CFL vs Incandescent

[denverpilot]

Civility & civil discourse aren't your forte are they, Denver...

In these two cases the "regulators" set the tone. They didn't start with Civil Discourse. They started with law mandates and then act later like they're open to discussion. A common tactic of tyrants.

The people who agree with them make a lot of noise saying it's "open to discussion" and trying to "continue the discussion", but the negotiations are already closed by the time they say that. It's just a smokescreen they're helping to generate.

So I get kinda cranky at them.

I don't let people come into my house and start telling me what to do either, so it seems a pretty fair reaction to me. Others may interpret it as "uncivil" if they please. I see it as "Keep outta my business, I'll keep outta yours."

I've looked at the data and decided that for 80% of my light bulb use, incandescents work better for me. I do have about 20% CFL lighting. But in the end-game, the laws are already written, and I won't have the option. So I don't know why I'm even discussing it

This entire thread is just discussing water under the bridge. I had used CFLs where they made sense for me, but that's never ever good enough for the "true-believers".

Oh well. I've hit the "resignation" stage of the grief cycle on this one. Moving on.

 

[weilke]

Oh well. I've hit the "resignation" stage of the grief cycle on this one. Moving on.

Incandescents have a near unlimited shelf-life. I may just go our and buy a whole pallet of assorted lamps just to spite the believers .

 

[mantakos]

... They didn't start with Civil Discourse. They started with law mandates...

Actually, first they started with elections. We chose the 65 Senators and 314 Congressmen who voted for this bill and the President who signed it. And we had two more elections since then.

A common tactic of tyrants.

Duly elected by voters. Darn that George Bush!

...the negotiations are already closed by the time they say that...

Negotiations are never closed, the measure can be overturned with a single bill at any time.

Since this bill passed we have had elections for 2/3 of the Senate and all of the House (twice).

I've looked at the data and decided that for 80% of my light bulb use, incandescents work better for me...

I'd be interested in hearing how you came to that conclusion.
-harry

 

[skidoo]

What about in climates such as mine where the temp is above 80 degrees most of the year and I only use heat 2 months out if the year??

Waste heat is not always beneficial.

And what applies to you does not universally apply to everyone.

And that my friend, is exactly my point. You have a choice as to what benefits you, I have a choice as to what benefits me. Now there are some that wants to take away my available choices.

Wake up, there can be many others out there who would like to remove your available choice to even fly, all in the name of what would benefit some majority.

 

[EppyGA]

Actually, first they started with elections. We chose the 65 Senators and 314 Congressmen who voted for this bill and the President who signed it. And we had two more elections since then.

Duly elected by voters. Darn that George Bush!

Negotiations are never closed, the measure can be overturned with a single bill at any time.

Since this bill passed we have had elections for 2/3 of the Senate and all of the House (twice).

I'd be interested in hearing how you came to that conclusion.
-harry

The usual drivel, we elected these guys so in turn it's okay for them to take away freedoms that we enjoy. We really do need to repeal the 17th and give the selection of Senators back to the states as it was. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. That doesn't work well for the sheep now does it?

So I suppose now the argument will be that taking incandescent lights off the market is not taking away a freedom. Oh well.

 

[ejensen]

In these two cases the "regulators" set the tone. They didn't start with Civil Discourse. They started with law mandates and then act later like they're open to discussion. A common tactic of tyrants.

The people who agree with them make a lot of noise saying it's "open to discussion" and trying to "continue the discussion", but the negotiations are already closed by the time they say that. It's just a smokescreen they're helping to generate.

So I get kinda cranky at them.

I don't let people come into my house and start telling me what to do either, so it seems a pretty fair reaction to me. Others may interpret it as "uncivil" if they please. I see it as "Keep outta my business, I'll keep outta yours."

I've looked at the data and decided that for 80% of my light bulb use, incandescents work better for me. I do have about 20% CFL lighting. But in the end-game, the laws are already written, and I won't have the option. So I don't know why I'm even discussing it

This entire thread is just discussing water under the bridge. I had used CFLs where they made sense for me, but that's never ever good enough for the "true-believers".

Oh well. I've hit the "resignation" stage of the grief cycle on this one. Moving on.

Sounds familiar and well put. They messed with fluorescent tubes too. I may have to replace some fixtures or ballasts when the bulbs give up. Not compatible with replacements.

