Jump to content
Forums upgraded! Read more... ×
cn-nadc.net | North Atlantic Defense Coalition


Former Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Kajdav last won the day on August 29 2011

Kajdav had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

About Kajdav

  • Rank
    Resident Devil's Advocate
  • Birthday 02/21/1993

Contact Methods

  • MSN

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Probably on IRC
  • Interests

Cybernations Info

  • Nation Link
  • Nation Ruler
  • Nation Name
  • Resource One
  • Resource Two

Recent Profile Visitors

7,544 profile views
  1. Kajdav

    Who Will Post Next?

    Haven't been here in ages! TankKiller!
  2. Kajdav

    Steam Accounts

    Fizzex, what's your account name?
  3. Kajdav

    Steam Accounts

    Add me if you've got one, name's Kajdav. I've been incredibly bored this week and will need to kill some more time for about another week. If you're up for some games lemme know. In other news, I think we should start a big game of Civilization V. Lemme know if you're interested and I'll try and start one up tomorrow night or so.
  4. Kajdav

    Well, hello there!

    Armed Coalition of Valor(?). I believe you founded it post-BLEU with a few ex-NADCers.
  5. Kajdav

    Well, hello there!

    Definitely Doomkid. I do believe it was frank with the pear avatar as well. With a caption saying 'lolwut', if I'm not mistaken.
  6. Kajdav

    Canada's Federal Equalization program

    Conservative is a relative term. In Canada they may be conservative, but not down here. I hope you don't think I'm ragging on Canada, by the way. I see it as communistic, but whatever floats your boat is fine with me. It's just not something I want to, or think will, happen in the US.
  7. Kajdav

    Canada's Federal Equalization program

    Not in the US. It's straight up communism that is.
  8. Kajdav

    Health Care

    We're not a granny state. At least, a few of us still like to think so.
  9. Kajdav

    3d forum

    Pretty legit!
  10. Kajdav

    Health Care

    No we won't. Everything done at the state level can be so much more easily reversed. On top of that, if you have fifty states trying to find a comprehensive health program, then you reach a solution fifty times faster than trying one program at a time on the federal level. Ok then. Is it ok to force people to have jobs too? That's what pays for the broccoli, brother.
  11. Kajdav

    Health Care

    This man has it. The argument for the best health care system is irrelevant in the case of Obamacare. As far as the healthcare industry crosses state lines, I'm ok with the federal government regulating it. But simply because healthcare is a big deal in my life doesn't give the federal government any more right to force me to do something. It's like saying the government can tell its people what kind of food to buy because they eat a lot. To the states, like it should have been done in the first place.
  12. Kajdav

    Well, hello there!

    Heya, welcome back Azue.
  13. Kajdav

    US Politics - The Electoral College

    Correct you are, but campaigning would be distributed between urban cities rather than states. I live in one of the many areas ignored by candidates, but I could drive to a city within an hour that would receive candidate attention. There is no way to completely level the playing field between the urban and rural population, but narrowing it down to cities rather than states would definitely slash the disadvantage that rural Americans have. Correct you are. Yet it has happened. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, then that doesn't really make any sense.
  14. Kajdav

    US Politics - The Electoral College

    Now you're double categorizing. Taking ONLY size of a state into account, a candidate is going to campaign in bigger states. My point still applies in that if there are several key swing states, a candidate is obviously going to focus mostly on the largest one. Regardless, swing states themselves are only a factor because of the electoral system. As you said, candidates only shoot for the states that are split roughly down the middle, and states that lie on either side of the line will receive little to no attention. Extremely technical, but yes you're correct. Actually, I think I did calculate for total population... Either way it was a very low percentage. And my point isn't that it's going to get that low, but that it's very possible to lose while winning the popular vote.
  15. Kajdav

    US Politics - The Electoral College

    More populous areas will receive more attention in campaign season under any system, though the EC system can drastically magnify it. That's actually only partially true. Each state chooses on their own how to choose their electors, and they also define how binding a vote for elector is. For instance, in many states an elector is bound by law to cast their vote in the national convention for whomever the popular vote within the state chose. If they go against that, then they are subject to arrest and are no longer that state's delegate. However, as I said, it's a state thing. It can still happen in some states. Right you are. In fact, in the last election a candidate could technically have won with only (roughly) 11% of the popular vote. I knew there was a reason I liked you. Right now the electoral system is stuck in a state between what the founding fathers established and where populists see it. I will first explain to you the populist version, as it will be quick to explain and easy to understand. The populist version of presidential elections would be (ideally) a short and sweet process in which everyone votes and the candidate with the highest percentage of the population voting for them wins. The original process was what some might label as slightly elitist and undemocratic, hence its slipping away over time. In this process each state was allowed to send a certain amount of delegates to the national convention, the number of which was mostly based upon population (It was and is based upon the number of representatives said state has in congress. So, 2 (senators) + X population (members of the house)). It was and is up to each state how the delegates are chosen. Initially the electors would actually campaign themselves. You would actually vote for electors in every sense of the word. Back then, when the world was a much bigger place, it was nigh impossible for the general population to get to know presidential candidates. So instead, they would get to know local delegates and select one to choose a president in their stead. Candidates who were elected could get to know presidential candidates, either before during or after they were elected (Electors were likely often prominent figures in national politics, possibly even members of congress to which their seat was correlated, though this is only an assumption on my part.). Through this process, those who were voting could get to know those who were being voted for. The people really had a chance to get to know their electors, and electors really had a chance to get to know presidential candidates. Hopefully you can see the distinction between the two processes. Over time, we drifted from the original process due to the Populist Movement. Populism is basically a philosophy in which an ideal leader will do exactly what the people want and say, and nothing else. The founding father's philosophy was much less that of the delegate democracy of the populist movement, and more of a trusteeship seen in a Republic. They believed that those elected to lead should indeed lead. Rather than listen to whatever the people were saying, representatives should do what they believed to be best for both the people and the nation. You can see many hints to this philosophy in the constitution and original US and state governments. Anyways, back on topic, the populist movement has been an up and down movement for many years, and has had such an impact on modern politics that many of their ideals are now taken for scripture by much of the general population, and anyone who opposes them are sentenced to political damnation. Hence why the electoral college has tried moving from the original trusteeship method towards a sort of demented popular vote system that is in place today. I'm in favor of the original process.