The Science of 6% of Scientists...

[daveman]

I never use the term teabagger, but honestly I'd never heard it untill it became an unfortunate turd of choice for some lefties. I'm also don't think there is any kind of formula based on severity of profanity, or how many times an epithet is used by our politicians, that would make any one worse than another, in spite of my own previous point that Republicans say "Democrat party" more than Democratic pary.

I think Washington politicians should have more class. Let the Philipino, Korean, and Taiwanese parliaments break out in their brawls.

I honestly don't understand the reaction "Democrat Party" causes. It's not like the party has any real respect for democracy, after all.

If the above highlighted sentence is just hyperbole, and if calling the Democratic party the "Democrat party" was also just hyperbole, then I wouldn't have any reaction to it.

Many lefties during the Bush admin actually believed that W started the war in Iraq to sacrifice Americans for oil, Saddam's attempt on GHW's life, or simply out of bravado. A rational person assumes that W probably thought he was doing the right thing for America. So it's this whole demonization process that is neccessary for electioneering, but more often than not, likely untrue.

Bush wasn't out to murder Muslims because he hates them. Obama is not out to implement govenrment ownership of American businesses and abolish private property (communism/pure socialism).

See?......that's how advocacy media operates...they spew out combinations of hyperbole, opinions, and in/out of context quotes in order to create false and misleading impressions. Without ever prefacing this with "it is reported by" or "in my opinion"...people accept outright lies when they like the way it sounds.

Anyway...you don't really think that Democrats are against a system of government where an elected body votes, and the majority wins...do you?

Yes, a lot of them are. Look at their attitude towards criticism of Democrat politicians who have won office. It's like they think the pols now have a blank check, and everything they do has the blessing of the electorate, despite what polls may say. Plus, look at the attitude towards the voters themselves. Contemptuous.

because that's what Democracy is. It's actualy been Republicans who started bashing Democracy big time in 2000, when more Americans voted for Al Gore than George Bush. After that, every Republican who listens to conservative media became an expert on how we're a Republic, and not a Democracy, and how tyranny of the majority was bad.

Funny how about that same time the left started railing against the Electoral College, isn't it?

We are not a direct democracy. We are indeed a Republic.

 

[toxicmedia]

Yes, a lot of them are. Look at their attitude towards criticism of Democrat politicians who have won office. It's like they think the pols now have a blank check, and everything they do has the blessing of the electorate, despite what polls may say. Plus, look at the attitude towards the voters themselves. Contemptuous.

In 2008...Obama, and Democratic congressionals were not elected to pass legislation only if it polls well. Obama and the Dems didn't pass anything they didn't run on in 2008. They said they were going to pass healthcare. We don't even need elected officials if you think Washinton politicians should just do what a bunch of biased polls say they should. Why would anyone expect Washington pols to base their decisions on what Gallup, Republimussen, or PEW says?...Republicans never have either. If they did, GW would have pulled out of Iraq in 2005. It sounds to me like you're outraged over something both sides do regularly. If you formed this opinion based on what you've heard from conservative media...it's an example of the dangers of what conservative media is NOT telling conservatives....which is....that everything conservative media gripes about, has been done by Republicans when the shoe was on the other foot.

Funny how about that same time the left started railing against the Electoral College, isn't it?

We are not a direct democracy. We are indeed a Republic.

Of course we're a Democratic Republic. But that's not my point. The GOP never cared diddly about the subject until they needed something to assuage the injustice of the downside of a Democratic Republican system...which WAS that in order to protect the minority from a lack of clout, you need the electoral college.

btw...I'm for the abolition of the US senate and the electoral college, and was so back in the Reagan days. There is no reason, ANYMORE, that a US citizen's geographical location should give thier vote more weight than others. The 650,000 citizens of Wyoming have two votes in the US senate, and the 37 million Californians have two votes......how did that ever become right??? I can see how geography meant something in 1780, because they didn't want sparsly populated places like Ohio starting thier own country out of fears of Philadelphia, Boston, and New York dominating them. But in today's America...technology, and the changes that have happened since then negate the need for the EC, and the Senate.

