Humanities desk
< January 4	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 5

Average number of friends

How many friends ordinary people normally have?217.168.4.140 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

33, according to a MSN Messenger study mentioned here. But 54, according to a newer MSN study mentioned here.Dunbar's number and The Tipping Point are mentioned too and might interest you as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how many are REAL friends, (those who would leap to help you if you were in trouble), or just acquaintances?--88.110.7.255 (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first big problem with your question is, what the heck is an ordinary person? A farmer in China or India? A teen in a western country? A retired person in Japan? Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary person = ordinary wikipedia user. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is a problem but for me the biggest problem is defining what is a 'friend'. Am I someones friend if I only ever see them 'through' someone else (i.e. I have 'friends' that are friends of friends, we get along but without the intermediary friend i'm 99% sure we'd lose touch)? How about if I speak to them daily at work, socialise with drinks after work but wouldn't likely continue seeing them if one of us left that place of work? Is that a friend or a work acquaintance, and where does the line get drawn? How about friends through a hobby? I have friends I play football (soccer) with, we have social events, we have regular matches but if they left the team I expect we would love touch. I don't know where friend ends and colleague/person I know begins. I know I have 'close' friends, these are the guys I see week in week out, that i have known for years, that come over to mine, that I go to theres, that I discuss my life with, that we can go 3 months without meeting up but would instantly be 'normal' as soon as we met again. So if you ask me how many friends i have? Somewhere in the region of 10 and maybe as much as 200 (yah i'm popular...ha ha know i think 200 is probably too much), depending on your definition of friend. ny156uk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian there is a word for "friend", of which you are only supposed to have a couple at most over the course of your life, and everyone else, even if they are friendly, is just an "acquaintance." --24.147.86.187 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the average Facebook profile the number of “friends” people have is more like 333. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is said that most people can count thier true friends made throughout thier lives on one hand. I agree with this as although I have many acquaintences, and numerous friends, those that would leap to my aid if I was in distress, I would say there are 3 steve, carl and rowan. and I only see them every few years. but the bond remains.

WWII alternate history

Hello and sorry to bother you again! Are there any WWII alternate history novels written from a Slavic perspective (don't have to be known or translated), as in what would happen if Germany had won etc. ? Cptukbo (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably several, but the one that comes to mind is Fatherland (novel). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if you look at the See Also section in the article, it's pretty much filled with other "Germany won the War" stories. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip K Dick's The Man in the High Castle is a great one that falls into this category. 86.137.88.172 (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCain/Giuliani

Why didn't these candidates run in Iowa? 136.206.1.17 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they knew they wouldn't do well with Iowa's conservatives (the evangelical base never liked McCain and Rudy is a twice-divorced, pro-choice catholic adulterer). Now they can pretend that they did poorly in the Caucus there just because they didn't campaign, and hope for a comeback in New Hampshire. Jacques l'Aumône (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have limited amounts of money, and about 30 States to campaign in, you have to make strategic decisions on where you can get the most votes for your buck. Rudy has developed an unusual (and risky) strategy where he is focusing his money entirely on States where his message will be better appreciated (Florida, New York, California), but these are later in the campaign. If one Republican can get a head of steam early in the race, it may be too late for him to catch up. He is gambling that the early states will be close, or that they are divided out among the other candidates, so that there is no front runner by the time he gets in the game.

McCain is slightly different, his big chance comes in New Hampshire next week. So he was focusing his efforts there, where Romney is his biggest threat. He was hoping that Huckabee could beat Romney in Iowa, which would then hamper Romney's chances in New Hampshire, giving McCain the edge there. A big bonus for McCain was the fact that he pulled in around 13% in Iowa, despite not campaigning too much there, which gives him a real boost going into New Hampshire. Rockpocket 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious-use of cannabis by Buddhists

