderland (fatherland). The connotations associated with the term homeland are all wrong.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/14/2009 @ 6:08pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 3:59pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 4:19pm
Authoritarianism crosses the religious/economic spectrum.
Larry outraged that he'd be compared to "Commies", but remove the Marxist economics...and is he really that different from a Soviet?
Again, he has made it quite clear that he is distrustful of democracy and the more democratic (all small "D", mind you) aspects of our Government...namely Congress, while he has (even to Obama, in fairness) offered up endless power to the Executive.
Throw in the militarism and zealous ideology and you've got the standard supporter of an authoritarian state...regardless of economic model.
Create a "libertarian economics Soviet Union"...and Larry would be on the next plane to it. I'm sure that's what he hoped would be in his "escape plan" El Salvador move that he's often discussed. (Unfortunately for him, the Salvadorans elected a left-of-center President!)
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 9:05pm
Yes, but… The ‘ingenious' NVP plan for approximating a direct popular election of the President sounds good, but the arithmetic doesn't work. Suppose the plan was supersuccessful, adopted by states collectively accounting 80-90% of all electoral college votes, with only a few states keeping their winner-take-all systems. In a close election, the block votes of even a few holdout states would determine the outcome. The holdouts would become the new battleground states and would have a highly disproportionate influence.
This is a variation of the classic prisoners' dilemma game, where cooperation by all ensures improved outcomes for all but where non-cooperation by any yields great benefits for them, at the expense of everyone else. Getting enough states to pass the NVP proposal to ensure a system less distorted than the one we already have would require essentially 100% participation, a far higher bar than for an old fashioned constitutional amendment.
I'm not a big supporter of such minor fixes. No offense to THE FOUNDERS. The Constitution they wrote was terrific, a truly elegant framework for cooperative confederation of 13 small, diverse colonies. But, over the years, it has grown more than a little out of step with our evolving sensibilities and circumstances.
How can we consider ourselves to be self-governing while still living slavishly under rules developed over 200 years ago and, whenever we encounter a new problem, looking to an ancient order of nine high priests to devine what THE FOUNDERS would have wanted us to do? Call me radical, but I think we should comprehensively rework our Constitution every 200 years or so, whether it needs it or not. And, by all means, let's include provision for direct popular election of our Presidents.
Posted by caliber1 at 05/14/2009 @ 9:11pm
The parallels of these pillars of corporatocracy are amazing:
the Federal Reserve, the Electoral College and the FCC,
all claim to be genuinely democratic and capitalistic
and all lie to keep their fangs in the veins of the throats of Joe and Josephine Six Pack
Not missing a beat, the Health Care megacorps will see to it there'll be
no single payer, alongside
no legit 4th estate
no one person, one vote for president
and no bail out of voters who are losing their jobs and houses,
living without health care
and without representative media,
prey to corporations
who put their near corpses through million dollar procedures when they on their way out
while fighting regulations of heavy metals, pesticides, accurate labels, and predatory 'credit' scams
and their greenhouse gases, agent orange, mercury,
Posted by winyahn at 05/14/2009 @ 9:56pm
You will never be able to get a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electorial college, the least populated states would be required and they will never give up their leverage.
Why do we keep beating this dead horse? The horse died long ago but still we return to see if any life is present and beat it again just because it might not be dead but it IS dead. Enough already. But fear not you dead horse beaters, you will be back, you can't help it.
Posted by pyeatte at 05/14/2009 @ 11:36pm
I recall in grade school going over the compromise that had to be made regarding the political distribution of power between populous states and less populous ones. If the popular vote were the sole criterion, the large states would hold all the power and even more problems would be created. Let's just leave this alone so whiners will have something to complain about.
Posted by jsens at 05/15/2009 @ 06:55am
Create a "libertarian economics Soviet Union"...and Larry would be on the next plane to it. I'm sure that's what he hoped would be in his "escape plan" El Salvador move that he's often discussed. (Unfortunately for him, the Salvadorans elected a left-of-center President!)
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 9:05pm
You make a good point Mask. I work with an ex Russian. But, he's still loyal to the "motherland". His militaristic views along with his views on torture mirror my Russian friends.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 07:58am
Posted by caliber1 at 05/14/2009 @ 9:11pm
" The ‘ingenious' NVP plan for approximating a direct popular election of the President sounds good, but the arithmetic doesn't work. Suppose the plan was supersuccessful, adopted by states collectively accounting 80-90% of all electoral college votes..."
