Excellent argument.
It's contrasted against a point I wasn't trying to make.

My argument was the math.
Diffuse, superficial influence doesn't stick and is only useful for short-term election cycles.

Concentrated influence grows roots.
Exponential growth wins.

I suspect this is exactly why liberals are so concerned with controlling the education system.
I also suspect this is why they like government dependence to become a habit passed between generations.

Back to Santorum:

Ron Paul took his lunch money tonight.

The point you made in your previous post is consistent with an approach to American politics you've been articulating on this BB for at least the last two years. This approach calls for the concentration of power within individual states and leaves dissenters with the option to "vote with their feet."

How is your proposed solution to the current crisis in American politics any different than what many proposed during the mid-nineteenth century? Is your proposed approach sustainable today even though the founding fathers warned us against it, they devised a system of government to protect us from it, and yet it still almost managed to destroy the country in the 1860s? Is your view of what you call "liberalism" so imposing to you that the only way America can be protected from it is to chart a ruinous path?

And also. Why, when it is brought to your attention that your proposals have already been the subject of debate and experimentation in our past, do you turn the conversation to basic math? Are you suggesting that arithmetic trumps historical experience? Is it your contention that previous attempts to apply similar approaches to American politics failed because the practitioners did the math wrong? Or are you using an elegant short-hand to make a more profound philosophical point about the illogical nature of humankind? :confused:

Why not do your intellectual due diligence and develop answers to your own questions?

I would argue yes - no many how many times prominent or large numbers of people have said otherwise (and had it recorded for the ages), 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 and I can readily prove it.

I have yet to see anything that trumps arithmetic when it comes down to facts. I had a high school teacher that referred to math as "the only perfect science".

Godwins Law!

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...%3Disch&itbs=1

I would argue it plays a part but that it depends - based upon the subject and the intellectual level(s) of the participants.

For example, 2 people + 2 people may initially equal merely 4 people at the most supeficial level of understanding, but in the realm of personal beliefs and higher levels of reasoning (e.g., the interpolation of History and its relevance), the permutations of ideas explored and conclusions which can be expressed that may then alter the beliefs or actions of others go far beyond a simple 2nd grade-level mathematical equation.

In politics, where literally millions of people and their myriad beliefs, opinions, and actions all interact, such simple math certainly does not apply in a representative system in which a President can be elected without receiving a simple majority of the popular vote of the electorate, or, if that fails, by either a select judicial or legislative body. Therefore, 2 votes + 2 votes may equal 4 votes, but the reasoning behind those votes and the affect of those 4 votes may vary dramatically depending upon where they are being cast and for whom.

Then there is the practicing of the art and science of warfare, where math applies as a consideration but is seldom the sole determinant as to the outcome of skirmishes, battles, expeditions, campaigns, and wars.

And even in science and engineering, 2+2 of something does not necessarily always = 4 (except at the most rudimentary level of understanding) - 4 'similar' objects or life forms, perhaps, but seldom (if at all) exactly equal, either in their existance or in their influence.

So, IMO, unless you're teaching simple addition to a six-year-old...I would argue that it depends.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Hopefully in 8 years...
 

.... Rick Santorum will be able to run again, because imho he will not win the GOP. I personally would like to see him with a little more seasoning, hopefully maintaing the same passion, but a bit more (for lack of a better word) settled.

As a Catholic myself, I respect his faith and I think he's a fine role model, however the defining charactersict trait I witnessed last night in the debate was when you rattle his cage he's easily knocked off his rocker (at the very least in appearace and impression). This reminded me of the Catholic Sisters and Brothers that taught me growing up, some of the best people you can know, but absolutely stubborn in their belief (I'm not saying this is a fault, just a turn-off to voters). If in (lets HOPE) 8 years of some possitive turnaround he is able to maintain a better disposition when attacked and respond a little cooler under pressure then he could become an outstanding leader of this country.

My humble $.02,

Tweeder

After last night's debate, which it the first one I have watched all the way through, my initial thoughts were strengthened.

Although I am a Rick Santorum kind of a girl, I would vote for any of the members of the panel last night (with the exception of Ron Paul. His thoughts on foreign policy leave alot to be desired, IMHO) againt Obama. Any of the 3 would make a much better POTUS than the one we are currently chained to right now.

You're talking math - Sigaba specifically stated "arithmetic". Given his proclivity for arguing word usage, this is an important distinction.

I agree wholheartedly with your post, but your argument applying all of math to the narrow field of arithmetic is akin to complaining about inadequate application of the finer points of grammar and composition on someone's spelling test.

Now...back on subject. I can't believe the GOP can't do better than the current clown show, and I'm secretly hoping this is all a distraction before the real candidate is announced at the GOP convention.

I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention when I read this statement:

I'll try to do better.

As for the current political Circus of Dr Lao affair we're experiencing, I'll be surprised if we don't encourage Yottle to make an appearance sometime soon - which might actually make it all more interesting.

And so it goes...

Richard

We're talking past each other.

"Voting patterns" evoked thoughts of statistical survey sampling and how politicians use these tools to taylor their message and manipulate the masses.
It alse evoked thoughts of growth rates of different constituencies, the Roe Effect, the Fertility Gap, muslims overrunning Europe, and many others.

The miscommunication in no way diminished your post.
Nobody expects you to be a mind-reader.

During the the last 4 1/2 years on this board I've approached far more topics through the lens of a math mind than I've posted on narrow subject of federalism.
We all have our lenses and miscommunications are bound to happen given the limitations of this media.

Or, better yet, why not implement my beliefs into my life and actively influence those with whom I am sharing life's journey.
(Already do this...)

Some sing, some dance.

Now now, Dr.
There is no reason to taunt History majors about their atrophied left inferior parietal and frontal lobes.
:D;)

2+2 equals 4 on paper...always has and always will. Math may well be the "perfect science" unfortunately people are not scientific. The thing I love most about science is it proves a rule. I before E except after C or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh.

I read this entire thread. Some very good analysis; some very astute opinions. Trying to make people into a mathematical equations is not cost effective from any viewpoint.

My dad always said folks vote with their wallets rather than their feet. Take it for what it's worth.