 

[daveman]

Yes, a lot of them are. Look at their attitude towards criticism of Democrat politicians who have won office. It's like they think the pols now have a blank check, and everything they do has the blessing of the electorate, despite what polls may say. Plus, look at the attitude towards the voters themselves. Contemptuous.

In 2008...Obama, and Democratic congressionals were not elected to pass legislation only if it polls well. Obama and the Dems didn't pass anything they didn't run on in 2008. They said they were going to pass healthcare. We don't even need elected officials if you think Washinton politicians should just do what a bunch of biased polls say they should. Why would anyone expect Washington pols to base their decisions on what Gallup, Republimussen, or PEW says?...Republicans never have either. If they did, GW would have pulled out of Iraq in 2005. It sounds to me like you're outraged over something both sides do regularly. If you formed this opinion based on what you've heard from conservative media...it's an example of the dangers of what conservative media is NOT telling conservatives....which is....that everything conservative media gripes about, has been done by Republicans when the shoe was on the other foot.

Yes, Obama and the Dems ran on healthcare reform. However, during the runup to passing the monumental turd, polls showed that most Americans did NOT want what was being offered.

Obama and the Dem Party said "Fuck you, America. We'll do whatever the hell we want, you stupid proles. We know better than you."

Do you really think the American public's interests were being served?

People in the House of Representatives seem to forget the last word. They think they're leaders, not representatives.

Funny how about that same time the left started railing against the Electoral College, isn't it?

We are not a direct democracy. We are indeed a Republic.

Of course we're a Democratic Republic. But that's not my point. The GOP never cared diddly about the subject until they needed something to assuage the injustice of the downside of a Democratic Republican system...which WAS that in order to protect the minority from a lack of clout, you need the electoral college.

btw...I'm for the abolition of the US senate and the electoral college, and was so back in the Reagan days. There is no reason, ANYMORE, that a US citizen's geographical location should give thier vote more weight than others. The 650,000 citizens of Wyoming have two votes in the US senate, and the 37 million Californians have two votes......how did that ever become right??? I can see how geography meant something in 1780, because they didn't want sparsly populated places like Ohio starting thier own country out of fears of Philadelphia, Boston, and New York dominating them. But in today's America...technology, and the changes that have happened since then negate the need for the EC, and the Senate.

You might want to audit a basic civics course. Senators do not represent constituents, they represent the States.

And if you support abolition of the Electoral College, you do indeed support a US citizen's geographical location giving his vote more weight than others.

Very astute of the Founding Fathers to write that in, wasn't it?

 

[toxicmedia]

Yes, Obama and the Dems ran on healthcare reform. However, during the runup to passing the monumental turd, polls showed that most Americans did NOT want what was being offered.

Healthcare reform was demonized by Republicans successfully. 99.9% of the American people who were respondents in the polls you cite did not read the healthcare law, nor do they fathom it in the least. When individual parts of the law were explained, they usually polled well, like the age 26 rule for dependents for example.

Rush Limbaugh once said..."we elect politicians in Washington because we as citizens don't each have the time to examine the complexities of most legislation, nor are we privy to information needed to research these issues, thus the term "leadership"". He said this in defense of Reagan some many years ago, I forgot the context. But I'm sure he would never apply this to heathcare reform because he's against that.

Obama and the Dem Party said "Fuck you, America. We'll do whatever the hell we want, you stupid proles. We know better than you."

Once again...thus the term "leadership"...besides...they didn't say fuck you America...they said Fuck you Republican Tea Partiers. If the American people didn't want healthcare reform, or the useless version the GOP pushed the DNC into, they shouldn't have elected Obama.

Do you really think the American public's interests were being served?

