text:
Talk:United States Electoral College/Archive 1

In most states, the names of the electors do not appear on the ballot at all; instead, a notation on the ballot indicates that voters are selecting the "electors for" followed by the names of the candidates for office. In all but two states, the party that wins the most popular votes selects that state's electors, essentially a winner-take-all.

What Two States are we talking about in the paragraph above??? Someone who knows please put that in there.

 * That has been done (Maine and Nebraska)

We said, "The House had to vote thirty-five times before Alexander Hamilton declared his support for Thomas Jefferson..." Anyone know why the house had to vote 35 times? --PSzalapski 16:54, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've not looked very closely (not a subject that interests me), but it seems that Electoral college already covers most of this and what will be here in the future. --Camembert

Fixed. Electoral college is now a redirect. -- Gregory Pietsch

Are there non-US "electoral college"s to be disambiguated against? Should both words be capitalized or not? --Brion 18:27 Sep 16, 2002 (UTC)

I don't know if any other country uses this system of voting. If there is such a country, let me know. -- Gregory Pietsch

 * Not knowing of one, I'd suggest moving the article back to the original location at Electoral college. --Brion

Although I do not know if there are any other functioning electoral colleges, the idea is not entirely unique to the US -- I believe that Napolean instituted, or proposed to institute, something similar in function when he first took power. (needless to say the institution, if it was ever implemented, was very short-lived!) Slrubenstein

The point about the 10 largest cities being the swing in a large election, was changed to the 10 largest states, this is a mistake. I think it should be returned. The entire point about majority rule is that large population centers (not states, but the cities themselves) can exert a tyranny over the smallest states. Where I live, the population of New York City is more than twice as large as my entire state - making this a very real worry.

 * Yeah, but New York City doesn't get an electoral vote. Electoral votes go to states, not cities.  Of course it is also true that nowadays states with large electoral votes tend to have large cities, but back when the system was created in the 18th century there were no metropolises of the size we know today, and almost all states were mostly rural.  The focus of the system is on states, not cities per se.  soulpatch

 * I know NYC doesn't get electoral votes, that's the point - the difference between the college and a direct election where a strict majority (or usually) a plurality rules. I don't want that because the cities will always out vote me and my rural compatriots. Dobbs 18:34 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

 * I wasn't wasn't trying to debate the merits of the Electoral College in this case (although I have to admit it seems bizarre to me to argue that rule by minority is preferable because the majority might vote on something you don't like--to which I say, duh! That's the way majority rule always works!). But that's not the point I was making.  I was simply stating that the Electoral College was invented at a time when almost everyone was a rural voter, so it wasn't even designed around the issue of cities versus countryside; it is totally focused on states, not cities.  If you have two states with identical, mostly rural population densities, but one is 10 times the size of the other, then the voters in the smaller one get more say proportionally on the election outcomes than the other one.  That is how the electoral college functions.  It may or may not correlate with the urban population of respective states.  But it most certainly doesn't have to. soulpatch

 * I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but really. THE POINT IS THIS.  1) GORE DIDN'T WIN A MAJORITY, he won a PLURALITY.  2) AND AS SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTS THE COLLEGE I DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT BEING PREFERABLE TO BE RULED BY A MINORITY.

 * Yes you do. You are opposed to majority rule.  You say as much below., where you specifically argue against majority rule, when you complain that the majority will vote in ways you don't like.  You said, " If, as the detractors of the college argue, we should go to a strict majority rule for the election - the voters in the 10 largest cities could forever and ever outvote the Western United States (excepting the coastal cities of California - exactly my point)."  In other words, you are opposed to majority rule.  So instead, you want the minority of voters in the rural areas to have the right to select who the President is.  What the alternative to giving the majority the right to select the President?  Well, duh--the alternative is giving the MINORITY the right to choose the President.  It's called democracy.  I'm sorry that you detest majority rule, but those of us who think that it is preferable to minority rule feel differently. soulpatch

 * Yes, I am opposed to democracy. DEMOCRACY IS EVIL INCARNATE.  Democracy is mob rule.  If everyone votes to execute redheads (a sure minority) then democracy gives them the RIGHT to do so.  This is why the founders were against majority rule.  We live in a representative Republic - NOT A DEMOCRACY!  The representative Republic we live in provides for control of the majority, proportional representation AND state by state representation - in order not to have the tyranny of the large over the small.  This is the reason for the college.  Yes, it is certainly anti-democratic, and thank god for that.

