No one knows what goes on inside the Solitary's circle except the Solitary...well, almost no one, anyway.

That's the risk-versus-reward system in action. Consider the possible outcomes of your actions, good and bad, and decide whether the possibility of the desired outcome is worth the risk of the problems, as well as the likelihood of each. If your current place in life is such that the potential problems outweigh the potential rewards, then you just need to change the situation, change your mind, or wait.

Sometimes the hardest part is measuring the risk-versus-reward ratio. But when it comes to your life and what you do with it, only your own measurements count.

I am from the second-biggest benificiary of the Electoral College (DC, second to Wyoming), and my vote would be to have direct voting.

other than that, how do you like him?

I suspect that if I knew him personally, I'd detest his nicknaming habit.

Other than that, I would probably still dislike him anyway because he's a hypocrite who used drugs but thinks others should be locked up for doing the same thing, he was a frat boy, he doesn't have a backbone of his own, he's never earned anything...he's had everything handed to him on a silver platter including the office he currently holds, he's irresponsible, he's got no lips, he's from a elitist family with corrupt connections in politics, oil, and pharmaceutical companies, and he's from Texas.

radar,
that question was meant to be rhetorical and mildly amusing, but your repsonse was so funny, that i was again caught laughing out loud at my computer by a couple of salesmen, and had to explain what "the cellar" is again.

here's what made me laugh:

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Sure one person can make a difference. You just have to have lots of money!!! ;)

I'm more of a skeptic when it comes to gubment. Call me a consipracy freak if you want, but when you read about groups like the Carlyle Group , it's hard to imagine one common person making a difference in politics.

They could care less about me or my beliefs, just keep sending in the tax payments and they'll be happy.

Now that we have the 'Patriot' Act, I'd even be fearful of trying to go against the grain.

Blah blah blah blah...

Happy, DC actually shares the distinction of having the fewest electoral votes along with Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

2nd biggest beneficiary...nice spin. :)

Using the county as a breakdown of where major population centers are you get some interesting pictures.

http://exit3.i-55.com/~suit/pop/co_01_02.gif
http://exit3.i-55.com/~suit/pop/co_01_04.gif

All of the darker areas are where people would campain. I mean Nevada only had a statewide density of 7 people per square mile. Do you really think a presidential hopeful is going to go there?

This image shows how bad the disparity could become.

http://exit3.i-55.com/~suit/pop/counties.jpg

Without some (artificial?) form of motivation, thinly populated states would never see a candidate. They would lose their ability to sway candidates or push issues to protect their interests.

And of those seven states, only Wyoming has a lower population than DC, so only people in Wyoming have votes that count more than mine.

But in reality, TS, how much sway do those less-populated states really have? Living next to one of those states (Delaware), I can tell you that it has little to no sway. How often do you see the candidates stumping in places like North Dakota or Alaska? The election in 2000 came down to one of the more populous states, and I suspect this election will as well (Ohio, Missouri).

Happy, touché. Do you work in marketing or advertising? :)

It's a work in progress. Cut me some slack... :)

I didn't say it wasn't already a problem and the issue is bigger than just the presidential elections. Without a way to swing a block of votes, or to counter-balance federal decision making on a larger scale, I believe that individual rights could suffer as well.