 

[denverpilot]

Sounds familiar and well put. They messed with fluorescent tubes too. I may have to replace some fixtures or ballasts when the bulbs give up. Not compatible with replacements.

Interesting you should mention this. I wondered why the new bulb I bought for the old fixture in the kitchen didn't work.

I guess I'll be putting an entire fixture in a landfill somewhere to get a compatible one with this bulb. Sigh. That's "green".

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

The usual drivel, we elected these guys so in turn it's okay for them to take away freedoms that we enjoy. We really do need to repeal the 17th and give the selection of Senators back to the states as it was. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. That doesn't work well for the sheep now does it?

....

As long as you recognize you're advocating disenfranchisement on the basis of "I don't like what the majority does," that's fine.

Of course, it raises the question of who the tyrant is.

 

[EppyGA]

As long as you recognize you're advocating disenfranchisement on the basis of "I don't like what the majority does," that's fine.

Of course, it raises the question of who the tyrant is.

Not really David. Just saying I think the 17th was mis-guided and should not have happened. I haven't studied what brought it about, something I will probably do somewhere along the line.

Getting elected is all about pleasing a large group of people. Over the years politicians have done a very good job of that by using our wallets for that purpose. It's a process that will not stop now until the utter destruction of the country. Show me some sign that it's not true.

 

[weilke]

And that my friend, is exactly my point. You have a choice as to what benefits you, I have a choice as to what benefits me. Now there are some that wants to take away my available choices.

Wake up, there can be many others out there who would like to remove your available choice to even fly, all in the name of what would benefit some majority.

I have gotten a lot less sanctimonious about people 'wasting energy' since I started flying inefficient spam-cans burning large amounts of leaded gasoline.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Not really David. Just saying I think the 17th was mis-guided and should not have happened. I haven't studied what brought it about, something I will probably do somewhere along the line.

Getting elected is all about pleasing a large group of people. Over the years politicians have done a very good job of that by using our wallets for that purpose. It's a process that will not stop now until the utter destruction of the country. Show me some sign that it's not true.

In other words, you're talking about taking away the right to vote because you don't like what's happening.

Like I said, if that's your opinion as to what's right, that's perfectly fine. Just don't fool yourself about what it is.

 

[Richard]

Crikey, I turn my back and what do I find? A light buld thread now talking of slimy politicians. Whoa...but why am I surprised?

 

[mantakos]

... So I suppose now the argument will be that taking incandescent lights off the market is not taking away a freedom. Oh well.

The freedom to buy obsolete light bulbs that last a fraction as long as new bulbs and cost 4 times as much to operate is indeed a freedom that is being taken away.

The sacrifices we make for our country, they are truly burdensome.
-harry

 

[denverpilot]

The freedom to buy obsolete light bulbs that last a fraction as long as new bulbs and cost 4 times as much to operate is indeed a freedom that is being taken away.

The freedom to fly obsolete airplanes that outlasted their intended years and cost less than 4 times as much as a new one with liability insurance for the manufacturer, will indeed be the next freedom taken away.

Tyrants aren't so much one "evil" person anymore as much as they are a mob of apologists who claim if it's good enough for them, it'd better damn well be good enough for you.

And, of course, we've all already pointed out the completely false premises of your statement. They're not obsolete in many applications. They often blow as often as the old ones in some climates and uses and don't always last as long. And if you want GOOD ones, they are more expensive.

Facts don't matter to you though. As I've pointed out, you're just a bandwagon sitter. The decicision was already made that all of the general public was too stupid to ever figure this out on our own and use the best product (or the one we like) for our purposes. And a law was passed, and more will follow.

And people will still be saying "It's better for you this way".

They're coming for the airplanes. And they'll wrap themselves in "discussions" about "safety" and "noise" and "100 Low Lead destroying the planet".

"If not flying is good enough for us, it should be good enough for you too. You people should get in line and think like we do and stop rocking the boat claiming your freedom has been trampled. We don't need this much freedom. We can not be trusted with it. And neither can you. Would you like to discuss it some more after we shut down your airports? We're open to discussion, always. We're civil. And intellectual."

 

[mantakos]

The freedom to fly obsolete airplanes that outlasted their intended years and cost less than 4 times as much as a new one with liability insurance for the manufacturer, will indeed be the next freedom taken away.

