Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 3

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.

April 3

Retired Air Force officers say UFOs turned off nukes

I tried to ask about this at the Science Desk[1] without much luck, but it occurred to me that I'm actually much more interested in the journalism aspects of this story. And as I've been reading more, my questions have evolved into more of a humanities bent, so I'm going to try again here.

Last September, several retired USAF officials told the National Press Club that they had witnessed nuclear ICBMs deactivating at the same time that UFOs were being reported above ground at the same facilities, and had compiled at least 120 such reports. Those officials included Bruce Fenstermacher, a former USAF nuclear missile launch officer, Charles Halt, USAF Col. Ret., a former deputy base commander, Robert Jamison, a former USAF nuclear missile targeting officer, Jerome Nelson, a former USAF nuclear missile launch officer, Robert Salas, a former USAF nuclear missile launch officer, Patrick McDonough, a former USAF nuclear missile site geodetic surveyor, and Dwynne Arneson, USAF Lt.Col., a retired communications center officer. Here is video, reports from CBS News, the Socio-Economics History Blog, a VeteransToday.com discussion site, and excerpts from one of the organizers of the National Press Club event.

My current question is very simple: Has anyone come forward to question the credibility, integrity, trustworthiness, or any other aspects of the officers who have reported these incidents? I am also interested in people's personal evaluations of these reports. 99.2.149.161 (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are two different questions regarding 'credibility' here. Firstly there is that of the officers themselves. I've no reason to think that they would lie about events they believed had occurred, though that isn't actually evidence that such events occurred in the way they reported them. More significantly though, there is the issue of the credibility of those who gather 'evidence' regarding isolated events in order to 'prove' some wild theory regarding UFOs etc. Such persons are usually actively searching evidence for the very 'theory' they are trying to prove - and ignoring any evidence to the contrary when it suits them. They generally believe in the theory before they gather evidence - hardly an objective approach. So the answer you got from the science desk is probably appropriate regarding the 'factuality' of such phenomena. As a social phenomenon, one could look at the subject in other terms, and it would probably increase understanding to draw parallels, as others have before, with beliefs in fairies, spirits and the like - they are 'real', but as a social/psychological phenomenon rather than a material one. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but the best you are likely to get. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Another problem is with those sources. YouTube videos and blogs are not regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia. The only one with any value is the CBS news link, and unfortunately, it's full of links to blogs too. So we are left with some statements by ex-service folks 30 years after the alleged incidents, at an event organised by a "UFO researcher". (What qualifications do you need to claim that title?) Obviously it cannot be further investigated because of both the military secrecy and time barriers. Hardly compelling evidence. It would be interesting to hear from other people who were at those bases at the time. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish between evidence of a UFO and missile shutdown versus an extraterrestrial origin for the craft. For example, nuclear weapons have elaborate safeguards. Maybe other country drifted a balloon over the base with the right equipment to send a bunch of random missile codes, so the missiles locked out additional login attempts. (I have no evidence for that, but I daresay no one has evidence those craft came from another planet either) Wnt (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As my father used to say "Any FO is U until it is I". They may have been aircraft developed in secret by another (or the same!) country. I remember seeing a UK documentary on this subject, with someone who worked for one of the UK aircraft builders claiming that they developed and tested a "flying saucer" type of aircraft, but because it caused panic when it flew over built-up areas, they didn't continue development. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's right, Tammy. There's no need to assume extraterrestrial visitation, when a much more obvious explanation is available and is recommended by Occam's Razor: these craft are flown by Earth-dwelling non-human sentient creatures. When they say "We are not alone", they should be looking for the "others" right here in our own backyard. Literally. Maybe humans are the latecomers to planet Earth; maybe we're the real aliens here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Help finding a source document

I'm trying to find the source document for some information on the wiki page for Cleopatra VII. Under the sub-heading, "Assassination of Pompey," there doesn't seem to be a reference number for the source document. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydgarrett (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That section has no footnotes, so there is no direct inline citation for it. Cross checking the Pompey article, however, turns up several footnotes in the section "Civil War and assassination". Maybe you can get more information in those sources... --Jayron32 04:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as ancient sources, you can read about the death of Pompey in Appian, Civil Wars, II.83-86 ([2]) and in Plutarch, Life of Pompey 73-80 ([3]). john k (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Accessory to murder

Consider the following scenario: someone is fatally stabbed. As he is dying, he assists the person who stabbed him in escaping justice. Does that make him an accessory after the fact to his own murder? --Carnildo (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what the local authorities charge him with; if there is no formal charge no legal crime has occured. I am not aware of many modern western democracies that charge corpses with crimes, however. Furthermore, since he cannot stand trial (being dead), he cannot be convicted of the crime, so legally he didn't commit it. --Jayron32 04:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't charge a dead man with a crime, for various reasons. Charles Whitman, for example, probably would have bent sent to Old Sparky for his shooting rampage, but he was never tried for that crime, having been gunned down by the police. Kenneth Lay was convicted in the Enron thing, but he died before the appeal process could get going, so the conviction was vacated. The OP's scenario sounds strange, but I wouldn't rule it out in the case of the Mafia, for example. Vincent Gigante (acting on the orders of Vito Genovese) tried unsuccessfully to put a bullet through Frank Costello's head, but in Gigante's trial, Costello refused to identify Gigante, claiming he couldn't see who shot him, and Gigante was acquitted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Whitman's article has a detail new to me, which is that he apparently suffered from glioblastoma, which (per that article) apparently has a median survival time of 3 months untreated, or 1-2 years with treatment. So even in Texas, and even in 1966, I'm not sure he'd have lived long enough to be executed. --Trovatore (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's one theory as to why he did it, i.e. that he was in some sense not responsible for his actions. We'll never know, since he was taken down. But the point is that he was never charged with anything, because he was dead. He was merely reported as the killer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that not trying dead people causes certain problems:

1) Can lead to lazy police work. That is, they can just blame an innocent dead guy for a crime and not worry about who actually committed it, since their accusation will never have to hold up in court.

2) The family of the deceased person accused of murder might like their day in court, to defend his name, but never get it.

3) Other people involved in the crime may go free. For example, if the deceased was a hit man, the person who hired him may never be determined. A trial wouldn't guarantee that they would be, but evidence needed for the jury would likely include this. StuRat (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To point 3, not trying a hitman for a murder they performed before their death would not stop the police from the investigation and trial of the person who hired them; that person is still alive and able to stand trial for their own part in the murder for hire - solicitation and/or conspiracy to commit murder. ^Avic_ennasis @ 12:03, 2 Nisan 5771 / 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course they could, but would they bother ? It's a lot easier to just say the (dead) shooter acted alone and close the case. On the other hand, if they had to go through the process of trying the hit-man, then his motivation for the killing would certainly come up. Once it was determined that he had been paid, the public would expect an investigation into who paid him off. StuRat (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that a person charged with a crime have the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against". That's a little hard to do when you're dead. You raise some good concerns, of course. This was not an issue in the Whitman case, of course, but other situations could be less clear. However, it's important to keep in mind that the police have to judge a situation as it's happening. If a guy pulls a gun on them, or acts like he is, they have to make a quick decision on using deadly force. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so let's make the OP's question more interesting. We all agree that a dead man cannot be charged with a crime, so the OP's question is essentially moot. Let's change the scenario, however, such that the victim is stabbed, albeit not fatally. Thus, the victim does not die and remains alive (to be charged by the police). Can he be charged with being an accessory after the fact to his own attempted murder (or assault or whatever the underlying crime is)? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC))

