Comments Posted By Christopher
Displaying 1 To 4 Of 4 Comments


I was under the impression that there was another event, around the same time period, that drew many times more people. They were of all socio-economic and racial backgrounds.

They came they saw and they left with out making a mess and with out getting stoned. They brought there parents and children. They brought there own food. This is the real legacy of the sixty's.

Everybody knows it but its significance in terms of a group event has been ignored. Except by at least one famous author (authoress?).

I'll give a hint. It was in Florida.

Comment Posted By Christopher On 16.08.2009 @ 09:00


Bray all you want -- Japanese car makers are mopping the floor with Detroit because they responded to the market's desire for more fuel efficient vehicles. If that's not an example of forward thinking having a direct economic impact (not for us, unfortunately) I don't know what is.

Comment Posted By Christopher On 1.02.2008 @ 12:26



There is a repeated claim that rural/small state voters will be left out of a direct vote election. The only argument I've seen so far that supports this is the fact that these voters will be more expensive to reach, compared to urban voters, because they are more spread out.

Is there more to it than that? I don't see this as a question of whether we have more urban voters or rural/small state voters, because Bush was able to win a majority of the popular vote without urban support.

Please just give more detail of the "rural voter left out" argument.

Comment Posted By Christopher On 29.08.2006 @ 12:21

Some comments in defense of direct vote-

Small states have disproportionate voting power in the electoral college.
Example- WY has one vote in the electoral college for every 170K, compared to Texas' 670K.

States that happen to be split roughly evenly between Democrats and Republicans garner much more attention in elections in the electoral college.
Candidates are forced to consider issues that are important to states like FL, OH, and NH, not because those issues are of national importance, but because those states influence elections.

Lastly, the claim that elections would become urban-focused needs to be examined.
Bush in 2004 was able to win a majority of the popular vote without winning in urban areas. If one candidate was to focus on urban areas and ignore rural/suburban/small states, the opposing candidate could focus on the ignored demographics, and as Bush proved in 04, there are enough votes outside urban areas to win the popular vote.

Comment Posted By Christopher On 29.08.2006 @ 11:12

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page