In order to settle a dispute I have with User:Pundit over Cannabis Culture magazine as a source for the article on Chocolate Thai, I request that anyone take a look at this forum thread and tell me whether you think their claims are accurate or not. Zenwhat (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank Zenwhat for giving me the link to his post here. I have to, however, kindly disagree with the definition of reference desk problem as he gave here. In our discussion I referred to published (and sometimes scholarly) resources such as this or this or this or this or this to prove that the idea that historically in some cases Buddhists were using cannabis isn't controversial. It is the validity of these sources that has to be decided - I don't think that claims from any Internet forum even qualify for being discussed. Pundit|utter 16:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In traditional Buddhism, the taking of intoxicants is prohibited by The Five Precepts, but some so-called Buddhists will just say and do whatever they want, as with the followers of any other "religion".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note, however, that Cannabis Culture magazine does not acknowledge the precept against intoxicants and also claims that Soma did, in fact, contain cannabis or other psychadelics, not the mainstream historical claim that Soma may have contained cannabis or other psychadelics. Zenwhat (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you go out of your way to link Soma (disambiguation) and make us take another step to find the relevant article? —Tamfang (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zenwhat, this is a bit silly and is not really what the reference desk is meant to be used for. Work our your dispute with the other editor or go to one of the many places for mediation. Sources are not judged as reliable or not based on a cherry picking of various sentences and seeing if they are accurate or not. It is clear that you are not really looking for the sake of really figuring out whether it is a good source; you are searching for evidence to support an argument of yours to buffer an AfD which you sponsored. Take a breather and think over whether this is really worth getting worked up about. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Process of suing Wikipedia for copyright infringement

A lot of confusing discussion goes back and forth over whether certain borderline images should be deleted. I wonder if it would be more efficient, in such cases as these, to just leave it and delete upon the unlikely receipt of cease and desist letter? Is that really a risky tactic? --Seans Potato Business 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that risky (the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act is pretty good about making sure people get due notice before getting sued) but it's not in the spirit of things, especially not for Commons. If something is on Commons it should be unambiguously free content—not because anyway is that worried about Commons getting sued, but because Commons is meant to be a free repository for others, and anything on there should be fair game for re-use. Going with a "its free until we hear otherwise" approach would not be good for the overall goal of Commons and would encourage a lot of copyright ignorance. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, just because the likelihood of a successful suit is small, wouldn't make it an ethical course to take. Bielle (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, modern copyright law owes less to ethics as does a certain money-making mouse and his compadres. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If something had no market value, there would be no need for its copyright. As soon as someone or something other than the originator wants to use it or a copy of it, it has value. The amount of value is not the ethical issue though it may be behind, and in front of, the legal one. Artists of every medium ought to be grateful to Mickey and Walt, if what you say is true. Bielle (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Patents and copyrights are meant to expire: they are meant to be contracts for limited monopolies, with the full knowledge that they only contribute to innovation when the intellectual property in question can later revert back to the public domain (and with full knowledge that all innovators and artists draw upon the public domain in their own works). Disney and other major media producers have used their influence with politicians to extend their monopolies almost indefinitely. Think of it this way: if they had not extended the copyright terms over and over and over again, much of the music of the 1960s would be today in the public domain, free for re-use, for transformation. Instead, such property becomes simply another commodity, long after the artist in question has died and gone on.

Copyright has become a powerful tool for media suppression, not innovation, in the modern world. It is the ugly downside of intellectual property law that it can often be more effectively used to silence potential competitors or innovators than it can be a motivation for further innovation. You might take a look at Lawrence Lessig's wonderful Free Culture (free online) if you'd like to have a somewhat more nuanced understanding of the history of copyright law and the thinking that goes behind it; it doesn't sound like something you've read too much about, and it's a very serious issue in our current age. It's a great book, very well written, easy to understand, and a great primer for thinking about IP in general. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way I think about Mickey and his buddies is this: one company (Disney) and one company alone has invested time, money and effort at developing and popularizing the character. What possible reason could there be for picking a date after which anyone could use the character? So that Joe Blow Industries can make their own Mickey lunchboxes? Under what convoluted reasoning is that fair? Patents need to have an expiry date so that innovations can spread and wealth can be distributed among other folks that are interested in developing the idea. Copyrighted movies and pictures (and trademarked characters) aren't going to be developed; they're not an innovation that can be built on. If Mickey became public domain, we wouldn't see new animation houses cranking out exciting new cartoons; artists prefer to create their own thing. All we'd get was a glut of cheap merchandise - even cheaper than we have now since the folks churning it out would have no investment to protect. Matt Deres (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still couldn't use the character willy-nilly—trademark law has no such expirations for this purpose. As for Mickey, don't overestimate how original he is. Steamboat Willie was a deliberately derivative work from the start (based on Steamboat Bill, Jr. by Buster Keaton, and both were based around a song that was—wait for it—free to use because it was in the public domain!!), and that's all that would have entered into the public domain. That's right—the Mouse, himself, his big debut, the big thing they've been working so hard to make sure others can't possibly feature it in their own films without paying a hefty fee, to make sure others can't view it online without proper licensing, is itself based on another work. To think what would have happened if they had the pants sued off them from the beginning! What would Disney, the company, have been without being able to amply develop from works in the public domain? Cinderella, Snow White, Pinnochio, Hercules, Aladdin? Disney's "classic" repertoire is nothing more than adaptations of public domain texts, and yet they are somehow supposed to be exempt from ever becoming "common culture"? Why should that be—simply because there is more money involved today than there was in the late-19th century? Do you know that legally you are supposed to pay a royalty every time you sing the song Happy Birthday to You? Don't you think at some point such things should pass into being part of common culture, the public domain?