Slippery slope is our "go-to" when we can't argue the current discussion on its merits.

Having trouble fomenting anguish and teeth-gnashing over being required to buy bulbs that last longer and cost less to operate? No problem, just slippery slope it! Now your airplane has been taken away and your gramma shipped off to the death panels. Now _that_ is a much easier argument to sell!

Tyrants aren't so much one "evil" person anymore as much as they are a mob of apologists who claim if it's good enough for them, it'd better damn well be good enough for you.

I dunno, the mobs I remember from old movies were usually cranky old illiterates storming some castle where research was being done on some new technology that frightened them. And they carried torches, which are really horribly inefficient light sources.

They often blow as often as the old ones in some climates and uses and don't always last as long.

We demonstrated that?

Facts don't matter to you though.

I've done nothing but bring bucketloads of facts to this discussion. Not surprisingly, those who were against this whole tyrant light bulb oppression death-panel thing at the beginning of the conversation didn't change their views once presented with the facts. I'm tempted to say that they were more inclined to change the facts to fit their views.

Now, I'm just a mob apologist, so what do I know, but I'm almost tempted to say that some of us oppose this because of "the _principle_ of the thing". Note that this argument is independent of facts, it doesn't matter what costs what or lasts how long, once an action has been identified as an ideological violation, a dashed-line traced directly from it to our friend the slippery slope, then the discussion ceases to have need of facts. When facts conflict with the world view that ideology requires, the facts are adjusted as needed.

As I've pointed out, you're just a bandwagon sitter.

I have never once sat on a bandwagon! But that does sound like an efficient and entertaining mode of transportation for the next apologist mob castle storming, so I will look into that.

The decicision was already made that all of the general public was too stupid to ever figure this out on our own...

Yes.

And, as we've learned in this conversation, apparently too stupid to be allowed to vote.

They're coming for the airplanes.

And our grammas, don't forget them. I bet they haul the grammas off in bandwagons.
-harry

 

[denverpilot]

Slippery slope is our "go-to" when we can't argue the current discussion on its merits.

There is no discussion. There never was a discussion. Not one we were invited to anyway.

Did you miss that the law has already been passed?

Apologists for those who weren't open to at all, claim their camp is "open to discussion" after the decision is made, all the time -- so you can claim the other side must be "irrational" or "crazy" or "won't listen to facts". It's one of many obvious strategy choices when making decisions for others, to tell them you want their "feedback" after the fact and act like it matters.

Bosses do it all the time.

The reality is that we listened just fine, and we disagreed.

I read your facts and decided I still like and want incandescents for 80% of my lighting needs.

"Slippery slope" is just another way of saying "More and more decisions will be made for me, and I doubt I'll agree with the outcome. I liked it better when they were my decisions to make."

And Slippery Slope is where people go when they realize their opinion never counted to begin with, and won't on the next topic either.

I haven't seen a good reason for your tribe getting to take away my choice in this matter in the first place.

You'll never answer that one because -- deep down, you believe you or someone else, should choose for me. It's our fundamental difference.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

There is no discussion. There never was a discussion. Not one we were invited to anyway.

....

You were invited to it when you voted. When it comes to the Feds, we're not a direct democracy, and never have been. You get to choose who makes your laws for you; you don't get to make laws yourself.

If you don't like the results, you have two options: 1) convince a majority that you're right and that your guy should win next time so he can do something about what you're right about; or 2) start a revolution.

In terms of light bulbs, you're not going to find too many people willing to do the latter, so you're stuck with the former.

As far as "slippery slope" goes, it's a fancy term for "I'm going to invent things that haven't happened to be upset about." It's fun from a "what if" perspective, and can even be useful in certain settings, but it in no way deals with reality.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

You'll never answer that one because -- deep down, you believe you or someone else, should choose for me. It's our fundamental difference.

How do you feel about a law outlawing, I don't know, incest? You've chosen for everyone that would commit incest!

 

[EppyGA]

In other words, you're talking about taking away the right to vote because you don't like what's happening.

Like I said, if that's your opinion as to what's right, that's perfectly fine. Just don't fool yourself about what it is.

Come on David, repealing the 17th Amendment only puts the selection of the Senate back into the hands of the States. Citizens still elect Representatives as they always have. Just because all you've known is the popular election of Senators doesn't mean it's right. We'll just have to disagree.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Come on David, repealing the 17th Amendment only puts the selection of the Senate back into the hands of the States. Citizens still elect Representatives as they always have. Just because all you've known is the popular election of Senators doesn't mean it's right. We'll just have to disagree.