American politicians don't serve the American public interest. They only serve the interests of big blocks of voters, people with money to contribute, or programs that have potential to be of use as collateral during elections.

You might want to audit a basic civics course. Senators do not represent constituents, they represent the States.

A piece of ground doesn't deserve a vote, only citizens deserve a vote. I am a college graduate as well. I've had poli sci courses, thanks very much.

And if you support abolition of the Electoral College, you do indeed support a US citizen's geographical location giving his vote more weight than others.

One vote...one citizen...that's not really complex, nor is it unfair.

Very astute of the Founding Fathers to write that in, wasn't it?

The founding fathers created a great place to start based on conditions in the 1770's-80's. We've changed many things they believed in, like slavery, and the ownership of women and children by a father. We can change anything that becomes obsolete if we want to. Invoking the founding fathers, and God, is something Republicans do way too much of these days.

 

[daveman]

Yes, Obama and the Dems ran on healthcare reform. However, during the runup to passing the monumental turd, polls showed that most Americans did NOT want what was being offered.

Healthcare reform was demonized by Republicans successfully. 99.9% of the American people who were respondents in the polls you cite did not read the healthcare law, nor do they fathom it in the least. When individual parts of the law were explained, they usually polled well, like the age 26 rule for dependents for example.

Rush Limbaugh once said..."we elect politicians in Washington because we as citizens don't each have the time to examine the complexities of most legislation, nor are we privy to information needed to research these issues, thus the term "leadership"". He said this in defense of Reagan some many years ago, I forgot the context. But I'm sure he would never apply this to heathcare reform because he's against that.

Healthcare reform demonized itself. Democrat helped, by saying stupid, elitist bullshit like "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." Plus, so many waivers are being granted to Democrat special interest groups in a process that's not at all visible. If the law is so great and so much an improvement, why are any waivers needed? Answer: It's a shitty law.

Obama and the Dem Party said "Fuck you, America. We'll do whatever the hell we want, you stupid proles. We know better than you."

Once again...thus the term "leadership"...besides...they didn't say fuck you America...they said Fuck you Republican Tea Partiers. If the American people didn't want healthcare reform, or the useless version the GOP pushed the DNC into, they shouldn't have elected Obama.

Yeah, he told us he won. That means we should just STFU and do what we're told.

You may want to be a subject. I'm a citizen, and those assholes in DC work for me, not the other way around.

American politicians don't serve the American public interest. They only serve the interests of big blocks of voters, people with money to contribute, or programs that have potential to be of use as collateral during elections.

So much for "change", huh? Why did you think Obama would be any different?

A piece of ground doesn't deserve a vote, only citizens deserve a vote. I am a college graduate as well. I've had poli sci courses, thanks very much.

So? Did they teach you the purpose of the Senate?

And if you support abolition of the Electoral College, you do indeed support a US citizen's geographical location giving his vote more weight than others.

One vote...one citizen...that's not really complex, nor is it unfair.

So our elected officials are decided only by the big cities.

Is that fair?

Very astute of the Founding Fathers to write that in, wasn't it?

The founding fathers created a great place to start based on conditions in the 1770's-80's. We've changed many things they believed in, like slavery, and the ownership of women and children by a father. We can change anything that becomes obsolete if we want to. Invoking the founding fathers, and God, is something Republicans do way too much of these days.

Leftists sure don't give a damn about the Constitution, do they?

 

[AdvaPointSolar]

"Only 6% of Scientists Identify as Republicans."

Unbelievable!

 

[LAfrique]

I think the "6% of Scientists Identify as Republicans" simply means that only 6% of scientists are war mongers: Republicans are noted for their love for war and readiness to engage in war over very minute issues.

Yeah. Sure. THAT's what "they" are "noted for" -- if all you read is the DU.



You idiots (like rdean) and your invariable reliance on cartoonish stereotypes are pretty amusing. You may be ridiculous and absurd, but at least you are always and forever unpersuasive.