 * Oh give me a break. The alternative to having the majority select the winner of an election is having the minority select it.  The key word that appears repeated in what you just wrote is "representation" -- that means that the winners of an election "represent" the majority of voters.  Anything else represents tyranny of the minority.  SOMEBODY has to choose the winner of an election--the question is who will select it--the majority, or a minority?  I favor the majority giving the right to choose who governs them.  You don't.  It's as simple as that. soulpatch

 * That assumption that all non-Majority Elections are Minority Elections is wrong. The Electoral system is a Representative Election - as stated above.  It is not only possible, but very common for a Representative Election to have the same outcome as a Majority Election.  It is also possible, but far less common, for a Representative Election to have the same outcome as a Minority Election.  It is also important to point out that when the US Constitution was written, there were large cities with populations that exceeded that of the rural areas.  It is also important to point out that those allowed to vote were highly concentrated in the cities as most of the rural workers were not allowed to vote.  So, there was some degree of urban/rural conflict in the very beginning. Kainaw 18:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * To state that because I am for protecting the rights of the small is to say I would not prefer there to be broad concensus in this country on the choice of leader (especially in times of crisis), is completely wrong. But if a person has a majority in this country - it is very difficult to lose the presidential vote anyway.  And if someone loses in this fashion (not as in the 2000 election where no one received a majority), the result is so close, that it is difficult for anyone to say that a mandate was granted or denied to anyone - winner or loser.  Given that the result would be so tight, I would take the guy who was supported throughout the land - not the regional or metropolitian winner. Dobbs 05:30 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

 * To claim that a person who minority support of the electorate has "broad" support is use such an absurd definition of the word "broad" as to be meaningless. What you advocate is, in the absense of a landslide (which is rare in presidential elections), giving automatic precedence to rural voters over urban voters.  It really isn't difficult to decide who has a mandate when there is a majority vote--it's the person with the majority!  This attempt to give certain classes of voters more precedence than others is just plain absurd.  Why stop a presidential elections?  You could do the same thing for Senators and representatives--have rural counties more of a say than urban counties.  But maybe you DO support such a system.  If so, bully for you.  But let's at least try to make this article objective rather than just a bully pulpit for th electoral college, which is initially was. soulpatch

 * ''Senators and Representatives have EXACTLY the same idea going for them. Representatives are proportioned by number of voters, giving large states (with the majority of people) a larger number of votes.  Realizing that, in this way, Rhode Island would be forever outvoted by Virginia, this was an unworkable plan.  Therefore, the Senate was created with 2 Senators per State.  This allowed things that individual governments should agree to (such as declaring war, or sitting in judgement of the President) to the Senate, with all States created equal.  But in matters of popular concern (if the President should be impeached at all) the House with the majority well represented get the ability.  The same holds for the election of the President via the electoral college.  Strict majority rule would keep Rhode Island from having a say in the executive.

 * The attacks on me for not providing an objective article is misplaced. I think this sort of system, for contentious topics is *MUCH* better than having myself, or yourself write the entire article (for example) and characterize the opposition.  I provide positive reasons for the college as a way to balance regional voting blocks vis-a-vis the overall spread of people across the country.  The detractors side states its arguments as mischaracterizations of what supporters believe - not positive reasons why majority rule is more fair to people and the political process in the country as a whole.  THAT seems biased to me.  But at least that side was written by a supporter - if that's how you feel the argument should be framed - then good for you.  But if I started writing "Detractors of the college feel that majority rule by cities to ensure the health of urban centers by aggregation of political power to be preferable to power sharing with rural voters, much as in Communist China today.  Supporters of the College find that is nothing more than laying the groundwork for a future mountain, rural, and agrarian revolution against the urban centers.  Just as in Communist China today." you would be justifiably pissed.