So what you're talking about is removing the right of the people to vote for a Senator because you don't like who or what the people are voting for.

Look, I'm not trying to make you mad or offend you or anything. I'm not even saying that I think you're right or wrong. Again, I'm just saying: don't fool yourself -- disenfranchisement is disenfranchisement, and there's no way to dress that up.

 

[EppyGA]

So what you're talking about is removing the right of the people to vote for a Senator because you don't like who or what the people are voting for.

Look, I'm not trying to make you mad or offend you or anything. I'm not even saying that I think you're right or wrong. Again, I'm just saying: don't fool yourself -- disenfranchisement is disenfranchisement, and there's no way to dress that up.

Not making me mad or offending me David. I understand it's disenfranchisement, not dressing it up. We do have the House to represent the citizens. In my view changing the Senate from State appointed to citizen elected disenfranchised the state. What representation does the state currently have in the Federal government? I just want to put it back the way it was originally where the House represented the citizen and the Senate represented the state rather than the way it is now where you have both house representing the citizen.

 

[mantakos]

... What representation does the state currently have in the Federal government? ...

The state's citizens choose their representatives.

I'm not sure how changing this to "its citizens choose representatives to choose representatives" is going to fix the problem of "the government keeps doing things inconsistent with my personal preferences". If anything, I suspect it makes the Senate less accountable by putting a layer of middle-men between the voters and their Senators and shifts some power from individual voters onto their parties, as you're effectively now just voting for the party of your Senator but not your actual Senator himself.
-harry

 

[EppyGA]

The state's citizens choose their representatives.

I'm not sure how changing this to "its citizens choose representatives to choose representatives" is going to fix the problem of "the government keeps doing things inconsistent with my personal preferences". If anything, I suspect it makes the Senate less accountable by putting a layer of middle-men between the voters and their Senators and shifts some power from individual voters onto their parties, as you're effectively now just voting for the party of your Senator but not your actual Senator himself.
-harry

Senators were meant to represent the State (government) and not the citizens directly. The citizens have representatives in the house to represent them.

 

[mantakos]

Senators were meant to represent the State (government) and not the citizens directly.

And so it was written. And then something different was written, and now there's a new meaning.

The citizens have representatives in the house to represent them.

Yes, and per the original plan, a Senate elected by the literate intelligentsia to counter that House elected by the great unwashed. And now both houses of Congress are elected by the great unwashed.
-harry

 

[weilke]

I've done nothing but bring bucketloads of facts to this discussion.

You have posted links to some marketing fluff-pieces published by the makers and proponents of CFLs.

Here is your reading assignment:

CFL Metering Study

prepared for

Pacific Gas and Electric

Prepared by

KEMA Inc.
Oakland, California

February 25, 2005

And

Ji, Y., Davis, R. and Chen, W., 1998. “An Investigation of the Effect of Operating Cycles on the Life of Compact Fluorescent Lamps.” In Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Conference of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 381-392.

Read both and then explain to me how your repeatedly stated position holds up relative to the actual data.

 

[denverpilot]

How do you feel about a law outlawing, I don't know, incest? You've chosen for everyone that would commit incest!

You asked, so I'll answer.

I really don't care if you or anyone else wants to have sex with their family members, or goats or chickens or even light-bulbs.

I find it wrong and distasteful for a whole pile of personal reasons, but I'm not going to ask for any laws about it.

I might reconsider if it were affecting me somehow, but in this particular example, I see little chance of that happening.

Did you mean non-consensual or under-age incest? In that case, we'd have words and I'd happily vote in the laws to restrict your freedom, because you're a danger to someone who can't defend themselves. Have to say that because "incest" is one of many loaded words in our culture. Specifics count.

All of these "immoral" things, we have plenty of laws on the books to make ourselves feel better that we're a "society" that doesn't "allow" those things, but they all still happen with great frequency. Laws don't actually stop them from happening. The TV says the cops always get the lawbreakers, but in the real world it just isn't so.

Personal character is all that stands when societies fall. Societies come and go with great frequency throughout the course of human history.

Our society is one of the youngest on the planet, and has already had one Civil War. Ostensibly over the topic of human trafficking and enslavement.

