Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So no-one read to the end of my piece? :-(
Are they too long :-)
-
remember the electoral college is supposed nut out the president between them - they don't have to vote for the guy they represent - in 2000 Nader would probably have ended up holding some electoral votes and eventually would have fallen in behind one of the other candidates - the congress only get involved it the EC can't eventually get its act together
Nope. The electoral college doesn't even meet. Each state's delegation meets seperately in its own state, not even all states on the same day, just some time before Congress first meets for the new term.
They tally up their votes and send the results, from their one round of voting, to Congress, which opens them up and certifies the result as their first(?) item of business.
-
well I'd disagree - allocating electoral voters for the presidency would make sense if every state did it
And if every state did it, the 2000 Presidential election would have been won by George Bush, and Joe Lieberman would have been his Vice President.
And just about every presidential election following would also have been determined by the House of Representatives, and the Vice-Presidential race by the Senate, because no candidate would get the required electoral college majority.
-
I think that the main reason why the big states wont move to proportional representation is because of the effect that would have on the dominant party in their state - for example in California there's been a push from the Republicans to change - because they would win the most
Absolutely. Allocating electoral votes (for the presidency) proportionately doesn't make a lot of sense, and it certainly doesn't on a piecemeal basis.
The up sides? ... The down side...
Some of the arguments arrayed for and against the electoral college/the national popular vote get kinda cool: the electoral college is bad, because it means that state actions disenfranchising voters don't harm a state's voice in the presidential race, for example.
-
Russel:
But what we're seeing now goes beyond tit-for-tat: it's a very methodical working of the media on matters that are now sub judice. I think it really has to stop.
and Craig:
alleging that the Police leaked their own summary to the media.
I don't know about anyone else (and perhaps Legal Beagle can tell this law-tard where things stand) but wouldn't that seriously undermine the Crown's case?
A little short of time :-), but I might direct you to this piece from Steven Price. It begins:
Some defence lawyers have been getting their knickers in a knot about reporting on the Veitch case in yesterday’s Sunday Star-Times and Herald on Sunday.
Can’t say I share their concerns. Certainly, now that charges have been laid, publishing material that tends to create a real risk of prejudice to Veitch’s trial will be a contempt of court. But there doesn’t seem to be much in these stories to create such a risk.
They essentially summarise the police allegations. It looks like they came from the police summary of facts. The papers reported them as allegations. They note that Veitch denies them. They don’t get into assessing the evidence. They have reported no more than is almost certain to come out in depositions. Any trial is a good long way away, so any possible effect on jurors is almost sure to dissipate....
I think the sub judice rule - not unlike the Privacy Act - often takes on the shades of meaning of those - in this case defence lawyers - who want it to mean something helpful to them.
-
19.30 seconds over 200m is insane by the way.
I've never been a big fan of calling the winner of the 100m "the fastest man in the world". As this shows (and as has been the case in the past) the winner of the 200m is often faster.
-
it meant i got to make a joke, instead of actually looking things up
well ... you could still explain the sprinting points :-)
-
I was listening to ESPN's Pardon The Interruption the other day and they were discussing China's dominance of the medal table.
And I caught a brief glimpse of World News with Charles Gibson last night on TVNZ7. "The United States is still at the top of the medal table with XY medals, although China has more golds..."
-
what is it with people freaking out about non de plumes?
Some people seemed to make a big deal of it with certain members of the exclusive brethren church.
-
No. It was a discussion of advertising in English. The teacher was talking about how about sometimes invent words to advertise their products. He had a particular product in mind, but couldn't remember the neologism that went along with it.
"You know ... what are they called ... those funny things on white sticks?"
Chupa chups, apparently.