I think he would be more likely to be charged with "obstruction of justice". However, a good lawyer might make the case that he was not in his right mind... having just been stabbed, ya know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But, this could be merely an "attempted" stabbing. So, maybe the criminal tried to stab the victim, but missed him altogether. As such, the victim might be left completely unharmed, physically at least. Yeah, the lawyer may make a case for psychological harm, however. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Women have been punished by courts when they have suffered domestic abuse and later protected their abuser by refusing to testify against them in court.[4][5] However in such cases they are not charged as accessories, but more normally for contempt of court or similar offences. Some jurisdictions, e.g. California, have legislation preventing victims from being punished for refusing to testify in certain circumstances.[6][7] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

generally speaking, if a victim refuses to file charges, the police are stuck prosecuting the perpetrator with lesser crimes; in this case, the prosecutor might be forced to file for a weapons charge or a minor assault charge (e.g. charges that can be filed by the state independently). Such crimes generally wouldn't be susceptible to accessory rulings. The only case I can imagine where this might happen is if someone goes on a killing spree, and the only survivor tries to help him escape - the state can then prosecute murder charges on the other victims and prosecute accessory charges on the victim for those. however, I have doubts that a prosecutor would do that, because of the impact on the jury: they'd be prosecuting someone who was very sympathetic (a victim who is for whatever reason showing a great deal of high-minded forgiveness), and that never bodes well. --Ludwigs2 22:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A few things. The dead can't be charged with crimes, so that's one step. Ludwigs: that's incorrect; as a practical matter the lack of a cooperating witness might derail a case, but the right to charge someone rests entirely with the state, as a general rule. Victims are not "parties" to criminal actions, unless there's some specific statute that modifies certain details. The 6th amendment point's interesting, but the Confrontation Clause has some exceptions in the case that the witness is dead, although they've been changing with Supreme Court precedent lately. There's also a doctrine in criminal law that the protected class of certain laws cannot be charged as accessories under those laws. The most famous case is the Mann Act didn't allow a woman involved in the Mann Act crime to be charged. That could possibly apply here, although it's not a subject I know much about. Shadowjams (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I wasn't talking about the lack of a cooperating witness, I was talking about the lack of a cooperating plaintiff. If someone attacks me and I refuse to press charges, I don't think the state is allowed to press charges on my behalf (nor would it be effective if they did, since it would be devastating to a case to have the supposed victim appear as a witness for the defense). --Ludwigs2 05:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Ludwigs2, you are indeed wrong. All of your assertions are incorrect (except for the parenthetical statement). In the US, the state can prosecute any crime that it wishes to prosecute, whether or not the victim agrees or cooperates. The victim is never the plaintiff in a criminal case; the state (government) is always the plaintiff. As a practical matter, however, the state may have a lousy (unwinnable) case and decide not to prosecute, if the victim is uncooperative. That decision lies with the state, not with the victim, however. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Also, another side note. If someone attacks you (the victim), the state is not prosecuting on your behalf. They are prosecuting on behalf of society in general (i.e., all of the people in that community). That is why a criminal case is legally named, for example, "The People of the State of California versus John Q. Criminal". The victim is never the plaintiff; the plaintiff is actually "all of the people in that State" (i.e., the general community and society-at-large). Those plaintiffs (all of those people) are merely represented by the state prosecutor (district attorney), who prosecutes on their behalf. What this really means (philosophically) is that the criminal committed a crime against all of society (by breaking the laws agreed upon by that society), not just against that one specific victim. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Not all local authorities will have the same legal definitions of: Murder 1st. 2nd. 3rd. degree, And assistance before and after, And penalties ensuing. Some leave it to the courts to decide. The intention of the actors involved will be a deciding factor. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Legal online gambling owner American Rick Salomon despite illegal in US?

Mr. Salomon is described as being an "online gambling website owner", and as far as I am aware has not been arrested etc regarding this. Yet online gambling is illegal in the US. How is this discrepancy explained? Thanks 92.15.9.102 (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe his servers are in Mexico, or Brazil, or...... HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm doubtful the location of the servers would matter to the US law if his customers are in the US. 92.15.9.102 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Your doubt on the matter does not change the reality of the law: It is not illegal for U.S. citizens or residents to own online gambling businesses outside of the U.S. --Jayron32 12:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If that is true, then why is Mr Saloman in the clear while Party Gaming had to pay a big fine and close down US operations, and have not resumed it again either? See PartyGaming#U.S._legislation. I believe the principal, and probably other senior staff, was or is an American. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Can one access his gambling site from the U.S.? Bielle (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What is illegal is operating a gambling site in the US, not a US citizen owning a gambling site. --Tango (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

How would you define "operating a gambling site in the US"? PartyGaming appears to have always been based outside the US, yet they still got into trouble. 92.29.115.116 (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two intertwined legal issues. One is whether the site is operated inside the US — you can't run a gambling enterprise in the US unless you are in one of a few cities (or happen to be the state). The other is that you can't run a gambling site that allows US citizens to gamble on it, even if you are located outside the US. This latter one is what PartyGaming has been complying with, and their penalty fees had to do with some agreement to avoid any future prosecution, or something like that. Frankly I don't know what site Saloman is supposed to own anymore — most of his bios on the internet say he used to own such a site, e.g. back in 2004 or so. If it was before the SAFE Port Act in 2006 then he wouldn't have come into the same kinds of problems that PartyGaming did. Otherwise he presumably didn't let people in the US gamble. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

鄧蔭南

What's the proper romanisation for the name? Neither Deng Yinnan nor Teng Yin-nan returned any results. Thanks. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The 7th result down on this Google search has 'dengyinnan' in the search result, but not on the page itself when you click on it. The page is from a server in China. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And this confirms it. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So Deng Yin'nan seems appropriate. Thanks! Kayau Voting IS evil 14:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that you can actually take that text and mark it up like this: 鄧蔭南 and as you see, each hanzi links to its entry in Wiktionary. I wish we had better string functions enabled so we could have a simple template to mark text up this way. With WP:POPUPS enabled you should even be able to read the pronunciation without opening each page, I think. If you follow the links, they have that the Mandarin pronunciation/pinyin is dèng, yīn or yìn, nán or nā. True, that isn't entirely helpful by itself (you still need to figure out the right pronunciation for the sense in which it is used), but it does provide extra information. It looks like Wiktionary still needs t work on breaking down the pronunciations according to meaning. Wnt (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This question belongs on the Language Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

AV voting - why count the 2nd. choices of the least popular candidate's votes only?