Please, please read up on copyright law, theory, and history before making an off-the-cuff defense of some of the worst copyright abusers in history. It's an important issue. Knock-offs are really not the worst possible thing.

As for what would happen if more media was public domain, I think we're already seeing the beginnings of the possible innovations that can come out of people being able to draw upon multiple sources for media; but more importantly, we're also seeing exactly how much big corporations will go to suppress the innovation of others in the name of copyright protection. If you don't believe people will use existing things to innovate, surely you can believe that people have had their own work clamped down upon because it featured derivative elements. Artists' rights are important, but not so much that they trump the rights of others. And in all of the copyright-expiration cases, the artists themselves have been long, long since dead and gone. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To give you an example of a famous work that today would be considered a copyright violation, consider the US national anthem: The Star-Spangled Banner. It's an unauthorized derivative work of the song To Anacreon in Heaven, and if it had been composed under modern copyright law, Francis Scott Key could have been sued into oblivion by John Stafford Smith. --Carnildo (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Election tresholds

In my newspaper (De Volkskrant, Dutch, 5 Jan. 2008 p. 5, left wing), I just read a rather bizarre article about the Iowa caucuses where the supporters of Biden and Richardson had to "run" to one of the larger three candidates' because they did not meet the election threshold of fifteen percent. I have a question concerning this threshold, and hope others more knowledgeable in American politics can answer it.

Why have an election threshold at this level? Election thresholds generally make sense, for example the 5% in the German Bundestag, but as far as I know the threshold is applied after all votes are counted and added together. Doesn't this threshold dramatically increase the negative effect of thresholds, such as the spoiler effect and the vicious circle minor parties find themselves in? User:Krator (t c) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an idiosyncrasy of the Democratic caucus rules (the Republican's do not have a threshold). Why set this level? Who knows, there is enormous complexity in the rules for each state and the exact reasons for many are lost in the mists political history. The point of the early Iowa caucuses is to create buzz. To draw attention by creating a story around the winners and losers. Its not much of a story if the delegates are spread thinly across a number of candidates, and there are no real winners and losers. So by setting a a high threshold you can ensure that the delegates "wasted" on the minor runners gets distributed among the major candidates, thereby artificially inflating the popularity of the winners and artificially deflating the popularity in the losers.

The thing to remember about the early primaries and caucuses (and its odd concept for non-Americans) is that the actual number of delegates being elected are tiny and not really influential when it comes to electing the candidate. It is all about perception of popularity, in the hope and expectation that the rest of the country likes to back a winner. This is particularly noticeable when you consider that, in terms of delegate count, Clinton is currently way ahead of the field (due to the number of superdelegates she has), [1] but the perception of coming third in a caucus is much more influential than the fact that Obama got an extra delegate or two as a result of his victory. Thats the story. Rockpocket 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a threshhold at the local precinct caucus level... AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A party caucus is also quite different from a general election conducted under a system of proportional representation. In a general election, you mark your ballot, then go home. You don't get a second chance. The Iowa Democratic caucus is not a secret ballot, so participants who see their candidate is below the 15% threshold can move to another candidate. It's more like a multi-round runoff election. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During the Iowa Democratic caucus, you literally stand in a corner representing your candidate. If yours doesn't get fifteen percent of all people in the room, you listen to speeches from representitves for the other candidates and move to a new corner of your new choice. Rmhermen (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate anomaly

Further to the question above, I was looking into the CNN coverage on the Iowa caucus here and am wondering if anyone can explain what appears to me to be an anomaly. The page lists:

Candidate	State Delegates	Pledged Delegates
Obama	940	16
Edwards	744	14
Clinton	739	15

The third column doesn't total include superdelegates. So my question is, why does Clinton have more pledged delegates (which should be proportionally allotted from the number of state delegates) than Edwards? Is it simply a mistake, or is it something to do with the pledged at-large delegates, some of which haven't officially pledged their allegiance yet? Rockpocket 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely speculation, but it could have something to do with the fact that delegates are chosen by district, and Edwards may have had more people vote for him as a whole, but Clinton won more districts by small margins. Corvus cornix_talk 22:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that at first, but if that was the case then Clinton would have more State delegates too, since they are appointed not by the percentage of the popular vote, but by the result within each district. Rockpocket 04:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Statesian caucuses/primaries etc.