There are many flaws in this proposal, but this isn't among them. The arithmetic works just fine when you understand that the electoral college has 538 votes, and you need only 280 (52%) to win. NVP only needs that 280 to work.
Posted by pyeatte at 05/14/2009 @ 11:36pm
See above. Constitutional amendment not required either. You only need enough states (280 votes) to pass this law about how they allocate their electoral votes, which is already provided for in the Constitution, and the Electoral College has been effectively hacked to work other than as intended.
Posted by jsens at 05/15/2009 @ 06:55am
Finally, someone that gets it.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/15/2009 @ 09:33am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 07:58am
Interesting too given Larry is an unrepentent Russophobic, still dreaming of "Commies sweeping across Europe and the Middle East" and thinking the Cold War was just a 'temporary victory'.
Meanwhile last 10 years the Russians have created the kind of free-wheeling plutocracy that he'd love to see here.
But you know them Commies, they're sneaky bastards just foolin' us!!!....heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 09:42am
Friday funny:
K. Marks
10:53 am
Yeah, Obama is God. He can do no wrong. Deficits are good. Three wars are better than two. Gitmo is still running and FISA still in place. Thank goodness our taxes are going up, too - Obama knows how to spend my money better than I do.
He is truly great.
Posted by Happy at 05/15/2009 @ 11:14am
But you know them Commies, they're sneaky bastards just foolin' us!!!....heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 09:42am
Something tells me that Liver thinks he's Wyatt Erp and he's gonna set things to right with the enemy dead or alive, but preferably dead.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 11:29am
Posted by Happy at 05/15/2009 @ 11:14am
Have you guys come up with ANYBODY ...except yourselves...who call Obama "God" or even "Messiah"????
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 11:32am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 11:29am
No, actually Larry is pretty much of a "Christian nihilist" at this point...anticipating (even hoping) for the fall of America since it has shown the temerity to reject HIS philosophy.
Like a reverse Alec Baldwin, he's threatened to "leave America and move to another country" (El Salvador)....and is just as silly and disengenuous about it.
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 11:56am
he's threatened to "leave America and move to another country" (El Salvador)....and is just as silly and disengenuous about it.
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 11:56am
Are you sure he's not serious? I'll fly out there and help him pack if he's really serious.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 12:11pm
Like a reverse Alec Baldwin, he's threatened to "leave America and move to another country" (El Salvador)....and is just as silly and disengenuous about it.
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 11:56am
Sure Mask.
I told you, we are most likely moving there in 2011.
BTW,
We are going down there in December to work on our property, some business startup with relatives, and a little vacation
http://www.lacocoteraresort.com/index.php
Eco Resort in Central America La Cocotera is Central America's premier all-inclusive eco lodge and resort. We offer luxurious accommodations in a relaxing setting. We are an eco friendly resort located in beautiful La Barra de Santiago, bordered by the warm Pacific Ocean on one side and a peaceful estuary on the other.
As an environmentally friendly resort in El Salvador, we support the region and local people. We are happy to offer a pristine world-class destination to the environmentally conscious traveler, complete with unspoiled coastlines and surfable waves, all at no expense to the environment or residences. We encourage nature and luxury lovers alike to visit our green hotel in El Salvador for a truly unique vacation experience.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 12:23pm
While on the High Seas We the People have been Lulled into a Deep and Foreboding Sleep
May 15, 2009
The few in numbers but much in money and seemed power have with intent lulled many to sleep.
But not us, we have kept an open mind, with many more questions that idle talk. We the many have thought of ways, taking our county back, seizing our vested powers in our Constitution the Rule of Law to once again as planned many years ago, to have our voices heard and our votes counted.
We are the many, not the few, we love our families friends and kin, we work the work of keeping all inbounds and in-between the fence rows we do what is right and shun the wrong---we are Americans.
At this time our Great America Ship called Freedom is under attack by pirates we must fight back. Those tyrannical few who have wage the battles against our solvency and sovereignty.
Good things that have been done by man have been simple not complex. On this day we must get back to simple things.
Town hall meetings must be restored with the use of our great Internet so that each one will have their voices heard and their votes counted. We all know that is democracy.
The lurid derogatory press has tried their best to bring fear each day on us. With just one smoke screen after another. So my Meet the Press comes when I chat with Jane, Jack, and Joe at the grocery store.
