Electoral College Question

[aspartame]

Does the electoral college have to vote the same as the state majority's vote?

For example, the majority of voters in Georgia voted for Kerry, does the state's electoral college rep. HAVE to vote for Kerry? My history professor said no, they can vote any way they choose. Does anyone know why we still use the electoral college?

[Ace42X]

Aspartame is such a l33t nick. One of my aquaintances at university did their thesis on the decomposition of Aspartame into Formaldehydes.

And no, the electoral college voters can choose to vote against the state, but this hardly ever happens these days, and there is recourse to law that could result in their voting being over-ruled (I checked it out during the previous elections.)

[aspartame]

Aspartame is such a l33t nick.
Why?

[Ace42X]

Why?

It kills! Name one other common food additive that is lethal!

[aspartame]

It kills! Name one other common food additive that is lethal!

Really? I thought doctors said that was a myth and it was untrue. Of course, that was several years ago....

[aspartame]

It kills! Name one other common food additive that is lethal!

Please explain the connection? Sweet-N-Low and an internet-based language?
"aspartame: a very sweet substance used as an artificial sweetener, chiefly in low-calorie products."
"l33t1 speak' is a unique language because it cannot truly be spoken out loud nor can it successfully be handwritten; it is an Internet-based language reliant on the keyboard. It is, however, simple to learn and has much room for creativity."

[Ace42X]

Please explain the connection? Sweet-N-Low and an internet-based language?

Heh, "l33t" is "l33tsp3ak" foe "elite".

Thus, "that is a l33t nick" means "That is an elite nickname."

Also, aspartame decomposes to formaldehydes, which has resulted in several diabetics dying from formadlehyde poisoning due to all their nutra-sweet products having aspartame in them.

Furthermore, the manufacturing process is highly hazardous, and has resulted in the very unpleasant demise of several factory workers. Two of which entered a controlled area without rebreathers, one of them died almost instantly, the other died within a week or so after protracted respiratory failure.

Which is why me and my housemates boycott any products with aspartame in them. I assumed you used the nick knowing all of this, much as "Plutonium" and "Uranium" and "Cordite" are l33t nicks precisely because they are "dangerous" - not necessarily in a Michael Jackson sense.

[D_Raay]

Heh, "l33t" is "l33tsp3ak" foe "elite".

Thus, "that is a l33t nick" means "That is an elite nickname."

Also, aspartame decomposes to formaldehydes, which has resulted in several diabetics dying from formadlehyde poisoning due to all their nutra-sweet products having aspartame in them.

Furthermore, the manufacturing process is highly hazardous, and has resulted in the very unpleasant demise of several factory workers. Two of which entered a controlled area without rebreathers, one of them died almost instantly, the other died within a week or so after protracted respiratory failure.

Which is why me and my housemates boycott any products with aspartame in them. I assumed you used the nick knowing all of this, much as "Plutonium" and "Uranium" and "Cordite" are l33t nicks precisely because they are "dangerous" - not necessarily in a Michael Jackson sense.

I believe they linked aspartame and his addiction (whether phsychological or not) to diet Pepsi, to Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease.

[Ace42X]

I believe they linked aspartame and his addiction (whether phsychological or not) to diet Pepsi, to Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease.

That is fascinating.

In a vaguely unrelated but apparently true factlet - John "The Duke" Wayne's cancer has been linked to his film-shoot of "Atilla" at Whitesands, where the US were previously testing nukes. A disproportionate number of the people who were on that shoot died prematurely of cancer too.

[EN[i]GMA]

Does the electoral college have to vote the same as the state majority's vote?

No.

As a matter of fact, the electoral votes of a state have been split before.

I believe it was New Jersey during the election of Lincoln.

[EN[i]GMA]

It kills! Name one other common food additive that is lethal!

I'd thought this proved to be false...

[EN[i]GMA]

I'm certain that your friend is far more adept at science than I, but: http://www.snopes.com/toxins/aspartame.asp

[Ace42X]

GMA']I'm certain that your friend is far more adept at science than I, but: http://www.snopes.com/toxins/aspartame.asp

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

However, that aspartame decomposes to formadehydes is indisputable. Whether it is responsible for a whole barrage of health defects is debatable, but given the value of the artificial sweetners industry, it is not surprising that any criticism of the industry is met with consternation from scientists who have little to gain by disturbing the status quo, and who can receive large sums from companies wishing to protect their interests.

I neither asserted, nor believe that aspartame is "responsible for an epidemic of cancer, brain tumors, and multiple sclerosis" - but the idea of consuming a compound that readily forms formaldehydes in even small doses is quite against my better judgement, hence the boycott.

The wikipedia entry is quite interesting, although of course subject to "hoax" factor.

[Funkaloyd]

I believe that a few states have laws requiring that Electoral College representatives vote the same way as their state's majority.

Why US maintains the EC I don't know. If I were to guess, I'd say that it comes down primarily to resistance to change and lack of demand. Legislators are unwilling to change or remove such a fundamental component of the system, not least because their constituents don't care enough to make it an election issue.

[sam i am]

I believe that a few states have laws requiring that Electoral College representatives vote the same way as their state's majority.

