Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 November 8

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.

November 8

Election lockdown

Ever since the Boston Marathon bombing I've been seeing more and more stories about U.S. cities officializing cowardice and demanding that citizens remain at home while police root about for a terrorist. What happens if this happens on the day of the election? Is there any provision to allow the vote to continue on a later day in this scenario? At first blush it seems realistic that a close presidential election could be entirely decided by a single terrorist-errant who gets a city "locked down" in this way in order to keep its voters from being counted, while leaving the rural part of the district to vote for Trump. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want this to happen it can't hurt to not post this. Or at least wait until this election's over. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a form of lockdown in itelf, SMW. I think I'm with Wnt on this question of infantilization. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The OP's question calls for speculation, and is not appropriate here. As to the Boston Bombers situation, the police had enough to do to try to find those two lunatics without having to deal with self-styled heroes and oblivious fools. That term "infantilization" is a huge insult. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Viewed from this side of the pond, the Boston thing looked like some sort of Keystone Kops farce. As to the OPs question, "Is there any provision to allow the vote to continue on a later day in this scenario?" does not call for speculation of any sort whatsoever. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There are only 0.005 cops per resident in my city. If it's similar 300 km down the road in Boston then that's a lot of peoples' backyards and subways, docks, businesses, maybe wooded areas (at least in the suburbs) to hide in and thoroughly search. If they want to have a line they'd need to walk from one side of the city, too (this is how wolves were made extinct from Manhattan Island, they had a line of guys from river to river walk from one end to the other and shoot every wolf they found, when they walked all ~22 km they went home. I guess the wolves came when the sea level was lower) I'm sure that if terrorist manhunts become common they'd stop locking down cities. They didn't shut down an area during the New York bomber manhunt (though his explosion didn't kill anyone and they sent everyone a text telling us to call 911 if we have tips) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

As I recall, someone tipped off the police about somebody holing up in a boat he had parked in his yard. They also used heat-sensing cameras to look for him. It certainly didn't look like Keystone Kops from here. The way they did it made total sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: "officializing cowardice", it's a good idea to get the citizens off the street so the criminals can't hide in a crowd, take hostages, etc. It's common to do that, although usually on a smaller scale, whenever a dangerous criminal is known to be in a specific area. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, it worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, we digress, but no, it didn't work. The perp was hiding in a parked-up boat, iirc, and there's a strong argument that had more people been on the street looking rather than hunkered down in their bunkers, he's have been found sooner. Still. Enjoy your police militarisation. What could go wrong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe he was visible from ground level, which is why he hid in the boat. He was visible from the windows on the 2nd stories of the surrounding houses, though, so people being inside their homes would make him more likely to be spotted, not less. Also, if there were crowds in the street, he might have chosen to try to blend in rather than hide in the boat. StuRat (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What could go wrong is that those guys demonstrated they would shoot anybody. But no additional civilians got killed, and the perps were caught. It worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. —Tamfang (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What's the Latin for "better safe than sorry"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

melior tutius paenitet. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What's the Latin for a cure worse than the disease (weighted by probabilities)? —Tamfang (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it applies here, but in Florida a hurricane made it impossible for many to register in time, and the Republican governor figured the people who couldn't register were mostly Democrats, so he refused to extend the registration period, but the courts overruled him: [1]. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the recourse in such a situation would be to sue the state to either reopen the polls, or allow for late voting. I can't speak for every state, but California's Constitution for example, makes it pretty clear that voting is a right that cannot be infringed, except as described in Article 2 section 4. California statutes also grant election officials very broad powers to make sure people can still vote in the event of natural and man-made disasters, including allowing voting outside one's county of residence, and keeping polls open past election day [2]. I don't feel like looking it up, but I assume most of the other 49 states have similar constitutions and laws. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Too many red states, especially battleground states like Florida, treat voting as a privilege rather than a right. Hence the court fights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• For a precedent... September 11, 2001 ("9/11") was a primary election day in New York... the election was simply cancelled and rescheduled for a later date (a week later if I remember correctly). Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

