House of Eratosthenes

Seems pretty reasonable at first, but most of the cunning plan has to do with abbreviating discourse. It is an overwhelming and complete lack of respect for the dissenting opinion, made ascendant by recent generations of college kids educated beyond their hat size, using the word “most” when & where it doesn’t apply, and when they don’t have the facts to back it up; using hackneyed phrases like “the vast majority” the way an alcoholic uses liquor.

Only the bit about doing away with “battleground states” has anything to do with shedding more light and honesty on the electoral process. And even there, I think if the idea is implemented, we’d end up disappointed with the results. Let’s see, Hollywood doesn’t use an Electoral College to figure out where action movies should take place, does it, and what sort of distribution do we get there? New York, LA, New York, LA, New York, New York, New York, LA, LA, New York, Chicago, LA, LA, LA, New York, LA, New York, New York, LA. The campaign events, I think, would look something like that.

People with good arguments to make, don’t look for ways to truncate the argument process. That’s what tyrants and dictators do.

This is what I was talking about yesterday on another thread. It’s the lies that get me. The constant, obvious, fershtunkener lies.

I’d actually have a small measure of respect for someone who said “I want to do away with ___ because it impairs my ability to run your life more efficiently.” It’s just barely possible that such a person really does have my best interest at heart; therefore it’s just barely possible that such a person might listen to reason when I show him all the ways he’s got “my best interest” wrong.

These people are lying to themselves — they say they’re doing it for my benefit, but it’s really just a power grab. And then they lie to us about it. How good an idea can it possibly be if it requires two snowjobs from the very start?
- Severian | 04/30/2014 @ 07:08
If it does change and a Republican wins because of it, watch how fast a movement starts to burn this new compact.

Rule #! in the Democrat handbook;
“If you lose, change the rules and try again.”
- bammit | 04/30/2014 @ 09:50
With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of Americans live in rural areas. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
- anthony | 04/30/2014 @ 11:56
Be that as it may….

There’s a proper way to amend the Constitution. It’s right there in the Constitution itself. No, really — you don’t even need to get Justice Kennedy or the Wise Latina to find a penumbra or an emanation. It’s, like, spelled out and everything.

Why do proggies have such problems with this? Is it that weird S that looks like an F?
- Severian | 04/30/2014 @ 15:14
The U.S. Constitution says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation’s first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.
- anthony | 04/30/2014 @ 17:27
Uh huh. Funny how every time the left feels it’s going to be in electoral trouble, along come our proggie constitutional scholars with a lecture.

I swear, Morgan, you get the most tedious trolls on the planet.
- Severian | 04/30/2014 @ 17:52
They seem to be under the impression that this is some kind of mega-powerhouse “mover and shaker” type of blog, where big things happen, or are kept from happening.

So I guess I’m drawing the static away from the other blogs that people actually do read. Whatever I can do to help.
- mkfreeberg | 04/30/2014 @ 17:59
mkfreeberg: They seem to be under the impression that this is some kind of mega-powerhouse “mover and shaker” type of blog, where big things happen, or are kept from happening.

No, but if you post your views in public, it would be expected you would be willing to discuss those views.
- Zachriel | 05/02/2014 @ 18:51
No, but if you post your views in public, it would be expected you would be willing to discuss those views.

Of course. Wherever they are called into question.

Reasonable question.
- mkfreeberg | 05/02/2014 @ 20:09
mkfreeberg: Reasonable question.

Sure. Anthony introduced many reasonable points, arguing that it would actually mean wider participation, not narrower.
- Zachriel | 05/03/2014 @ 07:21
Sure. Anthony introduced many reasonable points, arguing that it would actually mean wider participation, not narrower.

And, he’s entitled to his opinion.

As a Californian, I’d take that bet. We have the popular vote here, just like most states. Our experience suggests that Anthony is wrong. But, he can go on repeating and rationalizing as often as he likes. Sayin’ so don’t make it so.
- mkfreeberg | 05/03/2014 @ 12:48
mkfreeberg: Sayin’ so don’t make it so.

Anthony provided a reasonable argument. You said your “experience suggests that Anthony is wrong”, but didn’t say what experience. Sayin’ no don’t make it no.
- Zachriel | 05/03/2014 @ 13:21
You said your “experience suggests that Anthony is wrong”, but didn’t say what experience.

