I think the key bit in that stock market article is this:
investors grew more confident that a huge victory by Democrats in congressional elections would result in gridlock and keep lawmakers out of the way of business interests.
'Soul Purpose'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
I think the key bit in that stock market article is this:
investors grew more confident that a huge victory by Democrats in congressional elections would result in gridlock and keep lawmakers out of the way of business interests.
Oh hey. Did you want me to pick up the space shuttle tub toys?
I still think it's weird that Ed Rendell is governor of PA, and it's been years! I imagine for both guys it's because they are so city-identified, and the rest of the state is awfully different.
This is true. When Rendell was elected governor, there was talk from the pundits about whether he could get the rest of the state to vote for him, since the rest of PA is rather wary of Philly throwing its weight around.
Meanwhile, I declare the winner of the 2006 midterm elections to be the Republicans! No, wait, I mean one Republican, specifically Lincoln. Turns out you can indeed fool all of the people some of the time (especially if you wave the flag and shout war), and you can fool some of the people all of the time (so Rush will always have an audience, I guess), but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
I actually brought that up in class, and my prof was quite intrigued that a community would seriously discuss that type of voting system.
Huh. I'm not sure how I should take this.
vw, I'm reading your voting question as saying "If one and only one voter has veto power, how many votes are needed to pass a measure?" Is that correct? If so, then I'd assume the answer's 71.
I actually brought that up in class, and my prof was quite intrigued that a community would seriously discuss that type of voting system.
Huh. I'm not sure how I should take this.
I think I didn't say it very well before. I was being succinct. I was specific in that it was an online community. I think she was surprised that we thought it through that much. To which I had to explain that we're kind of a highly intelligent and thought-processing group. Which then brought up the question of what kind of online community we were. To which I responded, "Oh, Buffy." And then people laughed. And we moved on.
vw, I'm reading your voting question as saying "If one and only one voter has veto power, how many votes are needed to pass a measure?" Is that correct?
Yes.
If so, then I'd assume the answer's 71.
Ok. I think I get that. Can you give a little more explanation just to get me over the hump?
Oh, man. Must get my ass to NY one of these days.
you really should, miss brenda
I WANNA VISIT NEW YORK TOO!
EVERYONE SHOULD COME TO NY!
Ok. I think I get that. Can you give a little more explanation just to get me over the hump?
Sure. If 30-vote voter votes against, then the best the others can do is rack up 70 votes. But then if 29-vote voter votes against, the others can come up with 71 votes. If only one of them has a veto, then 71 votes must be ok to pass this thing, but 70 votes is not. Therefore, 71 votes must be needed for a measure to pass.
Can't people just come to LA? I can't travel these days.
Humour me.