Kethal

The fact that the number of delegates is not exactly proportional to the population of a state has never resulted in a popular vote mismatch eoth the college. It may happen, but it's incredibly unlikely. Every time there's been a mismatch has been because states allocate delegates in a winner take all manner. One of these this is a real problem amd one is a hypothetical problem. Solving the real problem is straightforward, and involes state level action of only a few states. The hypothetical problem is difficult to solve smd requires coordinated effort of many states at ones. You can spend your time solving a hypothetical problem and maybe achieve success in 70 years. Or you you address the real problem and succeed in 20 years.

It's those who are severely obese. 40% are obese and 75% are overweight.

What you're describing has never resulted in the popular vote winner losing the electoral college. The popular vote winner has always lost because states allocate delegates as a winner-take-all system.

The real solution is to allocate delegates proportionally to how citizens vote, as is done in Nebraska and a couple other states. This achieves exactly the same purpose as the NPVC but is actually politically tractable.

No state has any incentive to assign its delgates to a person the citizens of the state didn't vote for. You can do what the NPVC does and make it contingent upon everyone playing along, but that requires everyone to play along and is incredibly tenuous. Even if it ever goes into effect, as soon as states allocate delegates to someone who wasn't the most popular candidate in their state they'll pull it, and the whole thing will fall apart.

Every state has incentive to allocate its delegates proportionally. That's exactly what people want. They want that more than winner takes all. It doesn't require a huge chuck of states to buy into it amd it isn't tenuous. But it accomplishes the same goal; if states allocate delegates proportionally to how they vote, then the most popular candidate gets the most delegates. If you're in one of the many states that has winner takes all, advocate to do what the few more democratic states have already adopted and are happy with.

https://www.riverratantiques.com/listing/564112683/vintage-1950s-large-ceramic-electrical

https://m.made-in-china.com/product/Cap-and-Pin-Suspension-Porcelain-Insulators-U210BS-2034697475.html

These network transactions cost between 2 to 4 % for merchants, which is a cost passed to consumers by businesses raising prices. That's a fairly large "inflation", and certainly it seems out of line with the effort they out into it. It's anticompetitive practices that keep it in place.

The Windows start menu is inexplicably a huge mess. Like all MS products, they cram their interface with as much as possible.

Is the implication here that you don't use any other programs?

So you use your mouse to click on the start menu button, scroll through the menu and click again on the program? That sounds awful. I click the Windows button and type the program name.

Every state should allocate its delegates proportionally to how its citizens voted. It's the most democratic approach. If just a few (5 to 8 key states) states did this, it would be very unlikely for mismatches between the electoral college and popular vote.

All insurance is paying to reduce risk, which is why I said it would be borderline crazy to not have general health coverege - that's a lot of risk. Dental insurance for the most part covers routine costs, not high risk scenarios. Things like oral cancer are covered by more general plans. So I think largely I agree that dental insurance is a racket. However, I'm sure it makes sense for at least some people so it's hard to make a blanket statement that no one shoud have it.