Enslavement still exists here, today, however. It has only changed forms.

Convincing a population that a wooden box with drywall and tile floors is worth 30 years of their lives and is an "investment", so that a few bankers of 9:1 loaned out fake money, is pretty impressive mass-enslavement, as one example.

But it's the game we've all agreed to play, I guess. I'll trade you X years of my life to own this little airplane, 'cause I love to fly.

I know two people who never bought into that game and they're plenty happy folk. Squatting, never owning homes, Free-er than some, maybe. Happier than some. Breaking the law almost every day of their lives. "Society" hasn't stopped them, yet. Mostly they negotiate truces or deals of their own making with those who don't understand them. They don't accept society's deals for their own. Jail once inba while is just another big adventure to them.

I'm not quite that "carefree" but I do see their point when they say, "Why would you be a Suburbanite? How boring. You only get one shot at life."

Follow your bliss. Hump Cousin Agnus if you like. I got other stuff to worry about with my limited time. Laws won't stop it from happening.

Hey since I'm still stupid enough to waste time on this extended light-bulb topic still -- I'll remind whoever said that I only have two options that they're wrong.

I can buy incandescents on the black market and run the risk of incarceration or fines. I can also manufacture my own incandescents for personal use and go that route until a law is passed against that.

There's always options.

A few guys who thumbed their nose at a King here in our Country, and a young man who stood in front of a Government tank in a Square in China, and a guy who landed a Cessna in Red Square taught me that.

They all had consequences to deal with for their "anti-society" "lawbreaker" actions, but they couldn't be stopped. Not really, anyway. Law books are stories of things we wish wouldn't happen.

It's illegal to fly your aircraft in a "careless and reckless manner" too, but that doesn't stop those who wish to.

We all cheer the capture of the "Barefoot Bandit" kid who stole all those airplanes, but we also know deep down that the only way anyone could stop his behavior was to lock him away in a jail cell and pay someone to stand guard. "Society" wanted him stopped. It happened eventually, but it took a lot of resources and effort.

It's all about where we want to spend those resources and our time. I've said my peace about the silly light-bulb laws. Now someone will have to work pretty hard to stop me anyway. I'm pretty sure I'll have as many incandescents as I want until the day I die.

 

[mantakos]

CFL Metering Study prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Prepared by
KEMA Inc.

This is a 100+ page market analysis report. If there's something specific you'd like to draw our attention to, please do so.

... “An Investigation of the Effect of Operating Cycles on the Life of Compact Fluorescent Lamps.”...

Okay, since the back of your envelope was apparently unavailable due to a schedule conflict, I'll do the arithmetic for you.

In that paper they took a bunch of CFL bulbs, cycled them off and on repeatedly, and measured how long it took them to fail. The shortest time cycle they measured was 5 minutes on, 5 minutes off. They tested a number of different 15w-23w models. With that short cycle time they found average lifetimes ranging anywhere from 500 to 4000 hrs, with the average across the different models being about 1500hrs.

So we'll use that as our estimate of CFL life expectancy under a "short cycle" usage pattern, i.e. a range of 500 hrs to 4000hrs with 1500hrs typical.

Looking at my last electric bill, looks like I'm paying about $.10/kwh. If we compare a 26w CFL to a 100w incandescent, the CFL saves about $7.30 per thousand hours of operation.

Based on a 6-pack of GE 26w CFLs and 100w incandescents, a CFL looks to cost about $2.30/bulb and an incandescent about $.50/bulb, for about a $1.80 price difference.

Once we add the purchase price to the cost to operate, we hit break-even at the 250hr mark. Once both bulbs have been operated for 250hr, we've spent exactly $3 for each.

So as long as the incandescent and CFL last at least 250hrs, the CFL's higher efficiency will pay for its price difference. That's half of the worst case bulb and worst case cycle time they tried in that test, and most bulbs lasted over 1000 hrs, even in that worst-case short-period cycle test.

BTW, note that those test results were based on the worst cycle period, the worst bulb they tested, and this test was done with bulbs on the market 13 years ago.
-harry

 

[ScottM]

Not making me mad or offending me David. I understand it's disenfranchisement, not dressing it up. We do have the House to represent the citizens. In my view changing the Senate from State appointed to citizen elected disenfranchised the state. What representation does the state currently have in the Federal government? I just want to put it back the way it was originally where the House represented the citizen and the Senate represented the state rather than the way it is now where you have both house representing the citizen.