Not true. Learn to discuss.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 00:09
mkfreeberg: Our experience suggests that Anthony is wrong.

What experience is that?
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 09:02
The experience of living in California. We do have statewide office holders, who have to run for those offices, from time to time. And we use the popular vote, like most other states.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 10:28
mkfreeberg: And we use the popular vote, like most other states.

And what was your specific experience. You might want to provide a particular.
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 12:06
And what was your specific experience. You might want to provide a particular.

No, I think we would want to start with Anthony’s claim, which is actually several imaginings of how things in general, particularly the campaigning, would/could/should go once the presidential election is decided by popular vote.

Suffice to say, in California I haven’t seen these results. Perhaps y’all would like to specify which ones are inevitable and/or undeniable, which absolutely must have been taking place without my noticing.

Perhaps start with “Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.” Was I supposed to have seen Govs. Davis, Schwarzenegger and Brown zipping around all sorts of different parts of California in an effort to reach remote groups and classes of voters, from San Diego to Hilt, everywhere in between?

But I suppose it doesn’t matter at all:

M: If they’re [positions] factual, they stand on their own merits.

Z: No.

I’m not sure I can explain it to a collective of nameless Internet busybodies, who do not acknowledge the authority of fact. How can we discuss experiences, if half of the discussion fails to value the importance of experiences?
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 13:47
mkfreeberg: No, I think we would want to start with Anthony’s claim, which is actually several imaginings of how things in general, particularly the campaigning, would/could/should go once the presidential election is decided by popular vote.

Anthony presented an argument.

mkfreeberg: Was I supposed to have seen Govs. Davis, Schwarzenegger and Brown zipping around all sorts of different parts of California in an effort to reach remote groups and classes of voters, from San Diego to Hilt, everywhere in between?

Okay. At least you’re trying.

That would be the 2003 gubernatorial election.

mkfreeberg: I’m not sure I can explain it to a collective of nameless Internet busybodies, who do not acknowledge the </iauthority of fact.

A claim of a fact is not the same as the fact itself. Like all claims, a claim about fact needs to be supported.

mkfreeberg: How can we discuss experiences, if half of the discussion fails to value the importance of experiences?

We valued it enough to ask about it. So, what part of the state do you feel candidates never visited in the 2003 campaign?
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 18:02
Anthony presented California as an example. The issue is whether he should’ve. The example doesn’t help his argument.

The results in California are pretty much exactly what conservatives say the results would be for the nation, with a popular vote. Liberals have a lock on both halves of our state legislature. The legislature’s approval ratings, historically, are very low although the turnover for that legislature is also very low. Our senior senator is a liberal dingbat. Our junior senator is also a liberal dingbat. The economy in this state sucks. Everything that could possibly be illegal, is, except for being an illegal alien. Everything that could be expensive, is, except for doing things that inconvenience or annoy productive, hard working people who actually have some business being here. The cost of running a business is sky-high. The cost of hiring someone is sky-high. The cost of simply registering a car is sky-high. Sales taxes are high. Income taxes are high.

It’s just not how we want the country to work. But that’s the example Anthony chose for why we should do away with the electoral college. In the end, it doesn’t work.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 18:11
mkfreeberg: The results in California are pretty much exactly what conservatives say the results would be for the nation, with a popular vote.

Your original point was that some areas would be neglected by politicians. Anthony argued that most areas are already being ignored, and that population election would be more inclusive. You brought up California’s gubernatorial election of 2003, and we asked what areas you felt were neglected during the campaign.

Instead of answering, you simply changed to a different argument, which is apparently that liberals will win.
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 19:22
Instead of answering, you simply changed to a different argument, which is apparently that liberals will win.

Actually, that was Anthony’s point, that liberals would not (necessarily). The facts don’t bear this out. Experience does not bear this out.

Are y’all saying that California is a good illustration of where the country would be, under this plan?
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 19:34
mkfreeberg: Actually, that was Anthony’s point, that liberals would not (necessarily).

You pointed to the 2003 gubernatorial election in California, which replaced a Democratic governor with a Republican governor.