So how do primary elections work? Was this primary related to the mid - term elections in November 2002? 80.44.161.39 (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It was the New York City mayoral election, 2001. Primaries for federal offices are usually held relatively early in an even-numbered year. City elections do not necessarily coincide with federal elections. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

And just a side note, in NYC, the Mayoral Primary is historically a Big Deal election, in many locales such primaries go unnoticed, but for most of New York City history, winning the Primary was tantamount to election due to the Democratic Party Machine (see Tammany Hall). Even after Tammany Hall was broken, there have been years where there have not been any serious Republican contenders, prior to the late 1980s. There have been some very memorable NYC mayoral primaries, the New York City mayoral election, 1977 was perhaps the most famous, where first and fifth place were separated by less than 5 percentage points. The first time there was a competitive general election for New York Mayor was 1989. The next 2 decades were hotly contested between the Democrats and the Republicans, largely on the rather left-leaning Republican candidates of Guiliani and Bloomberg, however the most recent election in 2013 turned back to the old pattern, with Bill DeBlasio basically could have been declared the winner after the Primary. He faced no serious opposition after that point from the Republican candidate; indeed if you look at the turnouts in the two primaries, its shocking how few Republican voters even cared to choose their candidate, compared to the more robust numbers for the Democratic candidate. --Jayron32 20:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Likewise with Chicago, which elects its mayor the year before the presidential election. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

While there were very good answers posted above, it's worth noting that something like this did happen on a small scale: [3] Voters were told to use "alternate polling places", though I'm not entirely sure how that was done or how many voters were lost in the process. Wnt (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Mental Health in Jail

I am curious to know whether inmates have access to someone to talk to on a regular basis or if they are simply managed without psychotherapy? Also, if they have issues with medication, can they request something else or are they expected to comply without modification? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRef!! (talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In which country/jurisdiction? The English & Welsh prison service employs psychiatrists and other mental health workers and acknowledges that mental health is a major issue amongst its cohort. I suspect, by contrast, that someone like Joe Arpaio is somewhat less interested in MH issues. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I am interested in the United States/Pinellas County, Florida specifically ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRef!! (talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The Florida department of corrections has a fact-sheet on inmate healthcare here, which also contains contact information if you have questions. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I watched on the Dutch TV (public TV, reliable source) that many prisoners from the Netherlands have mental problems and that psychological/psychiatric treatment is quite insufficient for their problems. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What were the purple states in '88 and '84?

The ones that weren't safe Republican or safe Democrat (just DC for 1984 right?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's going to depend on which contest you mean, US President, US Senate, US Congress, State Governor, State Senator, State Congressman, local office, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

My bad. The presidential context. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

SMW you need to be aware that the red/blue descriptions were not codified then the way they are now. See this article Red states and blue states where it points out that the red/blue designations did not come into effect until the 2000 presidential election. MarnetteD|Talk 03:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