My Dad was a simple man, he said, "Son when a person lies just once they will do it again"
The term used to describe the American consumer has been BUYER BEWARE.
Glad to see all of us doing just that turning off the TV.
Those full of fear from the Bush Bunch Years listen to some Patriots and get their zeal hold high the Laws in our Constitution. http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/62
Posted by DWIGHTBAKER at 05/15/2009 @ 1:05pm
"As an environmentally friendly resort in El Salvador"----Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 12:23pm
Why should they be concerned about being "environmentally friendly"? That's socialist hoax stuff!?!?????!?
LOL
BTW, didn't you ALSO say that ...
Hawaii...
was on your list of possible retirement spots???
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 1:56pm
"As an environmentally friendly resort in El Salvador"----Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 12:23pm
Why should they be concerned about being "environmentally friendly"? That's socialist hoax stuff!?!?????!?
LOL
BTW, didn't you ALSO say that ...
Hawaii...
was on your list of possible retirement spots???
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 1:56pm
Mask, you really don't pay close attention to all the things I care about that aren't easily within the box you try and paint.
I have always been environmentally concious and have posted many things in support of that in this website, both about green alternatives and my own green lifestyle.
I am against govt coercion into these issues.
And being environmentally concious doesn't mean you have to buy in to the hoax of anthropogenic GW. I am an outdoors person and dislike cities, so I have a personal interest in seeing the promotion of the environment. It is easily done without the govt increasing it's control.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 2:11pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 2:11pm
That was a joke, Larry. But ODD, isn't it how "environmentalism" can actually be a PROFIT-MAKING opportunity for that hotel in ES?
Yet, if we flip to using less oil as a nation, it'll destroy the economy.
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 2:51pm
Yet, if we flip to using less oil as a nation, it'll destroy the economy.
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 2:51pm
I don't know of anyone who is against using less oil if it can be done without impacting the economy. That is the conservative argument.
Right now alternatives are still far more expensive than oil.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 2:57pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 2:11pm
"And being environmentally concious doesn't mean you have to buy in to the hoax of anthropogenic GW."
Although, it would be a good sign of rationality. Try looking at the Wikipedia page on the scientific opinion on climate change.
Or, if you like the hands on approach. Try going into a garage, close the doors, start your car and hang out for awhile.
The only problem with this experiment, and it is the same problem with global warming, is that some people don't believe the carbon monoxide will kill them until they are dead, and the skeptical observers among us might also argue that was really because you had a weak heart, you ate too much cheese or God called you home - and that it had nothing to do with the carbon monoxide.
Somebody is right. The problem is that humanity will either be extinct or entering a new dark age by the time the question is known to the satisfaction of conservative skeptics driven by agendas other than truth, and by that time - like the Magnificent Ambersons - those that care about their comeuppance will all be dead.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/15/2009 @ 4:22pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 12:23pm
Can I get a discount?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:31pm
Somebody is right. The problem is that humanity will either be extinct or entering a new dark age by the time the question is known to the satisfaction of conservative skeptics driven by agendas other than truth, and by that time - like the Magnificent Ambersons - those that care about their comeuppance will all be dead.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/15/2009 @ 4:22pm
How bad do you think things would have to get before conservatives would acknowledge if global warming is true? Think that the entire world has to turn into a desert first?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:33pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:33pm
The thing that is going to change everyone's mind is when the price of gas makes everyone less interested in maintaining the status quo. Energy infrastructure will change when people understand the need to build it, the only question is will we destroy ourselves before we get there.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/15/2009 @ 6:02pm
Can I get a discount?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:31pm
Beautiful place isn't. hardly the image most in the US have of El Salvador.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 6:35pm
How bad do you think things would have to get before conservatives would acknowledge if global warming is true? Think that the entire world has to turn into a desert first?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:33pm
As I noted on another thread in the past few days, CO2 accumulations have only increased by 1 1/100 of 1% and scientists acknowledge that anthropogenic contributions are 2-3% of the total CO2. The science simply works against the theory that the warming cycle that recently concluded was due to anthropenic causes.