 * So, how about this. I write your side, you write mine - and we see how it comes out.  It might take some of the vitriol out of this debate.  The old idea of you divide, I pick?    I want the article to be good, balanced, and NPOV - really - I PROMISE. ''

 * Sorry for the screaming, but my points made as a SUPPORTER of the college are constantly being misrepresented by detractors of the college and that is not fair to the goal of the NPOV. Majority rule - OR PLURALITY RULE AS WAS THE CASE IN THE 2000 ELECTION - is my point.  IT IS THE 10 LARGEST CITIES.  If, as the detractors of the college argue, we should go to a strict majority rule for the election - the voters in the 10 largest cities could forever and ever outvote the Western United States (excepting the coastal cities of California - exactly my point).  The idea of rural vs. cities wasn't on their mind when they wrote it, but it is exactly the same idea as small states being forever outvoted by larger states.  They wished to place the same balance that provided proportionality in the House with equality with in the Senate. Dobbs 03:38 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

 * No, it isn't exactly the same. You are using an article about cities versus towns that has nothing to do the reasons behind the founding of the article.  The college is a relic from a bygone era.  As as for NPOV, now you have managed to add huge amounts of pro-electoral college arguments into this article, so that it is totally tilted in favor of the system, and you complain about NPOV?  Give me a break.  Thanks to your changes, there are now five pro-electoral college paragraphs, and just one against.  So much for NPOV. soulpatch

 * Please add additional arguments that illustrate why direct election is better. Because you are for a plurality winner in votes as opposed to a majority winner in the other ways?  OK, but it is difficult for me to do so, as I cannot logically support that in any other way than what has already been said - detractors think it is outdated and undemocratic.  I was willing to provide a specific example, which adds to Wiki and (hopefully) increases understanding by making issues relate to the real world. Dobbs 05:10 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

 * No, I am no for a plurality winner. Once again, you draw conclusions without having anything to back it up.  I am completely opposed to giving the election to a plurality winner--I believe that majority vote should determine the winner-either through runoff elections, or better still instant runoff voting. soulpatch

 * As a resident of one of those ten largest cities that you're trying to disenfranchise, naturally I don't agree that a balance of everyone else's votes is preferable. But, to each his own. ;) --Brion 03:43 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

 * You're not being disenfranchised at all. Candidates will always come to the cities to campaign and try to win. What do they say when they campaign? That they will address your concerns. No one will EVER address my concerns again (as a Presidential candidate) if we have direct election. Traveling over, what about 30% of the countries land mass for &lt; 6% of the votes? Nope, sorry, I'm irrelevant. How can you say that addressing my concerns disenfranchises you in any way? I can see how it would screw me, but you? Look at the bottom of the page. Gore certainly did not get a majority of votes. And Bush received a majority of every other way you could cut it. This disenfranchises you how? You were competed for like crazy. You were promised things. But in a direct election I would have nothing to give. And Gore would get another 2% or so and magically have more legitmacy? That's strikes me as a perfect prescription to divide the country, and create regional parties looking out for their stuff only. And we know how well that works out in other regions of the world, don't we? Yep - Afghanistan run by Pashtuns or Tajiks for the last 20 years, screwing the other guy when they ever got into power. No thanks. Everyone feeling like they are part of the greater whole? Anytime. Dobbs 05:01 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

 * That's right, let it all out, you'll feel better. (pat pat) --Brion 05:19 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

 * I might add that the system was also invented when people were less mobile than they are today, and tended to have more of an identity as a citizen of a state. I have lived, in my life, in many states, both big states and in small ones.  I vote the same basic way pretty much wherever I live, yet simply by virtue of moving to a certain state I magically and inexplicitly get more or less a proportional say in a Presidential election.  I haven't changed much in those situations, my votes haven't really changed, yet the Electoral Collge somehow assumes that when I pack up my belongings and move to another state I somehow will change what I consider my interests to be and vote differently.  This is all nonsense, of course, but this is what happens when you take a convoluted 18th century voting mechanism and try to apply it to the 21st. soulpatch