We could get around this by defining our own terms. For example, we could look at the election results, and consider any state where the popular vote varied by less than 5 percent for the top 2 candidates to be a "purple state", for that election. See United_States_presidential_election,_1988#Close_states and United_States_presidential_election,_1984#Close_states. StuRat (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, they won that badly. Are those about the ones people thought would be close before Election Day? Cause unless the polls were very bad (demoralized Mondale supporters?) by Monday night people must've thought the safe GOP states exceed 269 Electoral votes and it's getting awfully late for an October surprise right? Was 1988 the last Prez election that was won "before it started"? (not counting early voting) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's never too late for an "October surprise" or even a "November surprise", until one candidate has more votes cast for them than the other major candidate has, plus all the uncast votes. Consider if video turns up showing one candidate saying everything they promised was a lie and they really intend to have all their opponents killed and become a dictator, once elected. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Even that doesn't make it 100% sure. Reagan, Bush 1 and enough Repubs with varsity politics experience could die before the College votes that enough Reagan electors vote Mondale thinking every qualified Republican's gone or it's a sign from God. Aliens could pop out of Bush and Reagan leaving only skins behind right before noon on Inauguration Day, teleport away, destroy Moscow and DC and Mondale's voted in in the do-over. Every President since Washington could be aliens hatched on Gliese 581c so their Presidentness is undefined (de facto yes, not a natural born citizen). In an alternative universe where I was born earlier, a video like that existed on Reagan or Bush Sr. and I had it I wouldn't wait till late on the night before to release it though. That dirt is so bad I might release it as soon as I got it or could sell it in case I get hit by a car or something. Non-guaranteed loss lesser dirt on Reagan or H.W. might be better held back till late but probably not end of the night before late. But anything could happen so I put won before it started in quotation marks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In the United States presidential election, 1992 Clinton won by an electoral landslide, though the fact that vote was divided 3 ways may have helped him considerably. His popular vote margin over the second place George H.W. Bush was large (5.6% advantage) but not so large as to be "over before it started". The United States presidential election, 1996 was probably closer to what you are thinking of in terms of "over before it started". Perot, though he ran again, played a much smaller part. Clinton handily won re-election, and of the states whose margin of victory was <5%, Clinton could have lost all of them and still won the election. In United States presidential election, 2008, Obama pretty well crushed the McCain ticket, being the first candidate to win with a true "majority" since 1988. In that race, had Obama lost every state with a margin <5%, he still would have won the presidency with 291 electors. The United States presidential election, 2012 race was closer, but still, had Obama lost every state with <5% margin in THAT race, he still would have had 272 voters. So, if you want the last time that a candidate could have won the election WITHOUT taking any "close" states, it would be "The last one". --Jayron32 13:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I remember that in 1984, Massachusetts was considered a safe democratic state but still ended up voting for Reagan. DC was considered a safe democratic "state" as well, like Minnesota (Walter Mondale's home state), but polls made it pretty clear that Reagan was safely ahead just about everywhere. That included New York, in spite of the fact a) the democratic VP nominee (Geraldine Ferraro) hailed from there, and b) it's been generally considered a safe democratic state ever since. As mentioned above, some of the demographic factors that have made states coalesce into "blue states" and "red states" in the 21st century were not fully at play yet: there were a lot fewer Hispanic voters, and lot more traditional blue collar voters ("Reagan Democrats") than there are today. See 1984 United States Presidential Election. --Xuxl (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

One thing that cannot be stressed enough is the difference in party politics before the Republican Revolution of the 1990s. Prior to then, both parties were Big Tent Parties, with a wide array of coalitions based mostly on local party affiliations as a result of machine politics. In simple terms, there was not a strong ideological component to belonging to a party, and the nation was not sharply divided by the tribal affiliations of modern U.S. party politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that there came to be a sharp divide between demographics, ideology and party affiliation. --Jayron32 18:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Spirituality

Why isn't there an entry for Bentinho Massaro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FC00:B500:D49B:3B67:4432:8EAC (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Because nobody has yet got around to writing it. You're welcome to do so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• is that not Bentigno Msaro? What is your source? μηδείς (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Does appear to mean http://www.bentinhomassaro.com/ - but I can't immediately see anything about him which is not actually written by him. Google shows nothing for Bentigno Msaro! Wymspen (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is him and doesn't it seem odd that there is nothing about him not written by him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FC00:B500:4113:AC4B:E432:7FA7 (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton and trump both getting less than 270