I agree with Randy and have said so in the past. The role of the Senate was to be the voice of the state. This was to check he power of House of Reps which is the voice of the people. I really believe that what we have now is a Senate that is the voice of large companies because of the amount of money needed to run a popular election.


Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I agree with Randy and have said so in the past. The role of the Senate was to be the voice of the state. This was to check he power of House of Reps which is the voice of the people. I really believe that what we have now is a Senate that is the voice of large companies because of the amount of money needed to run a popular election.


Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk

Once upon a time, maybe. But it was apparently decided that this should change. And to change it back would involve depriving people of the right to vote, in the exclusive name of "we don't like what you're doing with that vote, we know better."

And, again, if that's what your viewpoint is, that's perfectly fine. But it sure does undermine a whole lot of the talking points we hear from time to time.

 

[mantakos]

So if state legislatures choose Senators, that just eliminates the general election, there are still primaries, no? You can't stop parties from choosing their nominees.
-harry

 

[TMetzinger]

So if state legislatures choose Senators, that just eliminates the general election, there are still primaries, no? You can't stop parties from choosing their nominees.
-harry

Um - you certainly don't have to let the people vote on it. The legislature would just name the Senators.

 

[mantakos]

Um - you certainly don't have to let the people vote on it. The legislature would just name the Senators.

Ok. So you choose them how? Via a vote in the state legislature?

If your state legislature is 60% party X and 40% party Y, you can be sure that party X isn't going to allow for the possibility that its legislators split their vote between two candidates allowing party Y's candidate to win. It's the primary purpose of political parties to unify voting blocks and prevent that kind of splitting. So political parties are going to choose a single nominee, the question just comes down to how. We know what the choices are (primaries, caucuses, closed-door dealing).

Then the vote in the state legislature just becomes "party X v. party Y", so the parties determine their nominee, the voters determine the composition of the state legislature (by party), and the composition of the state legislature determines which nominee is chosen. The vote in the state legislature is just a formality.

To prevent this, you'd have to pass a whole lot of laws constraining the actions of political parties, e.g. you can't allow a group of people to come together and agree upon a candidate. That doesn't strike me as particularly plausible.
-harry

 

[Everskyward]

Ok. So you choose them how? Via a vote in the state legislature?

You could also have them appointed by the governor.

In this country it seems that it is seen as a good thing when "the people" have the power to decide everything. But I have come to believe that this is not necessarily a desirable situation because "the people" are often swayed by emotion and their own interests and have a hard time seeing the big picture or long term. I'm not sure what the the solution to this is, though.

 

[mantakos]

... "the people" are often swayed by emotion and their own interests ...

What's a Governor swayed by?
-harry

 

[Everskyward]

What's a Governor swayed by?

Good point but that's why I said I don't have a solution. It was just an option to Senators being directly elected by the people or by the legislature.

 

[Anthony]

I am waiting for LED's which according to my industry sources say reasonable prices are about a year out.

 

[Everskyward]

I am waiting for LED's which according to my industry sources say reasonable prices are about a year out.

I think LEDs would work well. I have some LED nightlights which have been on for years. The airplane also has a number of LED lights, none of which have been replaced in three years.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In this country it seems that it is seen as a good thing when "the people" have the power to decide everything. But I have come to believe that this is not necessarily a desirable situation because "the people" are often swayed by emotion and their own interests and have a hard time seeing the big picture or long term.

Yup. One only needs to look at all the "Prop X" deals in California to see that. Unfortunately, it seems that the "average American" is getting dumber and dumber.

 

[Everskyward]

Yup. One only needs to look at all the "Prop X" deals in California to see that. Unfortunately, it seems that the "average American" is getting dumber and dumber.

California is a good (bad?) example of what happens with a more direct democracy; huge, incomprehensible ballots with measures put forth by all sides and massive amounts of campaigning. Do you think the voters are able to understand all the issues? Even come close? I lived in CA in the 1970s but have been mostly absent for a long time until recently. It's changed quite a bit.

 

[EppyGA]

Um - you certainly don't have to let the people vote on it. The legislature would just name the Senators.

As they could with electors for President as long as it is not in the State constitution that it has to be determined by citizens vote.