 * I am a Coloradan more than I am a U.S. citizen in many more real ways that effect my day to day life. You are not concerned with local issues, because you travel and do not stay around long enough to be concerned with what are temporary benefits or inconviences of the system you have to live under.  But when people like you (permament travelers), combined with people - say in Los Angeles or New York City - in a direct election can come up with ideas that don't work where I live (and hope to return to after my temporary travels), too bad for me.  It is not all nonsense.  California is attempting to turn the southern half of my state into a desert by taking all of my Colorado river water.  I'm certain that those city living people who only see pictures of my beloved Rocky Mountains don't really give a damn about that, but MY INTERESTS are certainly based on where I live.  And detractors of the college making assumptions about why I feel these ways and changing supporters edits does not improve the goal toward a NPOV.  OK, got the bile out.  I'll be better behaved from now on. Dobbs 03:38 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

 * Your assertion that I am not concerned with local issues is false. Your claim that I "travel and do not stay around" is also false.  You don't know me, so you are making personal statements about me based on no knowledge whatsoever.  I have lived in my current area for nine years.  I am deeply concerned with local issues.  I am also not a NIMBY voter.  My interests are the best interests of the nation and the planet, not simply whatever concerns my own backyard.  Because I am not a NIMBY voter, I actually think you raise a valid point about Colorado water, even though I am a Californian.

 * "I have lived, in my life, in many states, both big states and in small ones. ... I haven't changed much in those situations, my votes haven't really changed ... when I pack up my belongings and move to another state I somehow will change what I consider my interests to be and vote differently."  You stated it.  I made personal statements about you based on the knowledge you provided me. I feel my inference about your not being concerned in response to local conditions to be well supported by your own statements - don't get mad at me for drawing those conclusions based on what's above.

 * I can understand your confusion--you apparently equate "local interest" voting with NIMBY voting, and you assume that everyone takes this same narrow view of what is right. But some of us actually concern ourselves with what the right and just thing is for everyone when we are involved in local politics. soulpatch

Just another point: When the system was instituted, popular vote was not even mandatory, read your constitution:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."

There is no reference to the popular voters, it is all in the hands of the state legislature.--AN

- On the title of the page. Upon looking for other systems that used the Electoral College system, I found there weren't any. I vote () to return it to Electoral College - that's how people are going to look it up anyway. Dobbs 17:57 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

I found that the spanish expression Colegio Electoral that would translated as Electoral College is used in some spanish speaking countries to designate the citizens in charge of a voting site. I don't know if somebody is going to write an article about it, and what should be the title if it were, but I point it out just that you know.--AN


text:
Telecommunications forecasting

All telecommunications service providers perform forecasting calculations to assist them in planning their networks. Accurate forecasting helps operators to make key investment decisions relating to product development and introduction, advertising, pricing etc., well in advance of product launch, which helps to ensure that the company will make a profit on a new venture and that capital is invested wisely.

Why is forecasting used?
Forecasting can be conducted for many purposes, so it is important that the reason for performing the calculation is clearly defined and understood. Some common reasons for forecasting include:

 * Planning and Budgeting – Using forecast data can help network planners decide how much equipment to purchase and where to place it to ensure optimum management of traffic loads.
 * Evaluation – Forecasting can help management decide if decisions that have been made will be to the advantage or detriment of the company.
 * Verification – As new forecast data becomes available it is necessary to check whether new forecasts confirm the outcomes predicted by the old forecasts.

Knowing the purpose of the forecast will help to answer additional questions such as the following:

 * What is being forecast? – events, trends, variables, technology
 * Level of focus – focus on a single product or a whole line, focus on a single company or the entire industry
 * How often is forecasting conducted? – daily, weekly, monthly, annually
 * Do the methods used reflect the decisions needed to be taken by management?
 * What are the resources available to make decisions? – lead-time, staff, relevant data, budget, etc.
 * What are the types of errors that could occur and what will they cost the company?