What happens if the number of electoral votes won by Clinton is more than trump but less than 270?Uncle dan is home (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See [4] for a general overview of how things work in a "hung electoral college", and historical cases, even though the particular potential scenario the article discusses for this election is obsolete. Eliyohub (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If no one has an electoral majority, then the House of Representatives decides the presidential election. Here is a detailed explanation of how it works.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See United States presidential election, 1824 for the last time it happened. --Jayron32 13:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Fivethirtyeight speculated that exact situation on an article here[6]. The 12th amendment stipulates that the top three candidates (which could potentially include Evan McMullin, a conservative independent with extremely strong support in Utah) are submitted to the House of Representatives for voting up to election day. If it hasn't been decided by then who the President will be, the Senate will likely have already decided the vice-president who will become president. But all of this is unprecedented in the modern era so I would expect months of speculation and litigation. uhhlive (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Synonym for rent-seeking

When the phrase rent-seeking comes up in a discussion, it can be interpreted two ways:

Group 1 understands that it's a technical term in economics, and understands that it's a bad thing (as according to most economists).

Group 2 misunderstands the term and confuses it with landlords seeking rent from tenants. When Group 2 sees that Group 1 is so venomously against it, they assume that Group 1 are socialists who's against landlords and the bourgeois.

And thus a small miscommunication causes a flame war and completely derails the original discussion.

Is there a synonym for rent-seeking so that this whole mess can be avoided? Not that there's anything wrong with the phrase as it's coined, but avoiding unnecessary miscommunication is always a good thing.Pizza Margherita (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know any synonym, but perhaps if you're the one invoking the term, use a disclaimer - "this refers to the economist's use of the term, and has nothing to do with landlords and tenants"? Perhaps direct them to the Wikipedia article on the subject? Would that be enough to pre-empt the flame warring and discussion derailing? The question I can't answer is how to douse the flames once they've already erupted. I suspect in such raging conversations, Godwin's law will eventually rear its ugly head, but I can give no advice as to how to stop this in its tracks once the flames are burning. Anyone have any suggestions for the OP? Eliyohub (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics suggests "privilege seeking" as a better alternative. Smurrayinchester 10:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

(If the people you're talking to are familiar with the term "Robber baron", that might help too, although it's almost as unclear a term as "rent-seeking".) Smurrayinchester 10:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

For laymen's terms, I would call it "trying to increase your share of the pie, without making the pie bigger". StuRat (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

…or higher. —Tamfang (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you thinking of pie in the sky? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that landlords are rent-seekers in the economic sense of the phrase, they'd just rather not be identified as such ... which is bizarre, but understandable. A minority of social landlords act more or less benignly. The majority of landlords seek to maximise their rent, and collectively drive up property prices in a Piketty winner-takes-all kinds of a way. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Private landlords are a vital part of the housing scene in Britain, which has a housing crisis, yet the government has started to demonise them. Recently imposed restrictions include:

• Bank of England restrictions on the amount which lenders can allocate to their buy - to - let portfolio
• Withdrawal of tax breaks to borrowers (e.g. on maintenance costs, mortgage payments)
• Onerous licensing requirements for landlords
• Minimum criteria laid down by the government which purchasers must meet before they can get a buy - to - let mortgage
• Higher stamp duty on buy - to - let purchases

Do other countries impose similar restrictions? 80.44.161.39 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Private landlords are part of the cause of the housing crisis, not the cure. "Onerous licensing requirements", yeah, like requiring that houses be safe, for instance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I used to live in San Francisco, where the housing problem is that it's effectively forbidden to provide more housing. I almost said "private landlords are the problem in that there are not enough of them," but in SF the most obvious way to get more dwellings would be to build one level higher, rather than make more buildings. (In the Avenues, where I lived, most buildings have three floors; I heard that zoning, but not the practice of the permit office, allows five.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Nevada's "none of these candidates" option on the ballot - making it constitutional

Nevada used to have a None of These Candidates option on every ballot, including primaries. It was ruled unconstitutional, as the law was that if "none" won, the candidate with the next highest number of votes won the election. Hence, the result was not respected in a democratic sense. I can't get what the ultimate outcome was of the legal battle.