Why US maintains the EC I don't know. If I were to guess, I'd say that it comes down primarily to resistance to change and lack of demand. Legislators are unwilling to change or remove such a fundamental component of the system, not least because their constituents don't care enough to make it an election issue.

Actually, the EC is there to protect the individual states' rights from being completely overwhelmed by rampant federalism.

Proportional representation forces candidates to campaign in small states, not just in the large ones with lots of EC votes. Kerry tried to get away with this and lost because Bush middled him in Ohio and Florida.

Plus, it stops all the nonsense like they have going on in Germany right now with 30-40% of the voters deciding who is the next Chancellor, at least until some silly "no confidence" vote comes along and fucks up the whole system.

[sam i am]

The wikipedia entry is quite interesting, although of course subject to "hoax" factor.

Thank you, ace.

FINALLY, something we agree on.

Is that one of the signs of the Apocalypse? :eek: :D

[Funkaloyd]

Actually, the EC is there to protect the individual states' rights from being completely overwhelmed by rampant federalism.

But it has clearly failed. The US is closer to being a unitary state than a federation, and the Tenth Amendment's pretty much irrelevant. As is the Electoral Collage.

[sam i am]

But it has clearly failed. The US is closer to being a unitary state than a federation, and the Tenth Amendment's pretty much irrelevant. As is the Electoral Collage.

I'd respectfully disagree with you, especially if Roe v. Wade gets overturned.

Too much federalism is a problem, but conservatives'll keep fighting to change it back to more of a Tenth Amendment friendly country as we go in our reign of power. (y)

[catatonic]

An elector from Ohio voted for John Edwards and George Bush last time. I wonder if Cheney was hurt by it.

[EN[i]GMA]

I'd respectfully disagree with you, especially if Roe v. Wade gets overturned.

Too much federalism is a problem, but conservatives'll keep fighting to change it back to more of a Tenth Amendment friendly country as we go in our reign of power. (y)

No you won't.

Read this: http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

A true conservative would have all those numbers in the negatives.

[sam i am]

GMA']No you won't.

Read this: http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

A true conservative would have all those numbers in the negatives.


I never said Bush was the apogee or apex of conservative spending. Unfortunately, the President has little ability to control most of the budget.

The really scary thought for us conservatives is the Republicans in Congress unwillingness to curtail spending. The excuse has been the boogeyman of the Federal Government shutdown when Gingrich was Speaker back in 199(5)? (not 100% sure of the year, but I think that's it).

The Republicans got blasted by the media and the Demos when that happened and they've not truly stood up for spending cuts since then.

What's the solution? Well, a President who's willing and able to SELL the idea that cuts are necessary to bring the budget into balance/profit.

The big problem is : where? Entitlements eat up much of the spending, especially Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Cut defense spending in the middle of a war? Probably not.

That leaves discretionary....like the Space program and EPA and Education...etc. Who's going to stand up and cut those programs? Not anyone in either of the two big parties.....

So....we muddle along with the way things are, and try to INCREMENTALLY make the changes....preferably by addressing the big ones like Social Security and Medicare first, then eliminating federal departments and cutting federal expenditures (like pension plans, etc.).

No matter what, it's going to be a tough road to hoe....

[EN[i]GMA]

I never said Bush was the apogee or apex of conservative spending. Unfortunately, the President has little ability to control most of the budget.

He has a veto power.

He hasn't used it once.


The really scary thought for us conservatives is the Republicans in Congress unwillingness to curtail spending. The excuse has been the boogeyman of the Federal Government shutdown when Gingrich was Speaker back in 199(5)? (not 100% sure of the year, but I think that's it).

Yep.


The Republicans got blasted by the media and the Demos when that happened and they've not truly stood up for spending cuts since then.

What's the solution? Well, a President who's willing and able to SELL the idea that cuts are necessary to bring the budget into balance/profit.

The big problem is : where? Entitlements eat up much of the spending, especially Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Cut defense spending in the middle of a war? Probably not.

That leaves discretionary....like the Space program and EPA and Education...etc. Who's going to stand up and cut those programs? Not anyone in either of the two big parties.....

So....we muddle along with the way things are, and try to INCREMENTALLY make the changes....preferably by addressing the big ones like Social Security and Medicare first, then eliminating federal departments and cutting federal expenditures (like pension plans, etc.).

Cut them all. That simplifies the prospect.

Or, to be a little more reasonable: Keep education and make it better, phase out health care and make it better, and reduce the size of the rest of those.

Privatize what can be privatized, drop the space program, what's the EPA doing that costs so much money, make health spending more efficient.

We pay for a socialist system here in America, we just don't get it.

I don't support socialist health care as a rule, but shit, with 60% of health care costs being government funded, you may as well do it.

The current system is as bad as it can be.


No matter what, it's going to be a tough road to hoe....

Most roads are tough to hoe, them being asphalt and all.

Rows are much easier.

[Ace42X]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,1667734,00.html

Aspartame is still on the agenda. IN YOUR FACE, SNOPES!

[sam i am]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,1667734,00.html

Aspartame is still on the agenda. IN YOUR FACE, SNOPES!


So one guy says so and you make it out to be true?

The studies still prove it to be safe.