From the presentation here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12892836 it is shown that if no candidate gets over 50%, then only the voters of the least popular candidate have their second choice votes used instead. 1) Would it ever make any difference to the eventual outcome if voters for all but the most popular candidate had their second-choice votes counted all in one go? 2) Is it unfair on voters who voted neither for the most popular candidate, nor for the least popular candidate, as their second choice votes are ignored? Thanks 92.15.2.39 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the time, there will be two or possibly three candidates left at the end - let's just assume there are two for a second. Yes, those two could end up different because of second preference votes from eliminated parties. However, in your post, you say "all but the most popular candidate", which isn't how AV works; there are always two or more people left at the end - the others are eliminated, and cannot win (in your case, the person with the most votes wins automatically - in other words, like first past the post). If you meant "top two" then yes, that could be a plausible (if different from AV) system:

Consider candidates A, B, C, D and E who get {4,3,2,1,1} votes. In your system, both C, D and E's 2nd preferences are simultaneously counted, ergo we have their combined 4 second preferences distributed between A and B. (You haven't said what would happen to second preferences for C, D, E or another not-top-two[sic] candidate.) Under AV, E would first be eliminated; let's say to C. Then D, also to C; that leaves A B and C with {4,3,4}; in other words B would now be eliminated and C could easily win - who under your system would have been eliminated in the single round.

However, I note this example with caution because your idea of eliminating all but the top one doesn't make sense in the context of AV - the second preference only being considered after your first preference candidate has been eliminated. On your second point, the fact is AV supporters would say that all votes cast under first past the post which aren't for the eventual winner are "ignored", and thus under AV more of them are counted. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand your answer. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer question 2 shortly, no it doesn't matter. If ballots were counted eliminating the last person at each round eventually you would get down to two candidates. If one of them got past 50% of the votes some of the way, there is no way that the other person could beat them. As for your first question, it would make the system nonsensical. If everyone except the leader's second preference was counted, then nobody else's first preference was counted. The idea behind the system is that in the end everyone's vote will count for either the most or second most successful candidate. So if you vote for the loser, your vote will end up being for your second preference, unless they get eliminated, in which case your third, etc. etc. While it's true they stop the counting when someone gets to 50%, that's only because it is now impossible to beat them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.192.209 (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Intially there will be one candidate who has the most 1st. choice votes (ignoring ties for the sake of arguement). If they do not have more than 50% of the votes, then wouldnt it be fairer to count the 2nd choice votes of all the voters who did not vote for the 1st choice candidate? Or wouldnt this make any difference? It just seems peculiar that on the 2nd round, its only the votes from the least popular candidate (which may be some extreme party) that are given a very big weight in deciding the fate of the most popular candidates. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict wiith 124, 92) Let's look at an actual example somewhat along the lines of what you describe: Burlington, Vermont mayoral election, 2009,[8]. Things are a bit confusing because several candidates are dropped in the first round, but this is done because it's mathematically inevitable that this will happen. If you don't agree, you can treat it as if the lowest place candidate was dropped in a second round each time, and you'll arrive at exactly the same results. Essentially, a candidate (Andy Montroll) who would have beat any of the other candidates in a head to head race (Condorcet criterion) lost. This is largely because those who voted for the second place candidate (Kurt Wright) would have preferred the third place winner (Andy Montroll) over the first place winner, Bob Kiss. This may seem a bit unfair to those who voted for Wright. In my opinion, the system still worked well, in that the person who would have won under a First-past-the-post voting system with less than 1/3 if the vote (because his opponents were split between several similar candidates: see Independence of clones criterion) lost. However, the voters disagreed, and voted to repeal IRV (AKA AV) in 2010. In favor of a Two-round system where only 40% of the vote's needed to avoid a runoff. What's really facinating is that under this system, the same candidate would have won the election! Moral: voters are stupid..

So yes, occasionally AV/IRV can be "unfair" to those who vote for a losing candidate who's not last. However, this isn't a reason to keep your silly First-Past-The-Post system (which,in some senses, is unfair to everyone who votes for a losing candidate when no majority is reached, while IRV/AV is unfair only occasionally, in very specific circumstances). If you really want to avoid these problems, demand the Schulze method, which many nerds (see Schulze_method#Use_of_the_Schulze_method) consider to be superior.