Anthony’s point was that a popular election would increase participation, not lessen it. Currently, most states are out of play. With a popular election, a vote is a vote, no matter where it is. We disagree in part, but we can’t get to that point when you won’t even attempt to address his argument.

You pointed to your experience with the 2003 gubernatorial election in California. So, what part of the state do you feel candidates neglected in the 2003 campaign?
- Zachriel | 05/05/2014 @ 05:19
You pointed to the 2003 gubernatorial election in California, which replaced a Democratic governor with a Republican governor.

Anthony presented California as an example. My point doesn’t have anything to do with the 2003 election, it has to do with the fact that statewide office holders are not pressured to visit every little pocket of the state as Anthony implies is (or would be, if the presidential election worked the same way) the case.

Any conservative or moderate in California, and even some liberals, will be able to tell you the state is a poor example of what he’s trying to describe, assuming this situation exists anywhere at all. We have thousands upon thousands of square miles of conservatives, mostly farmers, who do not feel California’s political machinery reflects them in any way. Liberals have a lock on everything, our unions and our big cities make sure that remains the case. He would have done better to choose a different example.

Do y’all agree that the example is not a good one? Or are you ready for my judgment of whether Anthony’s argument is persuasive, based on my evaluation of how California seems to be working — from my informed experience of living in it.
- mkfreeberg | 05/05/2014 @ 05:27
mkfreeberg: My point doesn’t have anything to do with the 2003 election, it has to do with the fact that statewide office holders are not pressured to visit every little pocket of the state as Anthony implies is (or would be, if the presidential election worked the same way) the case.

You brought up the 2003 election as your personal experience. And we asked what areas of the state do you think were neglected during that campaign.

mkfreeberg: We have thousands upon thousands of square miles of conservatives, mostly farmers, who do not feel California’s political machinery reflects them in any way.

That might be a better argument than candidates never “visit every little pocket of the state”. There is no perfect political division of power, and federalism helps minority populations keep invested in the system. (Of course, conservatives usually rail against racial minorities being provided similar representation. Odd that.) Federalism also means that some minorities will have inordinate power, especially in the system like the U.S. where a minority can bottle up legislation in the Congress.
- Zachriel | 05/05/2014 @ 06:08
You brought up the 2003 election as your personal experience. And we asked what areas of the state do you think were neglected during that campaign.

The relevant question would be: Is California the model, or a model, of electoral egalitarianism. Do people all over the state control the outcome of elections, equally. And perhaps more important, are they confident that they do.

Let’s go to what I actually said:

Perhaps start with “Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.” Was I supposed to have seen Govs. Davis, Schwarzenegger and Brown zipping around all sorts of different parts of California in an effort to reach remote groups and classes of voters, from San Diego to Hilt, everywhere in between?

Anthony’s example, of California, doesn’t serve his argument. But, it isn’t just California. There are states all throughout the country with relatively tiny pockets of dense, left-leaning populations, clustered in the cities; and vast swaths of less densely populated land, leaning further right politically since that’s where real work has to be done — frustrated and feeling disengaged from the electoral processes. The more densely populated areas determine the outcome of the elections; and the statewide office holders are not — this is key to the whole argument — pressured in any way to venture out of the largest urban areas. To the contrary, the trend we see is that the candidates are pressured to spend more time campaigning and less time traveling, which translates to campaigning where the population is most dense. It’s simple economics.
- mkfreeberg | 05/07/2014 @ 05:50
mkfreeberg: Do people all over the state control the outcome of elections, equally. And perhaps more important, are they confident that they do.

Or, at least more so than if the state held county-wide winner-take-all elections.

mkfreeberg: Was I supposed to have seen Govs. Davis, Schwarzenegger and Brown zipping around all sorts of different parts of California in an effort to reach remote groups and classes of voters, from San Diego to Hilt, everywhere in between?

Yes, you brought up the 2003 California gubernatorial election, suggesting that candidates did not disperse their campaigning throughout the state. So we asked what areas of the state you thought were neglected during the campaign. You have yet to answer.

mkfreeberg: the trend we see is that the candidates are pressured to spend more time campaigning and less time traveling, which translates to campaigning where the population is most dense. It’s simple economics.

Bravo! You’re actually making an argument.