We have entered a cooling cycle that they say will last until around 2015 or so and then a new warming cycle will occur. Just as it always does. The earth is too complex to be disrupted as much as the manmade causation advocates would like to suggest.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 6:39pm
The thing that is going to change everyone's mind is when the price of gas makes everyone less interested in maintaining the status quo. Energy infrastructure will change when people understand the need to build it, the only question is will we destroy ourselves before we get there.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/15/2009 @ 6:02pm
Hell. I just ride my bike everywhere now. The price of gas got me to do it and now I just enjoy it and prefer it. I think there is proof of that already. The bike culture has boomed as a direct result of the huge gas prices and oddly enough it is being sustained. Everyone thought it would collapse once gas prices go back down. But it hasn't even in a sprawling city like LA where people thought bikes could never take hold.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 8:53pm
As I noted on another thread in the past few days, CO2 accumulations have only increased by 1 1/100 of 1% and scientists acknowledge that anthropogenic contributions are 2-3% of the total CO2. The science simply works against the theory that the warming cycle that recently concluded was due to anthropenic causes.
We have entered a cooling cycle that they say will last until around 2015 or so and then a new warming cycle will occur. Just as it always does. The earth is too complex to be disrupted as much as the manmade causation advocates would like to suggest.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 6:39pm
" The science simply works against the theory that the warming cycle that recently concluded was due to anthropenic causes. "
Again. I want to make note of this. The science YOU believe works against it. The science that majority of American's and the majority of scientists believe doesn't. So I don't know how you can possibly speak with such conviction when you have no more or less proof than the people who disagree with you.
But on the point I made. What would have to happen for you to believe in global warming?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 8:55pm
Again. I want to make note of this. The science YOU believe works against it. The science that majority of American's and the majority of scientists believe doesn't. So I don't know how you can possibly speak with such conviction when you have no more or less proof than the people who disagree with you.
But on the point I made. What would have to happen for you to believe in global warming?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 8:55pm
No, using the science of the GW hoaxers, their stats on the increase of CO2 are so insignificant as to be impossible to have any affect.
CO2 accumulations have only increased by 1 1/100 of 1% and scientists acknowledge that anthropogenic contributions are 2-3% of the total CO2.
So, make a convincing argument that an increase of 1 1/100 of 1% in the total CO2 of which 2-3% of that total is anthropogenic is significant.
And to help frame your argument; during previous severe cooling cycles, CO2 concentrations were as much as 20 times what they are now.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 9:09pm
I won't purport to be a consitutional theorist or even partiuclarly happy with the confounding electoral college mechanism, but I did notice that "super delegates" came into common (shared, popular) discourse during this past election season, and that my friends in Puerto Rico and other territories who are deprived of the vote (until they submit to Statehood and all it entails) felt that they had a hand in electing President Obama, because of their caucus. Do proposals to change the electoral college address and fix the problem that our elected officials "represent" (though often ignore) many future and non- citizens?
Posted by ALA-Lazo at 05/15/2009 @ 9:19pm
So, make a convincing argument that an increase of 1 1/100 of 1% in the total CO2 of which 2-3% of that total is anthropogenic is significant.
And to help frame your argument; during previous severe cooling cycles, CO2 concentrations were as much as 20 times what they are now.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 9:09pm
Again. The science YOU believe buddy-o. Once again every major science college and most scientists disagree with you. I'm not breaking one way or the other. I just don't like people who speak with absolute authority and call other people ignorant when they are have no authority and are by definition just as ignorant. You aren't a climatologist.
And again. What would have to take place for you to agree with GWers
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 9:38pm
Again. The science YOU believe buddy-o. Once again every major science college and most scientists disagree with you. I'm not breaking one way or the other. I just don't like people who speak with absolute authority and call other people ignorant when they are have no authority and are by definition just as ignorant. You aren't a climatologist.
And again. What would have to take place for you to agree with GWers
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 9:38pm
No, it's that they are misrepresenting their own facts. Not other science, their own science is what I'm quoting.
this is the IPCC data. That's what I'm using.
http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_co2.html
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 10:05pm
No, it's that they are misrepresenting their own facts. Not other science, their own science is what I'm quoting.
this is the IPCC data. That's what I'm using.
http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_co2.html
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 10:05pm
Why do you keep avoiding my question. What would have to happen for you to agree with the GWers?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 10:15pm
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-2.1.html
Should check that one out, where the actually explain their findings.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 10:22pm
Why do you keep avoiding my question. What would have to happen for you to agree with the GWers?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 10:15pm
it's not possible to agree with something that cannot be proven.
I consider anthropogenic GW to fall in the category of a "fallacy of the single cause".