There are a lot of smart people who have though long and hard about what the advantages and disadvantages of different voting systems are. See Single-winner voting system. IRV/AV is better than Plurality voting system, including the First-Past-The-Post system used in the UK, by nearly any criterion. There are other methods that are even better than IRV according to certain criteria, but in voting theory, it's impossible to create any system that's perfect: see Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem. But just because no system's perfect doesn't mean you should stick with a system that's clearly inferior </soapbox>. Buddy431 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is it the 2nd. choice votes from the least popular candidate rather than the 2nd choice votes from the second most popular candidate that are counted? Wouldnt that give more people an input and therefore be fairer? Why does the process go in one direction rather than the other? 92.15.2.39 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the good information in Buddy's answer is wrapped up in some anti-FPTP bias for some reason. Anyway, OP: you can't count all the other candidate's second preferences, because that can't work. If you did that, you'd not get any narrowing of the field, except for some extra votes the leading candidate gets. We stop counting their first votes, and then add their second votes - in parallel to how AV works, where the people who voted for the lowest candidates's first votes are discarded. In fact, the sense of narrowing the field is important. Before any candidate's votes are split among the others with their second preference, they are formally eliminated - and can't win. The lowest candidate is eliminated first because they are furthest from 'winning' and so eliminating them is seen as fairer (and is undoubtedly so). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What sort of system would you get if you just elected the candidate who had the lowest average rank on all the voters lists? That would seem to be a better way of doing it than AV, as everyone's vote would count and nobodys vote would be ignored. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It would strongly encourage tactical voting where people don't vote for what they really prefer. Suppose there are three candidates and a voter is convinced that only A and B have a real chance to win. Then suppose the voter prefers A over B, and B over C. Many voters in this situation would vote ACB, because ABC would give B a better chance to beat A. If all voters who prefer A or B places the other of them last for tactical reasons then the result could end up a surprise win for C even if a large majority of voters actually prefer both A and B over C. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If people are being dishonest about what they put down on their voting forms, then they've only got themselves to blame. If I like A but actually vote for B, then I cannot complain if B gets elected. So perhaps the system encourages honesty. It seems a better system than ignoring a large proportion of people's votes, as FPTP or AV seem to do. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the situation I described. There, somebody who likes A will of course vote A first, but if they vote B second then it risks preventing their first choice A from being elected. My last part about C winning was a more theoretical situation. I think a lot of people who honestly voted ABC would be rightfully upset if their second vote B prevented their first vote A from winning. Many of them will realize this in advance and therefore vote ACB instead. This means the system would encourage dishonesty and not honesty. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems preferable to FPTP where you never even vote for your preferred candidate if you think they are unpopular. I would hope in the scenario you have outlined that at least you get your second choice. Which system gives the least proportion of disgruntled voters? I imagine it is impossible to have no disgruntled voters, unless someone gets 100% of the vore. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the OP would seem to allow not expressing additional preferences, thereby making it a "bullet vote"; this isn't all preferable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Never said that. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I was merely going off "Then simply ignore the vote boxes that the voter has not filled in.", which does seem to suggest I can just have my first preference and no other preferences. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I misread your comment. But even under AV you don't have to fill in all the boxes on your voting form, if you want you could just fill in one box. I don't see that its any problem. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The other problem with that system is that every voter has to express a complete set of preferences. In real life, there might be one or tow they like the look of, one or two they don't, but lots of people (for example independents) they can't rank. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Then simply ignore the vote boxes that the voter has not filled in. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That could cause big problems in some circumstances. Suppose there is a very obscure candidate that has a tiny number of strong supporters. Those supporters will rank this candidate highest, while almost everyone else doesn't know anything about the candidate, so doesn't bother ranking them. This candidate has a good chance of winning on the basis of a tiny level of support. 130.88.134.221 (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so treat only partly filled in voting forms as spoiled votes if you want. 92.24.184.244 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what method 92.15 is talking about, but it sounds like he's advocating some sort of Borda count. The Borda count is not an inherently bad way of voting, and it is used used politically in a few places. As PrimeHunter mentions, the Borda method strongly encourages tactical voting, to a greater extent than IRV or even plurality voting. Borda count is, in some senses, more likely to lead to a candidate who, overall, everyone is generally OK with, rather than a candidate who the majority like, but a large minority dislike, as can occur in IRV. That's still better then FPTP, where you can elect a candidate who only a minority like, and a moderate majority dislike. Borda count also encourages parties with similar ideologies to field as many candidates as possible, as this makes it much more likely that one of them will win. This problem is largely absent in IRV/AV, and the opposite problem occurs in FPTP (where candidates with similar ideologies hurt each other). Buddy431 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Borda count is, in some senses, more likely to lead to a candidate who, overall, everyone is generally OK with" - great, that's what we want! 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason the Borda Count is not used is because of what I call the Bozo the Clown problem. Let's say you have four candidates: A, B, C and Bozo the Clown. No one votes Bozo with their first preference. But the A voters hate B and C so much that they vote Bozo with their second preference. Same with the B and C voters. So when everyone's second preference is counted, Bozo wins! In instant-runoff voting, Bozo is eliminated first, so he can't win. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You could I expect think up such circumstances under any voting scheme. In FPTP - everyone hates A,B,C, so they all vote for Bozo - Bozo wins! In the example Mwalcoff gives, I cannot see what's wrong with Bozo winning if people vote for him. He was the second preference of most people, preferred to ABC, so there's nothing wrong with him winning. I think this is a straw-man argument. 92.24.184.244 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So is there any consensus on the best voting system to use? And I'm curious, is it possible to say which voting scheme works best with similar artificial intelligence decision-making systems? 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, because there are differing aims of the system. We don't know which result is the right one. For example, Buddy mentions a case where the result changed - the system he praises for not electing someone on a third of the vote is the same one I'd criticise for not electing someone with a third of the vote. You suggest that tactical voting is a personal issue, but this isn't the case. The problem with tactical voting is that often, a candidate who no-one wanted gets in, and chances are they don't want them is related to how good a job they'd do - for example fringe candidates. That's going to affect everyone, not just those making the tactical vote. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly: no voting system is perfect. And that's not just an empirical observation, but a mathematical fact: Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem (edit: and Arrow's impossibility theorem). And yet, I will reiterate that a voting system that has gained wide support among smart people is the Schulze method. It is complicated and hard to understand, which makes it undesirable to many voting populations. It would probably never be used by choice by the masses. However, mathematically, it is a very good voting system, precluding many of the problems that can occur with Plurality (FPTP), IRV, and Borda methods. People who tend to have strong mathematical and computer skills (and who actually think about such things) tend prefer it. It's what we use at the Wikimedia Foundation [9]. It's what Debian Project uses [10]. It still has some susceptibility to tactical voting, but not as much (and not as obviously) as other methods, especially FPTP and Borda count. Obviously, I'm biased, in that I think smart, tech savvy people are better able to judge the merits of different voting systems than the general population. Buddy431 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Borda system is used by a lot of universities according to its article, so its what the intelligent prefer. I've begun to think that the AV system is undesirable, because it puts your votes through a sort of arbitrary spagethi machine. The Borda system seems preferable to AV. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Borda system works well when people vote in good faith, truly ranking candidates in their order of preference. It works well for things where there are many good, truly differentiated candidates, and only one can win, as in sports trophies (i.e. Heisman Trophy [11]) and Eurovision Song Contest. Notice that in many of these examples, the votes are publicly known, which can discourage things like burying second choice candidates under obviously weaker rivals. It works less well when there are many voters with secret ballots (who are less likely to vote their genuine choices), or when it is easy for very similar candidates to enter the race to skew the results (Strategic nomination). In my opinion, there are good reasons why it is used frequently for sports trophies, but infrequently in politics. Buddy431 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Protecting people from themselves who are being deliberately dishonest is very low on my list of priorities. And I can't think that having more than one candidate with similar views is such a bad thing: you might prefer Tory A to Tory B. It may even be preferable. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is, you're rewarding dishonest behavior. It's in people's own best interest to vote contrary to what they truly believe. Most voting systems do this to some extent (quite a bit in FPTP, less in IRV or a Two-round system), but Borda really is the worse in this respect.

In any case having multiple candidates with similar views makes it more likely that one of those candidates will win. Suppose there are 4 candidates: Tory A, Tory B, Tory C, and Labour A. Furthur suppose that a small majority (maybe 55%) will vote vote Labour, while the remainder (45%) vote Tory. In a FPTP system, IRV system, Two-round system, or Schulze method system, candidate Labour A will win, and I think pretty much everyone will agree that that's the best winner in this situation (it's not like the Vermont case where multiple people could be considered the "correct" winner). However, in a Borda system, it's likely that one of the Torries will win. All of the conservative voters will vote for the three Tory candidates for their first three choices, and Labour A will be their last choice. The labour voters will all vote for Labour A as their first choice, but will still be forced to rank the Torries 2,3, and 4. So Each of the Tory candidates will receive a lot of points from the conservative voters, while the Labour candidate will receive a lot of points from the labour voters. However, the Tory candidates will also receive a lot of points from Labour voters (they are, after all, second choice), while the Labour candidate will receive very few points from the conservative voters. Depending on the point system, and the exact breakdown of votes, it's very likely that one of the Tory candidates will win, even though over half the electorate would have preferred the Labour candidate. That's not very fair, is it? Buddy431 (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just have a rule: one party, one candidate. Problem solved. 92.29.115.116 (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That could be easily circumvented by forming a new party, with identical policies to the existing one you favour. Even if you found a way of prohibiting that, parties are not equally spaced along the political spectrum - for example, think of the many very similar socialist parties, which would all be artificially boosted under this method. Warofdreams talk 12:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be no worse than the current situation in FPTP - where similar candidates split the vote and some less-prefered candidate wins. 92.15.8.14 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Under FPTP standing multiple candidates makes you less likely to win - opportunities to game the system aren't great (threatening to split the vote can sometimes work). Under this system, standing multiple candidates makes you more likely to win - everyone would be gaming the system. That sounds worse, to me. Warofdreams talk 10:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, at least, its unlikely that one political party would encourage or like another rival political party even if they had identical poicies. Provided you had a "one party, one candidate" rule, it should be OK. If party A has lost to party B with identical policies, then from party A's point of view, they have still lost. 92.24.184.41 (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A side comment about multiple-office elections and STV

While this is probably very tangential to the AV/IRV problems in a single-office election, it might just be worth pointing out (or recalling) that in a multiple-office election conducted under systems like the Single Transferable Vote (for example, the recent Irish general election where each single constituency returned four or five members of the Dáil Eireann; see http://www.rte.ie/news/election2011/prstvlogic.html), lesser preferences on winning candidates' ballots can be counted once those winning candidates have reached the qualifying minimum "quota" for election. (Some methods of counting look only at the ballots above that quota; the fairest systems look at the lesser preferences on all the ballots and distribute a proportionate "excess" fraction to each remaining candidate; others look only at a proportionate random selection of all ballots cast for a winning candidate.) In general, so long as there are still these "excess" second preferences to be distributed, none of the remaining candidates is eliminated. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square vs. Libya

