carpandean

Actually, the Elector College (not to mention the makeup of Congress) is a compromise between the two systems. At the founding, some advocated for each state having an equal vote and some advocated for a straight (democratic) vote. The EC ensures that smaller/less population dense states still have some representation as states, while giving more voting power to states with larger populations. If you want to get rid of the EC, why not also change Congress to straight proportional representation? Why not get rid of state elected governors and switch to federal appointees? Replace State police with a federal police force? It's funny how both sides (and I include myself) are hypocritical about states' power depending on which side of the issue it puts them on. Ironically, Californians are actually calling for their state to become its own Sovereign nation because they feel that states, individually, have more power than they like. Why aren't they pushing to eliminate states, all together, instead?

To be fair, Trump said that he would deport all illegals, which would include the white European ones ... all three or four of them. ;)

Yeah, emphasis on "should be". I don't think either side ever really thinks that way. Interesting hypothetical: what if each county in NY were given a fixed number of electoral votes, plus an additional amount based on population, and then counties would determine how their electoral votes are cast (all-or-nothing, like the EC.) What would state elections (Governor, in particular) look like? Might be the same end result, but it would definitely be closer.

I actually agree with (or, would at least consider, in the second case) both of these. No matter who won the election, it was close. The closer the results, the more the elected should be willing to compromise. I like the logic of the second one, at least. Would have to think about the practical ramifications.

Think? Yes. Know? No. It might have strengthened her lead ... or weakened it ... or washed. Point is, nobody knows. It's much like forecasting before the election. Based on some facts, but still doesn't mean it has to be right.

And if the election had been run as a popular one, rather than one under the EC, the votes cast would have been the same. You're right, if's are all fantasy. :P

I keep hearing here and elsewhere about "the popular vote" and who won it. There is no "popular vote" in the US. Didn't happen; doesn't exist. In order for there to be one, the electoral college would have to be eliminated and then voters would have to vote under those rules. Otherwise, it's like saying that the Bruins won the "goal differential" vote last year over the Flyers, so they deserved to be in the playoffs. Teams would have managed games differently if the rules had been that playoff ranking would be based on goal differential than they did knowing it was based on points, so you can't simply say that the GD would have been the same. Likewise, voting (both turnout and actual candidate selected) is affected by the rules under which we vote. For example, let's say that a New Yorker generally leans towards Libertarian (even if he doesn't particularly like Johnson), doesn't really like either Trump or Clinton, but definitely prefers Trump over Clinton. Under the EC rules, he might think, "Clinton has my state in the bag, so I'm going to make a symbolic vote for Johnson, showing my rejection of the two main party candidates." That same voter under the popular vote rules might think, "as much as I hate the thought of voting for Trump, I'd be wasting my vote on Johnson, and I can at least help keep Clinton from winning, so I'll vote for him (Trump)." Now, I will readily admit that the effect works both ways and I can't tell you whether it would strengthen or weaker her support. My point is simply that just because they counted the number of votes cast doesn't mean they had a popular vote. Nobody knows what that result would have been.

Current or former? I have no problem with a professor dating a former student, but I have a huge problem with dating a current one.

Such a Buffalo start. Three "generational" talents come into the league in two years: Edmonton's gets 2 goals and an assist. The Oilers get two points. Toronto's gets 4 goals. The Maple Leafs get a point. Buffalo's gets hurt. The Sabres get nothing. Is it the Buffalo Curse or Tank Karma? Both?

Well, at least we don't have that slacker McDavid ... 2 goals and an assist ... slacker.

Let's give America a Nuge in the Right direction!

There are videos of stupidity on both sides. It's not hard to find 10 idiots in any crowd. There was one where they asked Obama supporters about his support for (insert something he opposes) and they tried to justify it.

Getzlaf scored one of them. Literally banked it in off the back of his own goaltender. So, technically, there were two on the board, but we did not score two.

White or pink, they're all brown on the ... wait, no, that's not right ...

Nylander played. #70. Watch the first shift in the full game that Eleven posted; can't miss him.

When she voted for the Secure Fence Act?

Interesting. Though, practically speaking, having been in Nursery School at the time, college freshman really only know the event as purely historical, too. Of course, I know the release of the original Star Wars as an event in my lifetime (I was 2), so maybe it is different. * Note: as important as the release of Star Wars was to my life, I am in no way equating its impact to 9/11.

Do you remember those dark meat McNuggets? Yum!

Or, perhaps, since it's someone like Ellen, enough people pushing back at the complainers will help us become a little less of a reactionary society. Anyone who sees this as racist is looking for a fight to pick. I'm sure she would have Photoshopped herself onto Phelps if it made sense to swim to stores.

I've watched The Force Awakens a few times recently (background while working out) and it's grown on me a bit. However, I watched A New Hope today and I definitely still prefer the original trilogy (well, at least IV and V.) Think I'll watch Empire next. I am definitely looking forward to both Rogue One and Episode VIII.

Honestly, I think the guy just makes a lot of (often off the cuff) one-liner jokes that (right or wrong, given the position) are taken (too) seriously. That helped him in the primaries with the people that you're referring to, but it's part of what's killing him in the general. I remember him saying something right after Cruz stepped down about someone telling him that he needed to be more presidential. He replied (and I'm going off of memory here) that he'll be presidential when he's elected president, but that he'll continue to do what he did in the primaries when going up against Clinton. That's looking like a bad choice.

What's his status after that two years, though? Isn't he a UFA? If so, they can't ship him off. They can sign him to new contract (up to 8 years), trade his rights (which expire when free agency opens up) or let him walk. Either way, he gets to choose where he goes (or stays, if Chicago wants him.)

Man, I don't particularly like Trump or long to see him as President, but seeing Hillary with a lead (much less one that big) over anyone this close to election literally makes me :sick:

There is only one. Anything else was just bad YouTube fan fiction.* * That's what I keep telling myself about Star Wars trilogies, too.

Well, it is a nice version of a "sharpen your swords" based logo. I'm not a big fan of that look on the Sabres' page, but it is what they are using. I guess that I'd liken it to having a nice black and red logo in 2005.