I simply stated my keen observation.

 

[rdean]

The bottom line is there was a study done that shows only 6% of scientists are Republican. And it was done by a reputable organization.

The ONLY argument is "It just can't be true. It just CAN'T!"

Not a single person has put up more than anecdotal evidence, "I once worked someplace that had yada yada yada....".

 

[daveman]

The bottom line is there was a study done that shows only 6% of scientists are Republican. And it was done by a reputable organization.

The ONLY argument is "It just can't be true. It just CAN'T!"

Not a single person has put up more than anecdotal evidence, "I once worked someplace that had yada yada yada....".

Read the OP. Read it carefully. Turn off your stereotypes and your hatred and your bigotry.

Your claims are wrong. Simply wrong. And you look like an utter fool every time you repeat them.

But I have to wonder: Is that your intention? Do you simply enjoy being ridiculed?

 

[LAfrique]

The bottom line is there was a study done that shows only 6% of scientists are Republican. And it was done by a reputable organization.

The ONLY argument is "It just can't be true. It just CAN'T!"

Not a single person has put up more than anecdotal evidence, "I once worked someplace that had yada yada yada....".

Read the OP. Read it carefully. Turn off your stereotypes and your hatred and your bigotry.

Your claims are wrong. Simply wrong. And you look like an utter fool every time you repeat them.

But I have to wonder: Is that your intention? Do you simply enjoy being ridiculed?

I will be darn! Just imagine this! Robo-daveman insulting a human! Robo-daveman, do you not understand the laws of robotics?

A robot dare not harm a human! Got it? Now, you apologize and then head back to the assembly table!

 

[flacaltenn]

The bottom line is there was a study done that shows only 6% of scientists are Republican. And it was done by a reputable organization.

The ONLY argument is "It just can't be true. It just CAN'T!"

Not a single person has put up more than anecdotal evidence, "I once worked someplace that had yada yada yada....".

It was ONE study Rdean.. Science doesn't validate truths with ONE study.. You got any corroborative evidence I don't know about?

It was also a JOINT promotional study designed to give Science Magazine an article for their academically overweighted magazine.. It was NOT representative of the general population of "scientists".

Let me show you how this "science" thingy works.. You'll thank me for this extra effort later.. Here's how you debate "a fact".. And this is what coroborating evidence looks like in an argument..

The sampled population from AAAS showed only about 15% of the polled members of AAAS were primarily employed in private industry.. From a (hopefully) reputable source below we have a Table 2 that shows that about 46% of scientists are actually employed by private industry..

Older Doctoral Scientists and Engineers: Selected Labor Force Characteristics Labor Force Status and Employment...

That one observation in ITSELF is enough to confidently declare that the study sample was inappropriately selected.. Therefore the conclusions drawn from the survey answers may be extremely biased by insufficient representative of corporate scientists and an over-abundance of academic scientists...

Now YOU contribute something to the debate over this "factoid"... That's how it works..

 

[daveman]

The bottom line is there was a study done that shows only 6% of scientists are Republican. And it was done by a reputable organization.

The ONLY argument is "It just can't be true. It just CAN'T!"

Not a single person has put up more than anecdotal evidence, "I once worked someplace that had yada yada yada....".

Read the OP. Read it carefully. Turn off your stereotypes and your hatred and your bigotry.

Your claims are wrong. Simply wrong. And you look like an utter fool every time you repeat them.

But I have to wonder: Is that your intention? Do you simply enjoy being ridiculed?

I will be darn! Just imagine this! Robo-daveman insulting a human! Robo-daveman, do you not understand the laws of robotics?

A robot dare not harm a human! Got it? Now, you apologize and then head back to the assembly table!

I'm sorry -- I can't hear you over the sound of how irrelevant you are.

Run along.

 

[rdean]

The bottom line is there was a study done that shows only 6% of scientists are Republican. And it was done by a reputable organization.