When the Chinese government slaughtered protesters in Tiananmen Square, the protests died out. When Gaddafi tried the same thing in Libya, why did the protests expand instead? --70.244.234.128 (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

We can only guess, but mine would be that, for a start, where Libya was concerned, there were a number of population centres simultaneously involved in the protests, and not just one square in the middle of a city, surrounded by troops, as was the case in Tiananmen. To be sure, protests were going on in other parts of China at the time of Tiananmen, but they were nowhere near as big as the one in Tiananmen, which is why it got practically all of the coverage. Another reason would be that, people had been mentioning a possible repeat of Tiananmen during the protests in Egypt only weeks before (though thankfully it never happened), and I would guess that people in Libya were prepared for it - unlike the unfortunate protesters in Tiananmen. Beyond my guessing here, I can only speculate. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In Libya the rebels had access to both weapons and military support from other nations. None of these were available in China. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A far greater section of the Libyan elite has defected to the opposition than what happened in China in 1989. The Libyan rebels include former military officers and cabinet ministers and had such overwhelming support in many cities that they quickly gained control over the eastern half of the country. The Tienanmen protesters were largely students and other hoi polloi concentrated in the middle of the capital. Yes, there were 100,000 protesters -- out of a population of 1 billion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

KägeTorä, virtually every major city in China had extensive protests in the late Spring of 1989, and in some of the inland provincial capitals, hundreds of people were killed in the crack-down. It wasn't a one-city affair. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, DOR, which is why I said protests were going on in other parts of China at the time of Tiananmen, but they were nowhere near as big as the one in Tiananmen, which is why it got practically all of the coverage above. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Authorities in other cities also had the sense to try to diffuse the situation peacefully rather than calling in the field army. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Home CCTV

As I've had various things stolen from my front garden recently, I'm considering installing some kind of time-lapse camera overlooking it. This would as a side effect photograph anyone passing on the pavement at the time the photos were taken.

Where can I find out about what rules etc that I need to abide by in these circumstances, such as a "You're on CCTV" notice? Thanks 92.15.2.39 (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what country (or U.S. state) you're located in? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to add that I am in the UK. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that any supplier of CCTVs in the UK would know what you'd need to do. I'll look around here and on the web for relevant laws for you, but in the meantime I would suggest asking your supplier.--KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable this source is, but this came from googling 'UK CCTV law home' (which, incedentally, tried to autofill to 'UK CCTV law workplace', so you might want to check that out too). Other links from my search are Home CCTV Law and a government one. If you need more than internet links, then I would suggest contacting your local council, as they are bound to know. Best of luck! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the links says I can use up to three cameras and I don't even need to put up a sign or do anything else. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If those items are stolen at night, a motion detector that turns a light on might be more effective at preventing theft. Of course, if your goal is to catch the thieves, then a camera is needed, although you may not recognize them in the video. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm already dazzled by the bright street lighting all night, so more isnt needed thanks. 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

is there such a thing as

caring so much for a person that you kill yourself to protect that person from yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.219.105 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If you would like a broad example, you can read about the samurai in Japan, who were usually more than willing to die for their masters. In an individual case, Masuda Sayo's brother committed suicide so Sayo wouldn't have to prostitute herself to pay for his TB treatment (it's obscure, I know, but I'm planning on taking a crack at our article on Autobiography of a Geisha). There are many examples throughout history. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Some original research from my own experience - many years ago I had a friend that committed suicide. He had a mental illness; their were voices in his head telling him to hurt his mother, and it got to the point that he felt the need to take his own life to protect her from himself. ^Avic_ennasis @ 12:22, 2 Nisan 5771 / 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Recently surfaced manuscripts" of Ramon Llull

How did could documents from around 1300 only become known in the last few years? Where had they been for the last seven hundred years? The article does not seem to say. Thanks 92.15.2.39 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Llull specifically (or how "recent" this discovery was), but it's not uncommon to find new manuscripts. Sometimes they aren't labelled and are bound with unrelated texts. Sometimes they're in a national library collection but have been mislabelled or lost in the archives. Sometimes they've made their way into a private library and the owner doesn't realize what's there. In this case, the manuscripts were presumably known in the Middle Ages, and were lost later; maybe they weren't very interesting to later medieval or Renaissance people (and therefore were not copied by hand), or early printers (election theory?! That's boring), or maybe they were misplaced during a revolution or war. I'm just randomly speculating, but it's not unusual. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Dead Sea Scrolls had lain untouched for almost 2,000 years before being discovered. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 8's reference "LLULL'S WRITINGS ON ELECTORAL SYSTEMS", which describes the "discovery," is hard to read for a non-specialist. It seems to indicate that already-known works (tucked away in catalogued archives but otherwise ignored) had not been correctly identified as the 3 missing works in Lully's earliest bibliographies, either because they had different titles or maybe no titles. In other words, no one paid attention to the 3 works because they didn't know that those were THE 3 works, as opposed to just unrelated or unidentified documents. The 2001 "discovery" by the authors of the paper in fn 8 was the identification of the 3 works as BEING the previously "missing" wokrs, hiding in plain sight. If someone else has a better interpretation of this hard-to-understand source, please correct me.63.17.78.6 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that. I can try to explain it more clearly then: essentially, we know what Llull wrote because he himself made a list, which included his works on election theory. That list was known in the Renaissance and was included in bibliographies of Llull's works, but some of the works on election theory were lost afterwards. One of them was always well-known, the one at the end of Llull's novel Blanquerna. The article mentions one manuscript of the novel in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich, which is an important national library. The manuscripts in there are usually well-known, and in this case there are lots of other manuscripts of the novel anyway, so that one part of it, which takes up only one folio at the end of the book, must have always (or usually) been copied with the rest of the novel.

The second work they mention is De arte eleccionis, which is also very small, only one folio, at the end of a manuscript of Llull's works, copied by Nicholas Cusanus in 1428. It was copied from a manuscript which he found in Paris, which itself was written by Llull in 1299. This is one of the ways texts were spread in the Middle Ages - someone went to a library, copied the whole thing by hand, and brought his copy back home. At some point, the manuscripts in Paris were lost, or moved out of Paris, or destroyed somehow (the archive caught fire, perhaps; or just imagine all the violence that has occurred in Paris since the fifteenth century, and you can see there would have been numerous occasions for a library to be destroyed). So, Cusanus' copy is the only one left, but that's located in the Cusanusstift in Bernkastel-Kues, which is (I guess) a monastery library, not as easily accessed as a national library, and probably not arranged and archived systematically. So it took until 1937 for Martin Honecker to discover it.