Is there any legal reason for American political parties having such (to an outsider) bizarre and complicated methods of choosing their candidates? Why not have one member-one vote? DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a historical consequence of the individual States' desire for a form of representation in the federal system. It used to be that Congressmen from each party would just nominate one candidate, but in the 1830s the system changed to one of a convention. This system is loosely based on the United States Electoral College, which is used to electing presidents.

The reason this system is used, is because one member, one vote, would mean that hugely populated states would have had undue influence over the unpopulated states. Yet if its left entirely in the hands of the State political bodies, there is a lack of transparency and potential for abuse. So they devised a mixture of the two. They have caucuses or primaries (one member, one vote) for delegates to a state convention, where the state parties can elect their delegate to send to the national convention, where they elect their candidate. In general, the elected delegates follow the wishes of those that vote and they make up the majority of the convention, but there are lots of other types of delegate that makes up a minority (unpledged add-on delegates, "superdelegates", party leaders and elected officials). Its all part of the "checks and balances" that are found throughout US the political system, to ensures all stakeholders (both the people and the States) have influence over the federal system. Rockpocket 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Am I right in thinking that American political parties don't have a membership system like we do in Britain (i.e. here one applies for membership of a party, pays a subscription, and in return one has some sort of input into policy-making, selection of candidates etc., but must agree not to do anything to support another party)? DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in thinking they do not have membership in the same with Britain does. Instead, you have a system whereby when you register to vote (the US equivalent of getting put on the British electoral roll) you can, but are not required to, declare an affiliation. This means most registered voters are either "registered Democrats", "registered Republicans" or "registered independents". In Presidential primaries you are only permitted to choose a candidate in one party. Some States hold a closed primary, where you can only vote if you are registered with that party. Others hold a open primary, where you can still only vote in one, but can choose any one in the voting booth, irrespective of whom you are registered with. This gives the odd situation where a registered Democrat can try to influence which Republican will get the nomination, a form of tactical voting. There are minor variations in some States, for example, California has a "modified closed primary", which allows each party to choose its own system for each election. Only a tiny fraction of those registered with a party actually get involved with the grass-roots party in the way paid up members of British parties do, and these are often end up being the delegates that represent the voters at the State, then National conventions. Rockpocket 00:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, fascinating stuff. I do think it a trifle odd that one register one's political affiliation with the state. DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Rockpocket hinted on, the U.S. is (at this time) a republic of independent states. A one-person-one-vote democratic system is acceptable in a democracy, but not a republic. In a perfect republic, all in-state issues are handled by the state without any outside influence. All inter-state issues are handled by the federal government. The people should rarely find federal matters affecting their day-to-day lives because the federal government would only be concerned with relations between states, not people. Of course, the U.S. is not perfect and many people do not want it to be a republic. They want a democracy where people in one state can have a voice in the issues of another state. So, you will find what appears to be weird conflicting political practices throughout the U.S. while it continues through a state of transition to (hopefully) find a balance between a republic and a democracy. -- kainaw ™ 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the above, is Republic synonymous with Federation? User:Krator (t c) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic isn't synonymous with federation, but Kainaw meant federation, not republic. There are a lot of republics in the world that aren't federations, and a few federations that aren't republics. FiggyBee (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I meant. "Republic" is a very general term. The U.S. is a "federal republic". That is pretty much a "federation". I didn't see the need to define it so precisely when comparing a republic to a democracy. -- kainaw ™ 02:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by the terminology, because, for example, Germany is a republic, a federation, and a democracy. Apples and oranges came to mind. User:Krator (t c) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Republic" is a very general term, which is why I said you mean federation. "In a perfect republic, all in-state issues are handled by the state without any outside influence. All inter-state issues are handled by the federal government" makes no sense if applied to a republic which isn't a federation, because such a republic has no states. On the other hand, if you replace "republic" with "federation", it makes perfect sense, even if applied to federations that aren't republics (like the one I live in, for example). FiggyBee (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democracies and republics