The ONLY argument is "It just can't be true. It just CAN'T!"

Not a single person has put up more than anecdotal evidence, "I once worked someplace that had yada yada yada....".

It was ONE study Rdean.. Science doesn't validate truths with ONE study.. You got any corroborative evidence I don't know about?

It was also a JOINT promotional study designed to give Science Magazine an article for their academically overweighted magazine.. It was NOT representative of the general population of "scientists".

Let me show you how this "science" thingy works.. You'll thank me for this extra effort later.. Here's how you debate "a fact".. And this is what coroborating evidence looks like in an argument..

The sampled population from AAAS showed only about 15% of the polled members of AAAS were primarily employed in private industry.. From a (hopefully) reputable source below we have a Table 2 that shows that about 46% of scientists are actually employed by private industry..

Older Doctoral Scientists and Engineers: Selected Labor Force Characteristics Labor Force Status and Employment...

That one observation in ITSELF is enough to confidently declare that the study sample was inappropriately selected.. Therefore the conclusions drawn from the survey answers may be extremely biased by insufficient representative of corporate scientists and an over-abundance of academic scientists...

Now YOU contribute something to the debate over this "factoid"... That's how it works..

Actually, if you read their reasoning, they purposely left out any scientists working in Universities and colleges or those who teach academics in any way. The reason is those scientists tend to be Democrat or liberal. In fact, I once read it was about 10 or 12 to one, but it was a while ago. They were attempting to keep those scientists from skewing their results.

They actually targeted those in industry and government for this study. So if you include those in academics, the 6% number suddenly becomes much lower.

No one has explained to me why a political party that targets academics for spending cuts to give billionaires more tax breaks, a party that targets student grants, a party that magically created a "controversy" around evolution, would be producing vast numbers of scientists. Not only does it make no sense, it's in fact ridiculous.

 

[Patrick2]

You have a lot of chutzpah launching this thread after posting your dimwit misconceptions about spaceflight.

 

[toxicmedia]

Healthcare reform demonized itself.

No, it was actualy demonized by the Republicans and conservative media. Most people who oppose the bill, oppose it because of what they heard about it from Republicans, and or conservative media.

Democrat helped, by saying stupid, elitist bullshit like "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." Plus, so many waivers are being granted to Democrat special interest groups in a process that's not at all visible. If the law is so great and so much an improvement, why are any waivers needed? Answer: It's a shitty law.

What lead you to believe I support the law?...I don't. For about the last five years till April, my line of work was insurance fraud investigation. Pelosi saying something like "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it...away from the controversy" was not elitist...it was just a shoddy political gaffe, in ther words, stupid. That's why I don't like Nancy Pelosi. Did you think I would defend her? As for the waivers, the majority were given to four unions, the Teamsters, Carpenters, NY Nurses Union, and Food Service workers...since 1990, the Teamsters have been the 10th largest contributor to the DNC, the Carpenters have been the 11th largest, the Foodies are the 13th, and I couldn't find any contributions from the Nurses union, but I'm not saying there aren't any. The vast majority of unions that contribute to the DNC did not get waivers.

Yeah, he told us he won. That means we should just STFU and do what we're told. ou may want to be a subject. I'm a citizen, and those assholes in DC work for me, not the other way around.

The party that did not win the last election, has to do a measure of shutting the F up. They can oppose legislation the party that did get elected tries to implement...but it's only whining to throw out cry baby crap like "they shoved it down our throats", or "it's tyranny!", or "we've lost or freedomsandliberties". If you didn't vote for your house rep and senator, they don't work for you.

So much for "change", huh? Why did you think Obama would be any different?

I didn't...I knew then that when Obama said "yes we can", the Republicans were going to say "even if we could, we won't".

So? Did they teach you the purpose of the Senate?

The senate represents the interests of the states, which IMO no longer need representation at the federal level.