If Republican votes are in rural areas, wouldn’t Republicans have to leave the cities to campaign?
- Zachriel | 05/07/2014 @ 11:58
Yes, you brought up the 2003 California gubernatorial election, suggesting that candidates did not disperse their campaigning throughout the state. So we asked what areas of the state you thought were neglected during the campaign. You have yet to answer.

Lacking one, what are y’all to conclude?

This is where the rest of us see how to make bigger mistakes, faster, with greater confidence. I’m taking notes for the book I’m going to have published. I’d split the proceeds with y’all — they’re your ideas, after all — if only I knew who y’all were.

Since I don’t know that and have no way if finding out, it’s my intellectual property by default.
- mkfreeberg | 05/07/2014 @ 18:33
mkfreeberg: Lacking one, what are y’all to conclude?

Lacking an answer? We might conclude you can’t answer, or that you are afraid the answer will undercut your position, or that you have no intention of engaging in an actual discussion and you’re just trolling. However, we are more than happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and will ask again.

You brought up the 2003 California gubernatorial election, suggesting that candidates did not disperse their campaigning throughout the state. What areas of the state you thought were neglected during the campaign?

mkfreeberg: Since I don’t know that and have no way if finding out, it’s my intellectual property by default.

Add copyright law to the list of things you don’t know.
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 04:56
Lacking an answer? We might conclude you can’t answer, or that you are afraid the answer will undercut your position, or that you have no intention of engaging in an actual discussion and you’re just trolling. However, we are more than happy to give you the benefit of the doubt…

That would necessitate comprehending the concept of doubt. Anyway, “What areas of the state were neglected” is not a question that would resolve much of anything at all. The question that would directly address the issue at hand, would be: “Is California the model of this nationwide equal voter representation we are being promised with this plan to obliterate the Electoral College?” I have yet to see a definitive yes on that or a definitive no. All I see is that Anthony chose California as an example of the point he was trying to make…and it seems he should not have.

Add copyright law to the list of things you don’t know.

Add “law about the thing versus the thing itself” to the list of things y’all can’t distinguish. I’m aware of the law; I profess ignorance of the copyright. Is there one? Who’s name is on it?
- mkfreeberg | 05/08/2014 @ 16:16
mkfreeberg: That would necessitate comprehending the concept of doubt.

We are fully aware of the concept. That’s why we try to always give the benefit of the doubt.

mkfreeberg: Anyway, “What areas of the state were neglected” is not a question that would resolve much of anything at all.

Then we take it you withdraw your previous comment.

mkfreeberg: “Is California the model of this nationwide equal voter representation we are being promised with this plan to obliterate the Electoral College?”

Anthony’s claim concerned the distribution of campaigning, which is concentrated on swing states. As you consistently refuse to answer any questions, not sure why anyone should entertain yours.

mkfreeberg: I profess ignorance of the copyright. Is there one? Who’s name is on it?

Under copyright law, the copyright on comments belong to the commenter. You have fair use, though. No, you don’t own The Adventures of Tom Sawyer because the author used a pen name. If you want to discuss copyright usage, you may have your representative send a message to angel at zachriel.com
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 17:28
We are fully aware of the concept. That’s why we try to always give the benefit of the doubt.

Y’all shouldn’t go around giving benefits of things y’all don’t understand.

Then we take it you withdraw your previous comment.

Is that then the model of good, disciplined inferential thinking that is likely to mesh with reality? Usually when people withdraw previous comments, they say so.

Anthony’s claim concerned the distribution of campaigning, which is concentrated on swing states. As you consistently refuse to answer any questions, not sure why anyone should entertain yours.

Nobody needs to entertain anybody’s questions. But Anthony has failed to persuade me that the plan advanced would produce results that would be in harmony with the stated goal, and I’m not the only one. That’s how it works in a constitutional republic — to make your spiffy cool plan into reality, you have to convince people. That, or you can always go hardcore lib and just convince five guys in black robes, and thumb your nose at everybody else…

Under copyright law, the copyright on comments belong to the commenter. You have fair use, though. No, you don’t own The Adventures of Tom Sawyer because the author used a pen name. If you want to discuss copyright usage, you may have your representative send a message to angel at zachriel.com.