Have there been any attempts in the Nevada State legislature to reform the law, to give real effect to a "none of these candidates" result? The obvious solution would be that if the "none" option won, a new election would be scheduled, at which all the candidates on the previous ballot would be ineligible, as the electorate has explicitly rejected them. The electorate voted "none of these candidates" - let them get exactly that! (I vote for real democracy despite the disruption and cost this would involve. And if there was a real possibility of "none" winning, no doubt parties would make sure to select a "reserve candidate" beforehand at their primaries as a contingency, thus negating the need for a lengthy procedure or new convention to select a new batch of candidates). The judge implied that such a law would be constitutional, as it gives effect to the result of the election. Have any proposals to pass such a reform been brought before the Nevada State legislature? And if not, who's blocking them? I gather the Republicans don't like the law, as they were the ones that challenged it, and they currently control the Nevada Assembly. Is there any chance of the Democrats winning the State back? And have they announced any proposals if they do win power back in Nevada, to pass the sort of reform that I am proposing?

Also, if the Republicans didn't like the law, why did they need to challenge it in court, as opposed to simply getting their colleagues in the Nevada Legislature to abolish it? Was one on Nevada's two legislatures (the assembly or the Senate) controlled by the Democrats at the time?

Now with the Republicans in charge, there would be little chance of amending the law. But if the Dems were in power then, why didn't they change the law promptly, to make it constitutional? Eliyohub (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why do you believe the law is unconstitutional? Our article that you linked to says the ban was overturned and many, many, many recent sources talk about it as if it still exists [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. It's true the option never actually wins but this appears to have always been the case and the Appeals Court seems to agree that this doesn't mean there's something wrong with the option, it's a protest vote. (Likewise, not voting or intentionally spoiling your ballot never actually wins, although in those cases it's not clear what you mean.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

False that it never wins. Have you read our article? "None" has been the top ranking choice in five Primary elections (three republican, two democratic), though never at a general election. And those "none" voters did not have their wishes respected. If the party in question would have been respectful of the voters' wishes, they would have held a new primary, with new candidates. Eliyohub (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. So somebody sneaky could legally change their name to "None of These Candidates", register as a candidate quietly and then rule Nevada with an iron fist? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Methinks you should have small-texted that last comment. I've done so, as I don't want distraction from serious answers. I don't want to distract my own question, but I doubt that would work. Even if "none" won (very rare), I think the law would consider the "none" option Sui generis, and a person of the same name would not count. Eliyohub (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think someone could "quietly" change their name that way. And there have been news stories in the past about guys who tried changing their name to "None of the above" or whatever. Google "man changes name to none of the above" and you can see various stories about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, iirc John Varley – or was it one of the brothers Haldeman? – titled a story "No Award" in a joking attempt to win a Hugo Award. —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course I read our article. I'm the one who pointed out your claim it is unconstitutional isn't supported by the article you linked to. It seems you misunderstood what I'm saying. Perhaps try reading it again. In Nevada, "None of These Candidates" may receive the most votes, but it never actually wins, just like (in most voting systems) not voting or spoiling your ballot never wins. The person who receive the most votes wins, even if the person only received 1 vote, and 500 million other eligible voters intentionally spoil their ballots, vote "None of These Candidates" or simply don't vote. (I said most because there are some systems which aren't quite this.) Whether or not this should be the case is besides the point of the RD.

If you want to ask how likely it is that the Nevada legislature will change the apparently constitutional ballot option "None of These Candidates" which has existed for a long time and through all that time could receive the most votes, but never win, so that it can win, you should rephrase the question. Since as it stands, as I point out in my first post, your question doesn't seem to be supported by anything including our article you linked to.

