akota

electoral college overtime

In 2000, the electoral college trumped the popular vote and determined who would be president, introducing many Americans to an important feature of the Constitution. I'm rooting for a more bizarre November this year: where neither the popular vote, nor the electoral college determine the outcome of the election because the electoral vote count ends up tied, 269-269.

So what happens in such a situation? The Twelfth Amendment throws it to the House of Representatives. I I figure if the Supreme Court got a chance to choose in 2000, Congress should get a shot this time. How cool would that be? But the vote comes with a twist: "the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote. "

For those wondering, that vote on party lines would come out for the Democrats (26-22 with 2 state delegations splitting evenly) in today's Congress. That includes the delegations from Mississippi, Arkansas, the Dakotas, Tennessee, and North Carolina going from the Democratic candidate. Wikipedia has the details.

chicken or egg

The age old question of whether news creates public sentiment or follows public sentiment. News organizations usually act like they reflect instead of create public sentiment. This came up in yesterday's "revelation" from an MSNBC correspondent (Jessica Yassin) who felt pressure to report on the Iraq War in a certain way in the early days. Here's the article:

The higher Bush's approval ratings, the more pressure she felt from news executives to put on positive stories about the president, she said. Pushed by Cooper to explain, Yellin said her bosses would turn down critical stories about the administration and try to put on positive pieces. . . . [S]he was referring to senior producers who "wanted their coverage to reflect the mood of the country."

Calories are the answer

New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is starting to enforce regulations that require national chain restaurants (those with 15 or more locations) to post calorie content on menus. Of course, the regulation was challenged in court. Recently, a federal court upheld the regulations. The court found that "[i]t seems reasonable to expect that some consumers will use the information disclosed ... to select lower calorie meals ... and these choices will lead to a lower incidence of obesity." The Department of Health believes the regulations will prevent 130,000 New Yorkers from becoming obese and will stop another 30,000 from developing diabetes over the next five years. While that is a possibility, the effect might just be to shift people to mom-n-pop fast food instead of national chains. Either way, I think NYC wins.

Links:

• NYT: 5 Restaurants in Manhattan Get Citations Overs Calories
• USA Today: NYC's calories-on-menus law upheld
• CNN: NY orders calories posted on chain menus
• U.S. District Court decision