The third one is Arte electionis personarum, which like the others is only one folio in a larger manuscript of some of Llull's other works. It has no separate chapter heading, so it's hard to tell that it's supposed to be a separate work, and it's also hastily and messily copied, as if the copyist was taking notes for personal use, not making a proper copy. The copyist was apparently Pier Leoni, the physician of Lorenzo de Medici, which likely means that he had a copy of the manuscript in Florence. I don't know what happened to the original manuscript, but the copy by Leoni ended up in the Vatican Library, which is like a national library...I've never been there myself but apparently it is enormous, idiosyncratically archived, and difficult to use in general, and there is a lot of stuff in it that just isn't archived properly at all yet. So it's not surprising that something could get lost in there. It was rediscovered (somehow!) by Llorenç Perez Martinez in 1959.

But even after that, some people knew of Perez Martinez's discovery, and not of Honecker's, and vice versa. The modern editors of Raimundi Lulli Opera, otherwise an authoritative edition of Llull's works, knew about Honecker but not Perez Martinez.

I hope that makes sense. Incidentally you can see photographs of the manuscripts, and transcriptions and translations, at The Augsburg Web Edition of Llull's Electoral Writings. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You would think that everything in the various Vatican libraries would be properly catalogued by now. Its tantalising to think that there may be other lost classical works waiting to be discovered, there or in other places. 92.29.115.116 (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe somebody who understands Adam's answer can edit this in the Llull article: Subsection: "Mathematics, statistics, and classification"

"With the 2001 discovery of his lost manuscripts Ars notandi, Ars eleccionis, and Alia ars eleccionis, ..." It appears to be inaccurate ("2001 discovery"?). 63.17.91.115 (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln, Civil War and Slavery

So, the Southern states chose to secede, because they were afraid Lincoln would abolish slavery, or so most people would say. (First question, is this accurate?) My main question is: if Lincoln were to decide to do so on the day of his inauguration (he wouldn't have tried, I assume, but let's suppose), and the Southern states tried to block him through purely legal means, could he have succeeded? Specifically, did he have the votes in both houses? If he did, could he have passed some law abolishing slavery that would be valid under the Constitution? I assume he couldn't have possibly got a constitutional amendment with Southern states opposed. And more broadly, why did the leaders of Southern states not try to oppose him legally first? --99.113.32.198 (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Without the War, Lincoln could not have abolished slavery by proclamation... What allowed him to issue the Emancipation Proclamation was the fact that the southern states were in open rebellion, and were technically under Marshal Law (and as Commander in Chief, Lincoln defined that law). And lets not forget that the EP only applied to rebel states ... it did not free the slaves in Maryland and the other slave States that stayed with the Union. Even then, A lot of people thought he was over stepping his authority in issuing it.

But to examine your hypothetical where there is no war... The Republicans did have a small majority in the House of Representatives, so I suppose it would be conceivable that a bill to abolish slavery might have been proposed and passed in the House. However, it definitely would not have passed in the Senate (where pro-slavery Democrats held the majority) and so would not have become Law. It never would have reached Lincoln's desk for his signature as President. The debate would have been heated, and would have affected subsequent elections... but probably with no real change... Abolition minded Republicans might have continued to gain seats in the House as the Northern States grew in population... but the balance in the Senate would probably not have changed much. As long as the Southern Senators could block any abolition bill, the situation would not have changed. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. So wouldn't the Southern leaders see this too? --99.113.32.198 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The South definitely seceded primarily because they were afraid Lincoln would abolish slavery, yes. The wrapped it up in the veneer of "state's rights" and all that, but slavery was the major issue they were worried about, and they were pretty clear about that at the time. In retrospect many have chosen to under-emphasize that aspect of things, but if you read their own reasons for secession, they were abundantly clear about slavery.

Interestingly, legal means were pursued by many — and probably would have succeeded if the South had not seceded. See, e.g., the Corwin Amendment. It is unclear to me exactly why they abandoned this route so early (as you point out, there is really a very slim chance that an anti-slavery amendment would have been able to get 2/3rds majority). Two obvious possibilities: 1. they were worried that if they waited too long, they'd lose some sort of military advantage (better to do it before Lincoln could start his presidency), 2. Those who were organizing the secession were too hot-headed to wait and compromise and bargain. But I don't know of either of those are really defensible theses. I do think we have adequate evidence from modern times that once people get crazy political ideas in their heads regarding how "evil" a given President might be, they are willing to run with them, no matter what the facts may indicates, and even if ultimately to their own disadvantage. But this is just an observation. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. I'd like to point out that in addition to 2/3 requirement for the amendment, there's also 3/4 of states' legislatures requirement, which would simply make it completely impossible, short of creating a bunch of small states for the purpose:) --99.113.32.198 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

98 -- Under the U.S. constitution as it existed at the time, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government simply did not have the power to intervene inside the states to overturn state laws on most subjects (including slavery), while the U.S., Supreme court was solidly under Southern pro-slavery control in 1861, so that it's really nonsense to say that Lincoln was about to imminently abolish slavery. Lincoln was very well aware of this, and stated it numerous times before his election (including in the Cooper Union speech). In fact, the Republican Party priorities were to eliminate forms of Federal government support for slavery that were not mandated by the Constitution, to closely examine the cases of Federal government support for slavery that were in fact mandated by the Constitution (i.e. requirements for return for fugitive slaves), and above all, to immediately and urgently block and prevent any further expansion of slavery into the federally-governed teritories. AnonMoos (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So, it sounds to me like the Southerners were afraid of becoming some sort of second-class citizens in the North-Republican-dominated US society and that's why they wanted to secede and build their own. What an irony:). --216.239.45.4 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing to remember at this point was that most of the U.S. territory at this point was still unorganized as states; indeed the big thing that prevented new states from being formed was slavery. For over 50 years, a careful balance was struck (unofficially) that new states only be admitted as slave/free pairs, to prevent one side or the other from gaining enough of a majority to change the status quo. See Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850. There was a very real fear that Lincoln and the Republicans could have worked to simply create a bunch of new "free" states and overwhelm the slave state/free state balance and impliment their policies that way. Some 80 years later, a similar threat by FDR to pack the courts with Democrats (see Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937) was used to force through the New Deal. Back to 1860, rather than ascede to this threat, the south simply seceded. --Jayron32 21:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- The strict parity of admitting one slave state for every free state had already broken down a number of years before the start of the Civil War (as John Calhoun had already clearly foreseen in the early 1840s would happen). However, the attempt from about 1854-1858 to make Kansas be a slave state was perceived by many southerners as an attempt to redress this lost balance. Unfortunately, those attempting to make Kansas become a slave state had to employ a number of dubious political manipulations and outright sleazy and underhanded methods to further their goal -- from the Kansas-Nebraska Act, by which the South obtained the repeal of the Missouri Compromise 36°30′ line while the North got absolutely nothing whatever in return, to many cases of voter fraud and intimidation by violence in Bleeding Kansas, the Lecompton Constitution fiasco, etc. etc. -- which very strongly alienated moderate Northern opinion, and directly led to the rise of the Republican Party as the first major anti-slavery party. So the strategy of trying to restore a parity of slave states at all costs without paying any attention to the political consequences really turned out to be greatly counterproductive... AnonMoos (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. The slavery issue was the elephant in the room during the first 75 years of the nation's existance, it influenced nearly every single political issue on a national level in a huge way. The very existance of any legalized slavery made the Civil War inevitable, despite all of the wrangling by the south to maintain slavery and by the north to avoid addressing the issue directly and avoid open revolt. Both sides ultimately failed in reaching a political end to slavery, which is why there was a military one. --Jayron32 02:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the South viewed their choices as this:

A) Stick with the Union, and slowly lose influence as the population of the North continued to outstrip theirs, and new free states formed, as (perhaps over a generation or two) slavery would become more and more restricted, and eventually outlawed. At this point the North's further advantages in population and industrial capacity would make the South powerless to act.