The left attributes the approx 20 cycle of GW that recently ended to anthropogenic causes, while dismissing the earth's history of natural warming and cooling due to natural causes.
furthermore when you examine their data and expose it- (ie the CO2 concentrations), you get the typical comeback that you have given- "but so many scientists do support it".
Science is not proven by the number of those who agree with a theory. It is not based upon "consensus".
Posted by antisocialist at 05/16/2009 @ 08:15am
Posted by ALA-Lazo at 05/15/2009 @ 9:19pm
People are selected for electoral college by their respective parties. The only interests they represent are the interests of the political party they are part of. Further, legislators working on issues like illegal immigration or issues in U.S. territories typically are working on these issues because it works for their constituents in their districts. Many illegal immigrants, for example, live in households with citizens. There are Congressional districts with large populations of Puerto Rican citizens. I don't know how you can claim that these legislators are working on behalf of non-citizens.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 10:05p
I'm look at the link you provided, but I don't see it saying what you are saying.
Figure 3 provides the historical data which looks like it ranges between 200-300 ppmv over from 600 years to about 50 years or so ago. Current mean Co2 levels are 383.79 and have been rising every year since 1958.
Now, I think you might have a point in asking why the increase doesn't trace back to the industrial revolution, or at least 1846 and the growing use of petroleum. That's an interesting question.
You seem to want to go back further in geologic time. Fine. Take a look at the section on Historical Variation in the article Carbon Dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Relevant quote:
"The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 kyr BP (Before Present).[11] During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 – 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 – 300 ppm during warmer interglacials."
Given this information, 383.79 looks like an outlier.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/16/2009 @ 11:41am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/16/2009 @ 08:15am
While I agree science is based on fact, consensus is an important part of establishing facts, based on the empirical evidence. Scientists agree on the speed of light, how gravity works and many other things. They have also been wrong, as is evident from paradigm shifts that comes from new information or someone bringing in a new perspective.
While I can agree that climate change models may not be adequately represent reality. I think you have to do a lot of work to address the preponderance of evidence that supports the claim that there is a link.
We can talk about whether CO2 is the best indicator - perhaps measurements of water vapor in conjunction with CO2 and other gases are more important. But, the CO2 hoaxers don't have much of a model other than to make some kind of claim that it's a natural process. But, and here's the thing for me, I don't see a lot of evidence for this position. What I do see is people offering up explanations without evidence or making claims, like your CO2 claim, that doesn't seem to say what you think it does.
So, where are you getting your information from - and why do you think this is a better source than the various reports put out by IPCC and others?
Posted by srjenkins at 05/16/2009 @ 11:53am
it's not possible to agree with something that cannot be proven.
I consider anthropogenic GW to fall in the category of a "fallacy of the single cause".
The left attributes the approx 20 cycle of GW that recently ended to anthropogenic causes, while dismissing the earth's history of natural warming and cooling due to natural causes.
furthermore when you examine their data and expose it- (ie the CO2 concentrations), you get the typical comeback that you have given- "but so many scientists do support it".
Science is not proven by the number of those who agree with a theory. It is not based upon "consensus".
Posted by antisocialist at 05/16/2009 @ 08:15am
So basically you are you saying you would never agree with them no matter how much evidence was given? Even if the world turned into a desert. So we get the point. Even if it is proven you are one to just put your head in the sand and say no it can't be true. Which means in the end your opinion on the matter is worthless because you aren't looking at facts, you are judging solely on bias. Which mans in actuality your position is not based on fact, your position is simply based on the fact that you don't want to believe it. Now we get to the core of the matter.
"Science is not proven by the number of those who agree with a theory. It is not based upon "consensus"."
You are correct, science isn't based on consensus, but if many people experiment on the same thing and come up with the same results it holds a strong possibility that it is true. That's what I mean when I say there are a lot of scientists who agree. So may people have done experiments on GW and most of said experiments agree so it then follows that the greater weight of evidence is in favor of Global Warming rather than against it.
Continued
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 5:29pm
But again none of this matters because you don't care about scientific evidence or even your own experiences you are just going to deny deny deny. So in the end what is the point in discussing. I am a man of science you are a man of well..... Your own opinion even if you have absolutely no qualifications to present the opinion you have you will stick with it and only look for the evidence that agrees with you instead of looking at all the evidence impartially for what it is. Which I guess is what would lead you to believe that there is a cooling cycle right now, not because it's necessarily true, but because it confirms your opinion and nothing more.
