Oh. Saws all. I get it.

Hee. In the college theater group at one point, late at night, some of us were sitting in the "office", and our friend Mike wanders in from the shop, to ask Jenn "Can I cut this (whatever it was) with the sawzall?"

And she looks at him and says "Mike. It's a SAWZALL. It...saws...all!"

Speaking of which, I have chicken thighs and leeks I need to use up. I should do something with chicken and leeks tonight.

I have a recipe for boneless chicken breasts and leeks, I think from t mumble, cough Rachael Ray, where you sautee the leeks a bit, then add the chicken and cook covered with a cup or so of white wine. At the very end you take off the lid and turn up the heat to thicken the sauce, adding a tablespoon or so of butter. Couscous or egg noodles make a good side. It's simple but tasty, and I think it would work with thighs, either boned or boneless.

As for the Electoral College, I think the greater weight given to a small state voter's vote is a problem, but the fact your vote matters more in a swing state of any size bothers me more. This will sound kind of silly, but we occasionally talk about moving to Oklahoma (where DH is originally from) so AB will be closer to her family and so we can take advantage of the lower cost of living. One of the negatives on my list (along with it's too hot, it's too flat, it's too far from dramatic rocky coasts, and there's no MLB team) is that I'd never cast a meaningful presidential vote again as a Democrat in a heavily Republican state.

As for the Electoral College, I think the greater weight given to a small state voter's vote is a problem,

But small state voters' votes aren't given greater weight. If the system were something like, "OK, Kansas went 60% Republican and 40% Democrat, and Kansas has 4 electoral votes, so that's 2.4 Republican votes and 1.6 Democrat votes," then those voters would have greater weight. But it doesn't work that way.

I'm currently a regisitered voter in New Jersey. I'm living in DC, but keeping enough ties and spending enough time in NJ (I had jury duty there a few months ago) that I can keep my voter registration there. If I've got a choice, I'd much rather my vote go toward deciding New Jersey's 15 votes than toward deciding DC's 3.

My own favorite suggested system is that whichever candidate gets the most votes in the congressional district gets that vote, plus two for whichever candidate carried the State as a whole.

My own favorite suggested system is that whichever candidate gets the most votes in the congressional district gets that vote, plus two for whichever candidate carried the State as a whole.

Well, if you're going to change the system I don't know why you wouldn't go for whomever gets the most votes wins.

That's my vote.

I dislike plurality voting because it's far too easy for, say, an election to have a strong liberal, a liberal-leaning centrist, and a strong conservative, getting 25%, 35%, 40%, respectively, leading to the conservative candidate winning, even though the second choice of many of the people who voted for the strong liberal would probably choose the liberal-leaning centrist as a second choice.

hmm... well, not under the current two party system. we couldn't get into that mess until we had a viable third.

hmm... well, not under the current two party system. we couldn't get into that mess until we had a viable third.

Well, Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992. It's not unreasonable that someone else could get a similar percentage in the future. Or, even in a closer election, if it's split something like 48/49/3, then the second choice of those three percent could be taken into account.

Well, its never going to change... until a democrat loses the popular vote and takes the election.