B) Secede immediately, in which case they felt they had some chance of either avoiding a war or fighting the North to a draw, and thus establishing an independent nation where slavery could be preserved forever.

Now, that last goal, of maintaining slavery forever, seems absurd to me, as they would have become more and more isolated internationally as long as they maintained that practice, but they seemed to have thought it was still possible. StuRat (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of bad decisions seem like "a good idea at the time". Even at that, there was a degree of steamrolling and reluctance in the secession. The border states refused to align with the Confederacy. Western Virginia split off to become a new state. North Carolina's secession vote was a rejection, until they found themselves surrounded by Confederate states, and then they reluctantly re-voted to join the Confederacy. The South had the will and the leadership to win the early battles, but the North had the resources, and once they got some generals that were up to the task, and as long as they stuck with it, they would prevail. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't have any immediate practical effect in terms of slavery, but it was a brilliant political stroke, in that it took away any chance that England would come to the aid of the South, and guaranteed that the South would be treated like a "conquered nation" once the North's resources inevitably overwhelmed the South. The Confederacy was indeed a "lost cause", and the Proclamation was one of the nails in its coffin. The ultimate irony is that the decision to secede hastened the arrival of all the issues in your point (A), and it also helped accelerate the power and strength of the Union toward what it would become in the 20th century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

StuRat -- A lot of Northerners interpreted the basic Southern position as being a classic case of "Rule or Ruin". From 1852-1861, southerners or those friendly to southern positions dominated the executive branch through extremely pro-Southern presidents, dominated the U.S. Supreme Court, and dominated the Senate, for a clear stranglehold on 2½ of the 3 branches of government (the remaining ½, the House, went back and forth after the political turmoil stirred up by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, see above). There was no clear and present immediate danger to the existence of slavery inside the slave states after the election of Lincoln to the presidency -- however, what would have greatly changed in 1861 would have been that the Southerners would have had to get used to the fact that they had lost their previous domination over U.S. politics as a whole. (Of course, some would say that the Southerners had wantonly thrown away their domination by engineering the Douglas-Breckinridge split within the Democratic party in 1860, which paved the way for Lincoln to win the election). A common Northern perspective was that Southerners decided what they could not dominate, they would petulantly attempt to destroy ("rule or ruin")... AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln did win without a single electoral vote from a slave state didn't he? Googlemeister (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. See United States presidential election, 1860. The South had a couple of their puppets in the White House during the 1850s, and once Lincoln was elected, the South knew the game was up. (As noted by others earlier in this discussion.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

amount of grain used to produce a kilo of beef and economics

Hi, you always hear that it takes about 16 kilos of grain to produce a kilo of beef, which we normally think of as a science question, but isn't it rather an economics one? The (average) cost of a kilo of beef doesn't look to me (when I visit the supermarket) too much like 16 times the cost of a kilo of flour, so if it were taking 16 kilos of grain for each of those kilos of beef, surely the farmers would do better to sell the grain as flour. I know there's more to it than that, because the real determinant for the farmer is the market cost of the thing he sells to another firm, minus the production cost, with something more factored in for the delay in growing a cow (if it's not baby beef, at least). Still, these things look simple enough, and I would think that the trouble of growing grain, then feeding it unprocessed to cows, then looking after the cows must be greater (hence more expensive) than just growing grain and milling it into flour. Hence surely the hidden factors would be on the "pro-flour" side of the balance sheet, one would think. What of this argument? What is the difference in profitability for a kilo of flour and a kilo of beef, and does this translate correctly into the cost to the consumer, or is there some form of inefficiency clouding the market in some countries? I'm in Australia, but interested in what happens elsewhere, also. Many thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the farmer isn't paying for a kilo of flour retail, he's purchasing unprocessed grain. Part of the cost of the flour is the cost of milling it, packaging it, shipping it to the store, advertising it, lighting and heating the supermarket, paying for the checkout clerks, etc. There's also the issue of bulk discounts; the farmer isn't buying 1-5 kilos at a time, but more on the order of tonnes. The per-kilo price of several tonnes of grain at a feed mill will be less than the per-kilo price of flour purchased retail. By the way, the same can be said about the kilo of beef, too. The price the farmer will get for his cattle will be less per-kilo than you'd pay the store, due to butchering, packing, shipping, etc. costs. The fact that a kilo of flour and a kilo of beef are close to the same price retail is probably more an indication that the packing, shipping, etc. costs are similar. -- 174.21.244.142 (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with most of the above, where I am, beef mince is of the order of pounds per kilo; flour somewhere in the tens of pence range, perhaps ten times less per kilo. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And that argument against meat tends to be rather one-sided. That is, IF you were to feed cattle all on grain suitable for people, that argument might apply. However, cattle can eat things which people can't eat, like grasses, and most cattle have these as at least part of their diet. Now, you might think that (human edible) grains could just be grown everywhere grass is, but it can't, at least not at the same price. Cattle might also be wiling to eat grain crawling with bugs, which would disgust people. Also, some animals, such as sheep, can get at grass and grains in areas that would be impractical to harvest, such as hilly areas and those with mixed and/or sparse vegetation. So, all this makes meat not quite as expensive in environmental or economic terms. Also, those comparisons tend to say that we could get our calories cheaper from the grains directly than via beef, but if you look at getting protein that way, beef's a better bargain, since beef has maybe 10 times as much protein by weight. StuRat (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

...because 10 is greater than 16? ;-) Seriously, I'm a meat-eater as they come. But from an economic and ecologic perspective, going (more) vegetarian makes a lot of sense. Most people in the first world do not suffer protein deficiency (indeed, most suffer no deficiency in any kind of food, but rather the opposite). It is true that there are marginal environments in which animals can extract useful calories from primary production, but these are fairly rare. Most of the meat we (as a society) eat comes from more or less factory-raised animals fed with high-energy fodder that does crowd out potential human food production. If we ate half the meat at twice the price, that would be an overal improvement to economy, ecology, and health. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Where I live, cattle don't eat grain. They graze land, most of which couldn't be used to grow anything edible by humans on any commercial scale. Even more so for sheep and goats "The kilo of grain versus kilo of beef" argument is a strawman. Gwinva (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

See my preceding comment. The situation exists, but is rare for meat consumed in the first world. The argument is completely valid, although, as always, the real world us more messy than a laboratory. I'd be interested to know where your experience is coming from, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Open range cattle are not rare in the US West, and much of that land would require very major irrigation etc. to make usable for crops.

(Also, it does not seem entirely obvious that changing our agricultural practices in the First World, even to a much more efficient model, would actually help world hunger; much more food is produced globally than is needed to feed the total global population. The areas with really severe hunger are largely the ones cut off from being able to get food from elsewhere -- because of war-caused disruptions or extreme poverty or etc. So it isn't wholly clear that making more food in the US (or Europe, or wherever) would result in getting more food to sub-Saharan Africa (or wherever) -- though one could argue that a greatly lowered cost of food might well help. (The war-torn regions, which seem to be a large proportion of the really bad cases, would probably still remain unable to get the food...)