We have gotten to the heart of the matter and there is no point in discussing it further, since one of us is having a rational conversation based solely on evidence and the other is just sticking their head in the sand.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 5:34pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 5:34pm
Lengthy hogwash.
What you disagree with is the premise that I actually use the science to document the hoax being hoisted on the world that manipulates the science by lying about their own results.
You have refused to even acknowledge that which the GW's state themselves;
CO2 concentrations which THEY say are indicative of anthropogenic warming have risen by 1 1/100 of a percent. And No one in the GW side says that anthropogenic concentrations are greater than 5% of total. Their own models (which are self created, and not based upon actual numbers), only show the concentrations increasing to 6 or 7 1/100's of a percent.
Also, you fail to acknowledge that the GW's own data that agrees that we have entered a cycle of cooling rather than warming.
Can you even respond to the science instead of your strawmen and ad hominems?
I doubt it. Like Gore, you'd rather stick to ad hominems than debate the actual science.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/16/2009 @ 7:46pm
Can you even respond to the science instead of your strawmen and ad hominems?
I doubt it. Like Gore, you'd rather stick to ad hominems than debate the actual science.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/16/2009 @ 7:46pm
No. I'm not responding to the science because I sit in the center. This isn't a straw man ad hominems. I asked you a simple question. What would you need to believe in GW. You said you would never believe in it. Plain and simple. I don't need to respond to the science. I am getting a perspective from you. I am not arguing for or against global warming. I am simply pointing out that you don't care about evidence you have chosen a side and no matter how much evidence piles up on the other side you will never change your position. Which is essentially what you said. You can generalize and try to lump me in with other people all you want, which is what you always do when you are cornered. But you have told me enough about your perspective. It doesn't matter how much science I answered to you would still never change your position, so what is the point?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 8:38pm
It doesn't matter how much science I answered to you would still never change your position, so what is the point?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 8:38pm
Once you ran out of science to debate back with you you would resort to insulting me and calling me ignorant, which is what you always do. So again it ends in what's the point? Debate requires that you enter with an attitude of wanting to learn and be informed, not just wanting to see who can yell loudest over the other person and then if they present a point contrary to your stick your head in the sand and start screaming insults.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 8:44pm
I can tell you this though LVL, when you say things like "GW hoaxers" it makes people way less likely to listen to you because you are basically sitting here saying the 10,000 scientists, many very known climatologists and other people, have all gotten together and decided to play a big hoax on the world. 10,000 scientists and the every major science college have gotten together and said "Let's fool everyone." That just makes you sound like you suffer from a paranoid delusion.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 8:51pm
The simple question that needs to be asked to wonder what the effects of human kind are is, how much does the global mean temperature have to change before the system starts to be severely effected? You like to cite numbers like "at most 5%". But you have no real understanding of what those numbers mean. I made an analogy a little while ago, you only have to change the human core temperature about 5-6% for a human to die. When you think about 5% in that sense all of a sudden it's not a small number because it is the difference between life and death.
So the question you have to ask is, how much of global mean temperature change does the world have to experience before the natural processes of the earth are are affected. You can present the numbers as small as you want, BUT the change need could be just 1% and then all of a sudden the number isn't so small anymore.
Same with your argument about entering a cooling cycle. Ok, if we are entering a cooling cycle, then is it going to be normal like all the other cooling cycles or are we in fact going o have a warmer cooling cycle than normal, if it is warmer than normal then we have effected the environment. You don't seem to understand the concept of homeostasis in an environmental model. That when dealing with the environment a number as small as 1% can have a huge impact.
So you keep sticking to your belief that just because the number is as low as 1% it means it can't POSSIBLY effect anything. I will continue to look at the 5% change in my core temperature that can kill me.
Environments are based on an ever so slight balance. Maybe you should come to understand that before you bother citing numbers.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 9:23pm
Also on top of all of this, the results you are quoting handled mostly just CO2, it ignores positive feedback loops caused by even small amounts of warming. The biggest contributor of greenhouse gasses is water vapor. As the global temperature rises the atmosphere begins to collect more water vapor causing the temperature to increase even more. Since they are only computing CO2 and not the increase in water vapor as a direct result of the increase of CO2 they are missing that factor as well.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 9:41pm
They also didn't include the methane being released from the melting of the arctic glaciers, which will then also increase the amount being output into the environment and increase warming.