P.S. You should also explain what you mean by a "reserve candidate". If you allow it, it's obviously always possible that all candidates, including reserve candidate/s will be rejected. If voters are required to accept a reserve candidate, you seem to have defeated your own plan of always allowing the people to choose. If you run out of reserve candidates, you're going to have to find more candidates somehow. Ultimately it's theoretically possible, you will run out of candidates point blank. Of course since finding each batch of candidates adds time and money, it could be this won't happen until after it's the next time to vote, or your state is bankrupt from running all those elections. Running you elections FPTP style probably doesn't help matters. Having only a single "reserve" (or whatever you want to call it) candidate with the only other option being "None of These Candidates" may increase your chances of the candidate actually winning compared to "None of These Candidates". Whether this actually makes sense compared to simply not using FPTP is again something that the RD isn't designed to deal with. You do have other options which again the fairness isn't something the RD is designed to deal with. Like sticking with FPTP but not enforcing it for "none of these candidates", instead requiring 50% +1 for "none" to win.

P.P.S. I admit I should have include a "can" or something similar in my original comment. But I still feel it was clear enough given my mention of spoilt votes and not voting; and also mentioning the courts view that it never winning doesn't mean it's unconstitutional since it can still function as a protest vote (with the unstated implication this ties back to the earlier point namely that the law doesn't allow it to win).

P.P.P.S. One final point which often you may not even need 1 vote for a candidate. Many voting systems have tie breakers for obvious reasons. And if they expect one candidate to win, no matter how many people voted "none of these candidates" or whatever, it's likely the tie breakers will come into play and one of the candidates will win via the tie breaker even if no candidates received any vote and 500 million people voted "none of these candidates"

Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what I meant is the legislature changing the law so that "none" can win (which is what the judge in the initial, later overturned case, said would be needed if the option was to be constitutional). So in the 1976 Republican primary for Nevada's At-large congressional district, where "none" won by a wide margin, clearly the voters were unimpressed with all the options, so the Republican Party should be made to hold fresh primaries, with fresh candidates - not accept a candidate whom a plurality of voters have explicitly rejected, by a clear margin, as I said. (The party should have done this IMHO even if the State law did not require it). I do accept that this process could go on ad infinitium, so maybe I am expecting the impossible. Though a simple way around this problem would be for the law to State that is a party has not successfully chosen a candidate for a given position come election time, they're off the ballot, thus discouraging repeated "none" votes, lest their party be unrepresented for that position at the election. My question is, as far as we know, does anyone in the Nevada State legislature, or even candidates for the State legislature agree with me - that "none" should be allowed to win, and in that case, "none of these" it is, and some process should kick in, e.g. a fresh election with new candidates. Eliyohub (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no "be made to" in the primaries. Primary elections in the United States are largely up to the individual state-level parties to manage their own business; i.e. they are (excepting a few stipulations under holding fair elections under election laws) NOT subject to federal planning in any way. Simply put, it is the PARTIES that hold the primaries and thus the PARTIES that determine the rules for said primaries. For the two major U.S. parties, there would thus be 100 different sets of rules that could be followed (i.e. 50 state Republican party rules and 50 state Democratic party rules). Not every state party even holds a proper primary, some hold caucuses instead. --Jayron32 19:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

In which case, does the Nevada legislature truly have the power to dictate that all ballots, including primary election ballots, carry a "none of these candidates" option? As seen, in primary elections, it has at times "won". Could the party challenge or refuse to obey this requirement, and say "get lost, this is internal party business, you have no right to dictate what's on our primary ballot"? Are there any limitations to the state's rights in this area? Eliyohub (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty interesting... --Jayron32 16:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Cost of fast food vs. retail prices of supermarket food