It's time again for the Democracy/Republic chart:

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Nepal

A republic is any country with a president or similar official instead of a monarch, whether or not it is democratic. A democracy is any country where the "people rule," whether it is a republic or a monarchy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal's been a democracy and a republic for a week now :P User:Krator (t c) 03:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess once the king leaves Kathmandu I'll need a new example for an undemocratic monarchy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest Brunei to take the place of Nepal the next time you need the chart? Sadly, I am certain you will. /Kriko (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't link to democracy when using the chart. In normal usage in the United States, it means direct democracy - which the United States is not. As the link shows, it is one of those words that can mean just about anything you want it to mean - similar to republic. It could even mean a government in which the people vote each year to have a dictator make all their decisions. -- kainaw ™ 22:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the democracy article makes it clear there are many kinds of "democracies," including both direct and representative ones. I would disagree that in the United States, "democracy" necessarily means "direct democracy." When Woodrow Wilson talked about making the world "safe for democracy" by entering World War I, he wasn't talking about direct democracy. When Ronald Reagan told WWII veterans that "Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man," he wasn't talking about direct democracy. When George W. Bush told the UN, "Peaceful nations must stand for the advance of democracy," he wasn't talking about direct democracy, either.

There is a misconception out there that, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy." That's comparing apples and oranges. The United States is a republic because it has a president, and it's generally considered to be one of the world's more democratic countries, despite its faults, because it has competitive elections between two parties, both of which have an opportunity to make their voice heard. If George Bush were to declare marshal law, abrogate the Constitution, arrest his political opponents and declare himself president-for-life, the U.S. would no longer be a democracy, but it would still be a republic as long as he didn't call himself king.

True, the meaning of "democracy" is fuzzy. There are some people out there -- quite misguided, in my view, who believe Cuba is a real democracy and the United States is a corporate oligarchy. Well, they might be half right. But when used nowadays by political scientists, and by everyone besides certain misguided Americans, the word "republic" has a very clear meaning. It's a state with an elected or appointed (or self-appointed) head of state instead of a monarch. Thus, in 1999, Australia, one of the world's most democratic countries, had a referendum on whether to become a republic instead of remaining under the British crown. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that a republic is any state in which all public power arises from the people. Such a definition would make Sweden a republic. In the United Kingdom public power derives from the Crown. I do not know where public power in the USA arises or derives from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 12:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question

To go back to the original question, primary elections are largely a creation of the Progressive Era 100 years ago, invented to stem the power of party bosses. From the parties' perspective, letting the states conduct primary elections is a lot cheaper than trying to conduct them yourself. A party certainly could go around the state and hold its own procedure to select a candidate, but the candidate would then have to gather lots of signatures to get on the ballot and likely would be listed as an independent in many states.

It's worth noting that there are really no such things as the national Democratic and Republican parties. There are only the national committees, which serve to organize the conventions and coordinate among the state parties and federal elected officials. Each of the state parties send delegations to the national conventions, which formally choose the candidates.

There's no reason to establish national-level mass-membership party organizations, since the only nationwide election in the U.S. is for president, and even that's done through the infamous Electoral College. Elections for Senate and the House of Representatives are very much state and local affairs despite the important role of national Democratic and Republicn campaign committees in providing money for the candidates' campaigns. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that delegates to national conventions do not represent the population of each state, but the political representation of each state. For example, if one state has a Democratic governor, several Democratic Congressmembers and Senators, and a majority of Democratic representatives in the state legislature, they may get more delegates to the Democratic convention than would a state with a larger population, but fewer elected Democratic officeholders. Corvus cornix_talk 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really good stuff, very helpful, thank you to all. DuncanHill (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

getting a physical stock certificate to hang on a wall

this page has the product I'd like: [2] but also, quite decent of them, the page mentions "the SEC requires us to charge at least twice the stock price, we expect that you would be able to purchase this more economically through a broker"

so...how would i go about getting that piece of paper to hand, through a broker?

Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.21 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to get actual shares of stock through a broker. What I've done is work with the companies directly. They usually have a shareholder representative section. Explain to them that you want a paper share. They will tell you who you can purchase one from. I glanced at price differences between GiveAShare that you linked and OneShare. It appears that OneShare is much cheaper. -- kainaw ™ 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the help exclpoint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.4 (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]