So our elected officials are decided only by the big cities.

Where a voter resides should not give unequal weight to thier vote compared to any other US citizen based on where they live. If you choose to live way out in the boonies...why should we care more about how you feel than a resident on NYC?

Is that fair?

Capitalism is not based on fairness, nor is governing, it NEVER was, not even in the US.

Leftists sure don't give a damn about the Constitution, do they?

This comment is very substandard to the level of critical reasoning you've displayed in other comments.

 

[flacaltenn]

The bottom line is there was a study done that shows only 6% of scientists are Republican. And it was done by a reputable organization.

The ONLY argument is "It just can't be true. It just CAN'T!"

Not a single person has put up more than anecdotal evidence, "I once worked someplace that had yada yada yada....".

It was ONE study Rdean.. Science doesn't validate truths with ONE study.. You got any corroborative evidence I don't know about?

It was also a JOINT promotional study designed to give Science Magazine an article for their academically overweighted magazine.. It was NOT representative of the general population of "scientists".

Let me show you how this "science" thingy works.. You'll thank me for this extra effort later.. Here's how you debate "a fact".. And this is what coroborating evidence looks like in an argument..

The sampled population from AAAS showed only about 15% of the polled members of AAAS were primarily employed in private industry.. From a (hopefully) reputable source below we have a Table 2 that shows that about 46% of scientists are actually employed by private industry..

Older Doctoral Scientists and Engineers: Selected Labor Force Characteristics Labor Force Status and Employment...

That one observation in ITSELF is enough to confidently declare that the study sample was inappropriately selected.. Therefore the conclusions drawn from the survey answers may be extremely biased by insufficient representative of corporate scientists and an over-abundance of academic scientists...

Now YOU contribute something to the debate over this "factoid"... That's how it works..

Actually, if you read their reasoning, they purposely left out any scientists working in Universities and colleges or those who teach academics in any way. The reason is those scientists tend to be Democrat or liberal. In fact, I once read it was about 10 or 12 to one, but it was a while ago. They were attempting to keep those scientists from skewing their results.

They actually targeted those in industry and government for this study. So if you include those in academics, the 6% number suddenly becomes much lower.

No one has explained to me why a political party that targets academics for spending cuts to give billionaires more tax breaks, a party that targets student grants, a party that magically created a "controversy" around evolution, would be producing vast numbers of scientists. Not only does it make no sense, it's in fact ridiculous.

No Rdean -- now your reading comprehension is now in question because you misunderstood the methodology section.. I thought that ALSO when I first read the details.. The survey excluded only K-12 teachers. The factoid in question came from the survey of AAAS members and the demographics CLEARLY state what I posted above in terms of BAD SAMPLE SELECTION.

Try again to read it and understand it.. It's an essential part of USING this factoid in high confidence that it is worth a damn...

Actually, if you read their reasoning, they purposely left out any scientists working in Universities and colleges or those who teach academics in any way. The reason is those scientists tend to be Democrat or liberal.

Well GREAT --- that's a big breakthru here.. So you'd admit that a survey that over-represented academics would be biased and flawed. I see you're NOT as hopeless as everyone is telling me... In fact -- I'll poke your reputation for that astute recognition..

 

[flacaltenn]

Just to show how committed I am to finding the truth here -- let me help you out RDean..

I think the phrase in the methodology that tripped you up is...

A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.

That does NOT mean that grad students, professors, or researchers at the College level were excluded. And INDEED, they are OVER-represented in the sample -- while Industry participants are SEVERELY UNDER-represented...

And it would be absolutely fair to exclude K-12 teachers since although they are one of the LARGEST segments of subscriptions to Science Mag (and mostly brilliant) -- we generally would not classify them as "practicing scientists".. I would have also excluded the subscriptions by doctors and dentists who just want magazines for their waiting rooms, but HEY -- let's not nit-pick...