As for the ecological argument... that's probably even trickier, and may be simply a matter of weighing different goods and harms against one another. Open range cattle, and other models that allow real grazing [as opposed to feedlot/mostly grain-fed models] is probably closer to the natural environment of the central and western US than normal farms -- these were grazed lands, often by bison. Of course, cattle tend to overgraze, but even a severely overgrazed grassland is probably more like the original than a pesticide- and fertilizer-drenched corn monoculture. OTOH cows produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas... and there are a billion other factors... Vultur (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of this open range cattle will be move to a feedlot for "finishing" before being marketed. That's where the high-energy food is fed to them. I don't know how big the market for purely grass-fed beef is, but it's fairly hard to find in supermarkets where I have lived, and typically has a big price premium.

Yes, the ecological situation is complex (and made more complex because we have basically no "natural" land anyways - the great plains probably were partly shaped by managed burning since 10000 BCE or so). But that does not change the fact that intensive corn production (needed to feed cattle in feedlots) and deforestation to create pasture land have massive negative impacts. If we restrict our beef diet to just pastured cattle on existing pasture (something the market will not bear, of course), your argument would apply. As always, there is no easy solution to real-world problems, but we should at least stop subsidising over-production in ecologically harmful modes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe Gwinva lives in NZ Nil Einne (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The same conditions apply in parts of the north-west of England where grain will not ripen for human consumption, but where the land is well-suited to meat production. Dbfirs 08:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to today's commodity prices, corn is 7.36/bu ($0.131 a lb) vs feeder cattle at $1.419 a lb. That is a ratio of 1 to 10.8, not 1 to 16. Googlemeister (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you get to the fun part. For the cattle, what's the weight being quoted? If it's feeder cattle, it's probably the live weight, as opposed to the hanging weight (deskinned/degutted) or even total butchered weight. The 16-to-1 ratio was probably calculated based on the butchered-in-supermarket weight (because that's where it's most relevant, also where you'd get the most shocking ratio). If a live cow is 50% salable (finished) meat, the grain ratio for the live weight is then only 8-to-1. Also, the feeder cattle price is for the cattle prior to the feedlot, where they are typically fed more grain. A farmer selling feeder cattle hasn't put in 16 lb or even 8 lb of grain for every pound of cattle - and that's even assuming they've only been fed grain, as opposed to the most likely case where they've been grazed instead. As is typical with any statistic provided by someone pushing an agenda, the 16-to-1 figure represents the extreme. -- 174.21.244.142 (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And where would Organic farming be without all that animal muck? Alansplodge (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Marge Simpson: "Homer, we need more manure for the crops."

Homer Simpson: "Geez, I'm only one man !" StuRat (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you pick up last week's issue of The economist food economics and the global food supply get 8 pages of coverage and the comparisons between meat and plant-based foods features prominently.124.171.192.209 (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks, that's fantastic, especially the last point. I will be sure to check that out. Great magazine from everything I've come across. It's been emotional (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Who were the boy's in the car with Sharon Carr when she murdered Kaite Rackliff?

Hi

Having read many articals on Sharon Carr and the murder of Katie Rackliff (Camberley, Surrey, UK) I am curious to find out if the 2 boys that were in the car with Sharon were ever found, or convicted, if so why have they not been demonised like Sharon.

In an artical by the Independant it say's

'Detectives seized Carr's writings and drawings, and questioned her for 27 hours. She gave three different accounts of how Katie had been killed, but in all of them the central theme was she had repeatedly stabbed her.

In two of the versions, Carr said she was with two boys in a car at the time of the attack, and they had engaged in sexual activity with Katie before dumping the body. She named the two boys. Police interviewed them but they provided alibis for each other, and were eliminated from the inquiry. However, the prosecution could not satisfactorily explain how Katie, who weighed 8st 8lbs, was dragged across a pavement and around a corner by a 12-year-old girl.' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/i-was-born-to-be-a-killer-every-night-i-see-the-devil-in-my-dreams-1275032.html)

How can the boy's she mentioned be let go after giving EACH OTHER alibis??? - surely this way any 2 people who decide to commit murder could give each other alibis and get off - can you please explain this as a point of law - or is the Independant incorrect? Thank you.

Jojojojo2828 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

They could give each other alibis, but as with any defence the alibis need not be believed by the Police or accepted by a jury. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

From reading the article, it seems that the only reason to suspect the involvement of the boys was Carr's statements - and these weren't consistent. Even without alibis, any charges against them would have been based on dubious evidence. On that basis, the only person who could be charged was the one person who was involved according to verifiable (if circumstantial) evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So how did Carr drag Katie accross the pavent and round the corner???Jojojojo2828 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Program applications

Hi. I'm a 12th grade student and in my final summer before college I have some summer programs that I'm interested in, for which I will no longer qualify after beginning college. (and which I finally have time for now that I don't have any more summer homework or "Extended Essays" or service hours to log) I will be taking various courses whose subjects I love but which do not figure into my career path. A lot of them require application fees or deposits, up to 300$, which is quite a lot. Will they just throw away my application without reading it if I don't pay the fee when submitting it, or will they read it then if I am accepted they'll send me a note saying I need to pay the fee before I can attend (that I can do). Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It is more likely that they would return your application unprocessed, saying that it should be re-submitted along with the fee stipulated. The delay this would introduce could mean that a deadline would pass or that all the available course places would have been filled by the time of your resubmission. If you are sure of having the necessary money by the time(s) of commencement, perhaps you could arrange a loan from a relative, friend, or some local businessperson with reason to trust you. There might possibly be some academic trust fund or bursary local to you (wherever you are) or at the institutions concerned (whatever they are) that would help out with cases such as yours, but without knowing those details no-one answering here is likely to be able to advise you further. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.248 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A $300 application fee sounds like a scam to me. It can't possibly take that much to hire people to read your application, so they must be making money off it. Stay away. StuRat (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the above scam assessment. Admission deposit (usually non-refundable) will be deducted from your total tuition; it's not an additional charge (one example). @OP: Different college has different payment policy, your best course of action would be to call the college (admission office/register) and ask. Royor (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify: A $300 deposit, once you've been accepted, is reasonable. A $300 application fee is a scam. StuRat (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a big difference between an application fee and an admission deposit. The former are usually low (though still irritating, in my opinion). The latter can be quite high — they are basically just recoverable, non-refundable fees for anyone who has actually enrolled. (If you transfer or drop out, you don't have to pay the rest of your tuition, obviously, but the university keeps the deposit.) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you get the deposit back if they don't accept your application? I've never head of such things in the UK. Some places charge application fees (of £10, say), but that's it. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Our questioner doesn't specify what country s/he is in, and "300$" is not a common way of expressing the sum of three hundred US dollars — perhaps the questioner is in another country, one that uses the "$" to refer to a weaker currency. Don't know about any current currencies, but I know that Portugal used to use the $ (to express 300 escudos and 33 centavos or centimos or whatever made up an escudo, you'd write "300$33"); is this character still in use in a former Portuguese colony? Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP looks up to the US and the OP appears to live in the US although may not be a citizen [12] [13]. It may be they're not a native English speaker although I'm not sure of that [14] Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)