Sorry to have left y’all with the impression I was interested in quoting comments. My interest is more in the fabric of the flawed thinking…which, in copyright law, would be more analogous to F# than The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. It wouldn’t even be necessary to use the name Zachriel, which I assume is outside the periphery of the copyright claim anyway.
- mkfreeberg | 05/09/2014 @ 04:56
mkfreeberg: Y’all shouldn’t go around giving benefits of things y’all don’t understand.

So you’re saying we shouldn’t give you the benefit of the doubt, and just assume you’re trolling?

mkfreeberg: Usually when people withdraw previous comments, they say so.

Or they just restate their position. You went from asking about whether the 2003 California gubernatorial candidates visited different parts of the state to saying it wouldn’t resolve much of anything.

mkfreeberg: Was I supposed to have seen Govs. Davis, Schwarzenegger and Brown zipping around all sorts of different parts of California in an effort to reach remote groups and classes of voters, from San Diego to Hilt, everywhere in between?

mkfreeberg: Anyway, “What areas of the state were neglected” is not a question that would resolve much of anything at all.

As you abandoned that line of inquiry, we withdraw our question as to what areas of the state you think were neglected.

mkfreeberg: But Anthony has failed to persuade me that the plan advanced would produce results that would be in harmony with the stated goal, and I’m not the only one.

Sure, you’ve made that clear. What you haven’t done is presented a persuasive argument.
- Zachriel | 05/09/2014 @ 07:07
Sure, you’ve made that clear. What you haven’t done is presented a persuasive argument.

That’s okay, though. In this discussion, I’m the one who’s supposed to be convinced. Anthony is the one trying to convince.

Are y’all trying to help him out? If that’s the case, when do y’all get started on that?
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 05:13
mkfreeberg: In this discussion, I’m the one who’s supposed to be convinced.

Perhaps that was his intention. Our own scribblings are directed at readers of the blog. We may remark, for instance, when someone claims to have presented an argument, but is engaging a strawman instead.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 05:29
I notice whenever y’all are cornered and losing, y’all start to make reference to “readers of the blog.” I shall have to add a chapter about this to The Zachriel Weltanschauung: An Instruction and Reference Manual for Making Mistakes and Poor Decisions More Quickly and With Greater Confidence.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 05:33
mkfreeberg</b: I notice whenever y’all are cornered and losing, y’all start to make reference to “readers of the blog.”

Not at all. You mentioned motivations, so we answered in kind. We understand you reject anthony’s position. What you haven’t done is presented a persuasive argument. Try rereading it.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 05:51
We understand you reject anthony’s position. What you haven’t done is presented a persuasive argument.

Okay, I re-read it and I’m still the person Anthony is trying to convince, Anthony is the one trying to do the convincing. Same result.

Maybe y’all missed out on when I mentioned that I actually live in California, which means in determining why I wasn’t convinced, y’all are essentially hacking away at the leafy part of the weed. There’s a root to it that is being neglected. People living in California, for all of our other faults — do know something about California. It’s a trend that holds up over time.

It’s comical that y’all are trying to take the position of “you haven’t presented a persuasive argument” when the subject is what California elections are like, and I’m in California. I’ll have to add a chapter on “choosing your own experts, and the other guy’s too” to The Zachriel Weltanschauung: An Instruction and Reference Manual for Making Mistakes and Poor Decisions More Quickly and With Greater Confidence.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 06:48
mkfreeberg: I’m still the person Anthony is trying to convince

Don’t see where he said that. It reads as an argument for public consumption.

mkfreeberg: Maybe y’all missed out on when I mentioned that I actually live in California

No, we understood that you were appealing to your personal experience. That’s why you asked “Was I supposed to have seen Govs. Davis, Schwarzenegger and Brown zipping around all sorts of different parts of California in an effort to reach remote groups and classes of voters, from San Diego to Hilt, everywhere in between?”

mkfreeberg: It’s comical that y’all are trying to take the position of “you haven’t presented a persuasive argument” when the subject is what California elections are like, and I’m in California.

And that’s why we asked what parts of the state of California you thought were ignored by the candidates in the 2003 gubernatorial campaign.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 12:40
Don’t see where he said that. It reads as an argument for public consumption.

And, I’m part of the public.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 12:57

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Doing Away With the Electoral CollegeWednesday, April 30th, 2014

Doing Away With the Electoral College
Wednesday, April 30th, 2014