 

[flacaltenn]

You have a lot of chutzpah launching this thread after posting your dimwit misconceptions about spaceflight.

You must have me confused with somebody who HASN'T worked at the Headquarters building at Kennedy Space Center.... Go back and tell me what was sooo funny...

 

[daveman]

Healthcare reform demonized itself.

No, it was actualy demonized by the Republicans and conservative media. Most people who oppose the bill, oppose it because of what they heard about it from Republicans, and or conservative media.

...who merely said what was in it.

Democrat helped, by saying stupid, elitist bullshit like "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." Plus, so many waivers are being granted to Democrat special interest groups in a process that's not at all visible. If the law is so great and so much an improvement, why are any waivers needed? Answer: It's a shitty law.

What lead you to believe I support the law?...I don't. For about the last five years till April, my line of work was insurance fraud investigation.

Then you know what a piece of crap the law is.

Pelosi saying something like "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it...away from the controversy" was not elitist...it was just a shoddy political gaffe, in ther words, stupid.

No, it was elitist. "We know what's best for you, so shut up. Don't you dare question us."

That's why I don't like Nancy Pelosi. Did you think I would defend her? As for the waivers, the majority were given to four unions, the Teamsters, Carpenters, NY Nurses Union, and Food Service workers...since 1990, the Teamsters have been the 10th largest contributor to the DNC, the Carpenters have been the 11th largest, the Foodies are the 13th, and I couldn't find any contributions from the Nurses union, but I'm not saying there aren't any. The vast majority of unions that contribute to the DNC did not get waivers.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services has arbitrarily given waivers to 1,471 businesses and eight entire states from harmful provisions of ObamaCare. Despite union workers only making up 11.9% of the workforce, 50.26% of waiver beneficiaries are unionized!​

There's something fishy going on.

The party that did not win the last election, has to do a measure of shutting the F up. They can oppose legislation the party that did get elected tries to implement...but it's only whining to throw out cry baby crap like "they shoved it down our throats", or "it's tyranny!", or "we've lost or freedomsandliberties". If you didn't vote for your house rep and senator, they don't work for you.

Yes, they do. They don't swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution only for their voters.

I didn't...I knew then that when Obama said "yes we can", the Republicans were going to say "even if we could, we won't".

So...they should abandon their principles because Obama stamps his feet and pouts?

The senate represents the interests of the states, which IMO no longer need representation at the federal level.

Why not?

Where a voter resides should not give unequal weight to thier vote compared to any other US citizen based on where they live. If you choose to live way out in the boonies...why should we care more about how you feel than a resident on NYC?

And if you do away with the EC, candidates won't campaign anywhere BUT the big cities. Each candidate will pander only to them -- the big cities will define their platforms, and everyone else is left out in the cold.

Further, imagine the endless lawsuits and recounts demanded in close elections. The new President would never be seated.

Is that fair?

Capitalism is not based on fairness, nor is governing, it NEVER was, not even in the US.

But stacking the deck is no basis for governing, either.

Leftists sure don't give a damn about the Constitution, do they?

This comment is very substandard to the level of critical reasoning you've displayed in other comments.

But it's true.

 

[daveman]

Just to show how committed I am to finding the truth here -- let me help you out RDean..

I think the phrase in the methodology that tripped you up is...

A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.

That does NOT mean that grad students, professors, or researchers at the College level were excluded. And INDEED, they are OVER-represented in the sample -- while Industry participants are SEVERELY UNDER-represented...

And it would be absolutely fair to exclude K-12 teachers since although they are one of the LARGEST segments of subscriptions to Science Mag (and mostly brilliant) -- we generally would not classify them as "practicing scientists".. I would have also excluded the subscriptions by doctors and dentists who just want magazines for their waiting rooms, but HEY -- let's not nit-pick...

So, in summary -- scientists in academia are overwhelmingly liberal.

Just as conservatives have been saying. And proved by rderp's own favorite poll.