<p>
[quote]
anyway, the food is really great around berklee, so for fun i think i'll eat out a lot haha.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>there is no good food around berklee. its in boston.</p>
<p>Heh. Voldemort. </p>
<p>Too bad the CKC DC never really care for the comment cards. Last semester (I'm not sure if this semester improved since we haven't had late-night in a while), my floormates and I get late-night pizza at least once a week. Our order would get screwed up one way or another every single time. We would get wrong toppings/spoiled toppings/etc. One time, two of us went to get the food and decided to split the bill between two cards, and the cashier couldn't even do the math properly. (I don't remember what the exact numbers were, but it was something like the total amount was $39, one of them said he was paying $19, and the cashier thought the other would have to pay $40.. it was just completely off.) Anyway, we must have written 10 or 15 comment cards by the end of fall semester, and nothing really changed. <em>shrugs</em> Oh well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
anyway, the food is really great around berklee, so for fun i think i'll eat out a lot haha.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>there is no good food around berklee. its in boston.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know if "berklee" is on purpose or not but it really is becoming visually annoying.</p>
<p>In any case, if you haven't ventured off the campus to eat, you're missing out. If you ventured off the campus and still didn't think the food was good in BERKELEY, then that truly says something about your sense of taste.</p>
<p>Berkelee is an amazing music school in Boston (hence scapermoya 's post).</p>
<p>Ok, that explains things. I was somewhat confused by the conversation.</p>
<p>My apologies for misinterpreting.</p>
<p>No problem at all, I'm familiar with it and was confused for a second (then I was going to say, "I hope it has something around it- it is in Boston!"</p>
<p>Oh, Californiacentrism.</p>
<p>listen, when you have this many electoral votes, its hard not to get a little californiacentrist</p>
<p>not to mention the weather</p>
<p>Isn't California actually underrepresented in terms of electoral votes per capita?</p>
<p>It is--all of the most populous states are. The smaller states banding together have more power in terms of electoral votes than California, Texas, etc.</p>
<p>"Isn't California actually underrepresented in terms of electoral votes per capita?"</p>
<p>No, well sort of. It depends on your frame of reference. States like Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, and the Dakotas, are over represented. They should only have 2 (and 1 in Alaskas case) electoral votes but the lowest number allowable is 3 (two representatives and 1 senator). Thus if you moved to one of these states you would have a greater influence on the outcome of the national election.</p>
<p>The larger your population the smaller that extra electoral vote counts.</p>
<p>LOL! If the number of electoral votes a state has was determined by how much money it has, then we wouldn't be living in the country: "The United States of America." We would all be living in "California"</p>
<p>dont get me started on this. oh wait, too late.</p>
<p>the number of congressmen has been capped for almost a century now, so not only is the whole electoral system biased towards smaller states (which overwhelmingly tend to be more conservative), but so is congress. people argue that it makes it more fair for smaller states to be over-represented, but thats what the senate is for.</p>
<p>what needs to happen is a set federal ratio between electoral votes and population. of course, if this were the case, the republicans would never have a chance of winning an election. based off of wyoming's ratio, which is extreme granted but im making a point, they have ~493,782 people and the mandatory minimum 3 votes. thats 164,594 per electoral vote. if that were applied to california, the most populous state, with ~33,871,648, we should have 33,871,648/164,594 = ~206 electoral votes, when we now have 55.</p>
<p>basically, there would need to be a whole lot more representatives in the house to make up for the vote-power disparity, but i doubt it will happen.</p>
<p>Has the disparity always existed to that extent, or has it been more exacerbated recently due to demographics trends?</p>
<p>well, like i said, the number of reps. was frozen in 1911. so basically, the distribution worked then, but since then population ratios between the sparsely populated states and places like new york, california, and texas have gotten more and more out of hand. the number of electors is based directly on the reps, sentators, and 3 additional for DC because of the 23rd amendment (so 435 + 100 + 3 = 538).</p>
<p>we need to have a much larger house, it would need to have over 1000 people in it for the system to be fair, and I dont see that happening. this is part of a much larger problem of small states versus large ones. most small states get more in federal aid than they give in federal taxes, and its the opposite for larger states, for obvious reasons. and because larger states tend to be more blue, one could make the argument that a lot of blue money goes to pay to keep red states afloat. there are counterexamples of course, but i dont have to mention them because i feel like conservatives are full of ****.</p>