People always blame on fast food for producing too many calories, but then if you go to a supermarket and buy raw ingredients, then it is possible to buy even more calories for the same amount of money. According to howmuchisit.org, a 5-pound bag of russet potatoes could retail for $3 to $5. If you bake 5 pounds or 2268 grams of potatoes in the oven, then the baked potatoes will generate 3000 calories. At a fast food restaurant, a $3-5 hamburger is nowhere near 3000 calories. At most, it will probably generate 800-1000 calories. The 16 fluid ounces of soda may generate 182 calories and cost just $1. Making your own sugar water at home with honey and water, that may cost $0 for the water (collected from a public water fountain) and, according to the same website for the price of honey, it may cost $5-6 per pound (1379 calories per pound). For each dollar worth of honey, that generates 276 to 230 calories. How did fast food companies earn a reputation of being "cheap" and "unhealthy" when supermarket products are no more healthy than fast food? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

On a calorie-to-calorie basis, sure. But to make a balanced diet to get a proper balance of both macronutrients (proteins, carbs, fats) and micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) is different than simply total calories. If you ate nothing but sugar and water, you'd get very ill within weeks from any number of dietary ailments. Also, many people live in areas known as food deserts, where there is more likely to be a fast food restaurant than a grocery store. If you either have to walk or take public transportation to get to a super market, that's an additional outlay of money and time which your 80-hour-per-week-minimum-wage-making ass may not be able to bear. --Jayron32 17:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Just about everything is more expensive in fast food restaurants, relative to a grocery store. So both healthy and unhealthy foods are cheaper in the grocery store. However, healthy foods may be less expensive relative to unhealthy foods, at the grocery store, while they are more expensive, and less available, relative to unhealthy foods, at fast food restaurants.

For example, let's just look at potatoes, since you brought them up. Potatoes themselves are a fairly healthy item, but, depending on how you prepare them and what you top them with, they may become very unhealthy. If you buy an inexpensive bag of potatoes, you can prepare them in a healthy way, say baking, and then just top with butter, and still have it be reasonably healthy. You can also buy potatoes in a processed form, like french fries, hash browns, potatoes au gratin, scalloped potatoes, potato salad, etc., but those are less healthy and more expensive.

Now for the fast food restaurant. They almost always push french fries, which are unhealthy due to the amount of oil used to fry them and the salt they are topped with. A few places, like Wendy's, will sell you a baked potato, but then they tend to put unhealthy things on it, like bacon and cheese. You can get a plain baked potato there, but you won't see them advertising them or putting them on sale much. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

We also have an article on the criticism of fast food you can peruse at your leisure. uhhlive (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There are a great many politicians who earn a good living by convincing the ordinary people of the world that all their daily activities are sinful, and the only way to atone for that sin is by paying a tax on whatever it is they do that they ought to feel guilty about. So of course they should repent for a beer with a generous donation to the defense-industrial complex, and repent for a soda pop with a pass of the hat for property tax reductions. When they gamble, they should go to a Mafia-approved casino with a proper license for 5000 slot machines to benefit the State, as to play such games on their own would, like all activities of the poor, be criminal. Eventually, when all the resources of the world are in the hands of one man, he will leave all its sins behind with the damned poor, and fly away to Heaven to negotiate with God as an equal. Wnt (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In that you must tax something, and you tend to discourage whatever is taxed, it makes more sense to discourage thinks like gambling, smoking, drinking alcohol, using gasoline, carbon emissions, and junk food than to discourage work with an income tax, home ownership with a property tax, etc. See sin tax. If there were enough sins to run the government based on taxing them, then we should do that exclusively. But, alas, we aren't sinful enough. (Adding prostitution and drugs to the legal tax base, everywhere, would help, though.) StuRat (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

They say the Mafia hasn't been in casinos in a while. How are you going to make sure the prostitutes pay all their sales tax? I'm not really so sure how they attempt that in the state or two where it's legal. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

