did you all see David Simon's post about the election?

[link]

That's tough, Cash. My Republican family members (and there are a shit-ton of them) have been remarkably quiet throughout the election season. They seem to know to be somewhat ashamed. Doesn't make it okay, but it's something I guess.

Timelies all!

Luckily I haven't had to deal with people melting down over the election results. either in person or on line.

Huntsman might actually work. He's got the Ambassador to China background.

Yep, that's the mostly kidding part. (Plus, he's been appointed by Obama before.) Bush's Iraqi adventure had many costs, but I think one with potentially far-reaching effects is that it took America's foreign policy attention off China at a vital time. This relationship won't get any easier with China's recent (rather ham-fisted) assertiveness and the growing nationalist sentiment within the country. Someone who's familiar with China would be a plus. (He's also fairly well-regarded by the Chinese people.)

One thing that may help is China's leadership transition. Reading through the resumes of the most likely candidates for the Standing Committee, it seems to me that there's some small shift towards trade over security in foreign outlook (with some notable exceptions, like Zhang Dejiang and Liu Yunshan). I hope so, anyway. Just completing the transition should in theory ease the pressure to look tough.

Yeah, I think Huntsman wouldn't be a bad choice at all.

I see Berman's been mentioned as a possible. Thoughts on that?

I have a question, that's probably ridiculously basic--I'm trying to understand what the electoral college is meant to achieve. I've seen, for instance, it explained that it prevents big states like Texas or California from getting their way--but if everyone lives in Texas or California and only two people live in Rhode Island or wherever, why shouldn't Texas and California decide? The fact that they live in the same state is less important than the fact that it's the popular vote, surely?

Then again, I've read that I'm misunderstanding the position--Obama didn't get elected the President of the United People of America--he's the Prez of the States and that's why the college is needed to distribute the power across them, regardless of where the people are.

Is that that important about the US?

For David Simon, that's giddy optimism. Scary, huh? Maybe that's why I have a crush on him...maybe I always wondered what it was like to be the cheery one.

I've always wondered why China can be so short sighted as to fish to depletion other nations seas. Where do they think the fish they eat is going to come from if they catch them all? Or are Chinese fish magical and will infinitely produce?

I'm trying to understand what the electoral college is meant to achieve.

It bumps up the relative importance of the sparsely-populated states, because it is that important about the US. On the straight popular vote, the cities would win, pretty much, and historically, the US doesn't want that. I think it does a pretty good job of splitting the difference between all states equal and all people equal, really.

ita I'm not entirely sure I have this right, but I think that the Electoral was kind of a compromise.

There were some people who wanted a direct vote and then others who wanted the President chosen by Congress or by the States.

I'm pretty sure there were other reasons but I think that is one reason for the Electoral College. There may have been concerns that one politician might be more manipulative and a direct vote would make it easier for said person to go for a power grab and take the Presidency.