That's what you don't seem to get LVL. That number 5% only calculates direct contributions of CO2. It isn't taking into account the shift of the system and the positive feedback loops that happen as a result of even small global mean temperature changes. Once you start warming it starts releasing even more warming effects on the world that aren't a result of just CO2.
So then to add to all the other question you have to stop and ask how much extra methane and water vapor has been released into the atmosphere due to the seemingly small effects of anthropogenic warming.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 9:44pm
Also can you answer to the reduced reflectivity of water compared to ice which therefore induces another positive feedback loop because as oceans warm, they absorb heat which melts ice which increase the possibly heat absorption?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 9:46pm
There are so many factors to take into account than simply an increase in just CO2 that aren't answered by you or the IPCC that you quoting the number 5% as if it is a small number is like me saying a 5% core temperature change is negligible even thought it is the difference between life an death.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 9:47pm
Let me know when you have a single shred of credible evidence that your position is anything but an ideological last stand in the name of petro companies.
And, no, I don't take any advice from the GW spokesmodel, Al Gore. I read the published papers (e.g. Hansen's) myself and don't hesitate to call them out when I think they're doing bogus science.
This single website is a one-stop shop for debunking every tactic I've seen you adopt in the GW debate:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Posted by snowball666 at 05/17/2009 @ 08:23am
My position has nothing to do with petro companies. I have no stock in any, I don't work for any, nor receive funding from any oil companies. I have nothing to gain personally from their future other than a stable economy for myself, my children, and my grandchildren.
That is simply the usual ad hominem. Rather than debate the science the way 1000's of scientists world-wide try, you and the anthropogenic GW worshippers would rather engage in strawmen, ad hominems and avoidance rather than address the science.
A number of highly esteemed scientists have left the IPCC because of it's overt politicization of their agenda.
Gore and others in the anthropogenic GW side refuse to engage in debate of the data. Gore himself sets the standard for the left with his own style of avoiding debate and ad hominems.
As has been repeatedly mentioned by many scientists and echoed by me, the earth and the solar system are far too complex as climate systems to be so overtly affected by mankinds insignificant footprint.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/17/2009 @ 12:04pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/17/2009 @ 12:04pm
I noticed you decided to ignore my substantive post - other than make other arguments than the one's you were offering earlier about CO2.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/17/2009 @ 2:58pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/17/2009 @ 12:04pm
I also notice you skipped all of the things I pointed out. Running out of answers?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/17/2009 @ 7:34pm
That is simply the usual ad hominem. Rather than debate the science the way 1000's of scientists world-wide try, you and the anthropogenic GW worshippers would rather engage in strawmen, ad hominems and avoidance rather than address the science.
A number of highly esteemed scientists have left the IPCC because of it's overt politicization of their agenda.
Gore and others in the anthropogenic GW side refuse to engage in debate of the data. Gore himself sets the standard for the left with his own style of avoiding debate and ad hominems.
As has been repeatedly mentioned by many scientists and echoed by me, the earth and the solar system are far too complex as climate systems to be so overtly affected by mankinds insignificant footprint.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/17/2009 @ 12:04p
I just presented you with a scientific debate and you ignored it. Maybe that is indicative of why we don't bother posting, same with srjs post. You don't want to debate science you want to stick your head in the sand, exactly as I said.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/17/2009 @ 7:40pm
Snow
I've posted at length over the past 4-5 years here. Here are some sites with plenty to study and reflect upon.
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
http://tinyurl.com/2jk58v
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
From the nonpartisan Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. I appreciate that while they predominantly support anthropogenic GW, they also appreciate science and post contrary papers such as this one
http://tinyurl.com/39urak
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
1.http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Partial list of scientists in opposition to anthropogenic GW
http://tinyurl.com/c23h4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#_note-2
<A 2003 poll of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed 34.7 percent of interviewees endorsed the notion that a substantial part of the current global warming trend -- which might see temperatures rise by a degree or two, on average, by century's end -- is caused by man's industrial activities (driving cars and the like).
More than a fifth -- 20.5 percent -- rejected this "anthropogenic hypothesis." The rest (two-thirds) were undecided.>
http://tinyurl.com/you764
http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/climate.html
Posted by antisocialist at 05/18/2009 @ 09:34am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/18/2009 @ 09:34am
I guess I was right you will just ignore anyone who posts science you don't understand so that you can remain willfully ignorant of the facts. You have very little understanding of global warming Anti. I suggest you actually attempt to educate yourself.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/18/2009 @ 5:04pm