For prostitutes, you can leave the old laws on the book and apply them to prostitution where no tax is paid. That would give them a powerful incentive to comply, more than many other professions where cheating the tax-man is easy, like a waiter not reporting all his tips. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you bring up honey and water. While there are a few weird sources who make a big deal over "natural" non refined sweeteners, most recognise that there isn't that big a difference between sweeteners and it's best to reduce them particularly for drinks. Actually the big common alternative is fruit juice not water sweetened with honey. But while it isn't uncommon for people to think fruit juices are a good healthy drink, most decent authorities recognise they aren't generally much better (actually worse sometimes). Instead they suggest it's best to mostly drink plain water. Perhaps some unsweetened tea if you want some flavour. Some authorities may also recommend some fairly plain milk for various reasons, but even then the main recommended drink is still generally water. E.g. [13]

Also I'm not sure about the US, but here in NZ soft drinks tend to be a fair amount cheaper at supermarkets so there's no real reason to compare soft drinks in fast food outlets vs buying honey in supermarkets in terms of price at all. As per my earlier point, if you did want to make your own sweetened drink, you could simply use refined sugar like the soft drinks use. (Well maybe not in the US where they tend to use HFCS.)

In pure calorie terms a single burger isn't generally too bad. However once you add fries, you significantly up the calorie count. [14] [15] That said, as Jayron32 and others have said it isn't just about calories. Burgers tend to be high in sodium and fat, and low in essential micro nutrients. There tends to be dispute over how many carbohydrates and what type you should consume. But while there may be some authorities who would consider some baked potatoes with skin okay as a carbohydrate source for at least some meals, very few are going to suggest only eating potatoes. [16] [17] [18] Or even potatoes as the only calorie source. 2200 grams of potatoes seems excessive for many meals anyway even if it is all you are eating. Also few sources suggest fries as a good carbohydrate source. (I.E. Some sources would say the baked potatoes are okay, some may say they are not, but nearly all agree the fries are not.)

Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Who casts the electoral college votes of dead/ill/trapped in an elevator electors?

Surely one has died before that day in December some time in 200 years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Every state decides its own process for appointing Presidential electors, there is no universal policy, so you're going to get 51 different answers here for the 50 states (+DC). There are no federal rules regarding who can serve as an elector excepting that they cannot be an elected official otherwise, the the Constitution sets no requirements on the state over how they choose electors (that each state DOES hold an election for them is an accident of history and not established by the rules. Legally, the governor could just choose a bunch of his croneys and tell them who to vote for). Just to provide one state's procedure for you, here is the laws in Texas regarding presidential electors: [19]. The relevant passage is "Sec. 192.007. REPLACEMENT AFTER ELECTION" The procedure looks reasonable, and likely is similar to that which exists in many states, but there is no requirement for it to be so. --Jayron32 18:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What happens if the POTUS or VPOTUS tiebreaker ties?

i.e. A wins 20 House delegations, B wins 20, and 10 are tied. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The Constitution doesn't say. Presumably they keep going until the tie is broken. Meanwhile, the Senate elects the VP, so unless that one ties too, the VP would become the president, at least temporarily. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

They did keep going. See United States presidential election, 1800. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

the european colonization

why did they have to colonize in america? -- Cassiey (talk · contribs) 22:58, 8 November 2016‎ (UTC)

They didn't "have to", but there was an opportunity there, since they could conquer the natives, and either enslave them and steal their wealth or set up agricultural production there. See European colonization. StuRat (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The ancestors of Native Americans didn't "have to" cross the ice bridge either. They chose to.

Land bridge.
Sleigh (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Either way, they chose to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The OP may wish to clarify "have to". Is the underlying question, why did Europeans create colonies? Or, why were they set up in the United States and elsewhere in the Americas? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Colonization happened for the same reason any organism migrates - to exploit an available ecological niche. People saw their lives being better on another continent, be it for economic, religious, or other reasons. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• This seems to have a good overview. --Jayron32 13:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but not mentioned is the commodities that were in short supply in Europe, such as tall pine trees for ships' masts. [20] Alansplodge (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It may be better to direct people to the economic theory of mercantalism, which is more generally about the need for colonies to produce raw goods for European countries. --Jayron32 16:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)