Factors influencing forecasting
When forecasting it is important to understand which factors may influence the calculation, and to what extent. A list of some common factors can be seen below:

 * Technology
 * subscriber access – fibre, wireless, wired, cellular, TDMA, CDMA, handsets
 * application – telephony, PBXs, ISDN, videoconferencing, LANs, teleconferencing, internetworking, WANs
 * technology – broadband, narrowband, carriers, fibre to the curb, DSL
 * Economics
 * Global Economics – Economic climate, predictions, estimates, economic factors, interest rates, prime rate, growth, management's outlook, investors' confidence, politics
 * Sectoral Economics – trends in industry, investors’ outlook, telecommunications, emerging technologies growth rate, recessions, and slowdowns
 * Macroeconomics – inflation, GDP, exports, monetary exchange rates, imports, government deficit, economic health
 * Demographics
 * Measurement of number of people in regions – how many were born, are living and died within a time period
 * The way people live – health, fertility, marriage rates, ageing rate, conception, mortality

Data preparation
Before forecasting is performed, the data being used must be "prepared". If the data contains errors, then the forecast result will be equally flawed. It is therefore vital that all anomalous data be removed. Such a procedure is known as data "scrubbing". Scrubbing data involved removing data points known as "outliers". Outliers are data that lie outside the normal pattern. They are usually caused by anomalous and often unique events and so are unlikely to recur. Removing outliers improves data integrity and increases the accuracy of the forecast.

Forecasting methods
There are many different methods used to conduct forecasting. They can be divided into different groups based on the theories according to which they were developed:

Judgment-based methods
Judgment-based methods rely on the opinions and knowledge of people who have considerable experience in the area that the forecast is being conducted. There are two main judgment based methods:

 * Delphi method – The Delphi method involves directing a series of questions to experts. The experts provide their estimates regarding future development. The researcher summarizes the replies and sends the summary back to the experts, asking them if they wish to revise their opinions. The Delphi method is not very reliable and has only worked successfully in very rare cases.
 * Extrapolation – Extrapolation is the usual method of forecasting. It is based on the assumption that future events will continue to develop along the same boundaries as previous events i.e. the past is a good predictor of the future. The researcher first acquires data about previous events and plots it. He then determines if there a pattern has emerged, and if so, he attempts to extend the pattern into the future and in so doing begins to generate a forecast of what is likely to happen. To extend patterns, researchers generally use a simple extrapolation rule, such as the S-shaped logistic function or Gompertz curves, or the Catastrophic Curve to help them in their extrapolation. It is in deciding which rule to use that the researcher’s judgment is required.

Survey methods
Survey methods are based on the opinions of customers and are thus reasonably accurate if performed correctly. In performing a survey, the survey’s target group needs to be identified. This can be achieved by considering why the forecast is being conducted in the first place. Once the target group has been identified, a sample must be chosen. The sample is a sub-set of the target and must be chosen so that it accurately reflects everyone in the target group. The survey must then pose a series of questions to the sample group and their answers must be recorded.

The recorded answers must then be analyzed using statistical and analytical methods. The average opinion and the variation about that mean are statistical analytical techniques that can be used. The results of the analysis should then be checked using alternative forecasting methods and the results can be published. It must be kept in mind that this method is only accurate if the sample is a balanced and accurate subset of the target group and if the sample group has accurately answered the questions.

Time series methods
Time series methods are based on measurements taken of events on a periodic basis. These methods use such data to develop models which can then be used to extrapolate into the future, thereby generating the forecast. Each model operates according to a different set of assumptions and is designed for a different purpose. Examples of Time Series Methods are:

 * Exponential smoothing – This method is based on a moving average of the data being analyzed, e.g. a moving average of sales figures
 * Cyclical and seasonal trends – This method focuses on previous data to help define a pattern or trend that occurs in cyclic or seasonal periods. Researchers can then use current data to adjust the pattern so that it fits this period’s data, and in so doing can forecast what will happen during the remainder of the current season or cycle.
 * Statistical models – Statistical models allow the researcher to develop statistical relationships between variables. These models are based on current data and by means of extrapolation, a future model can be created. Extrapolation techniques are based on standard statistical laws, thus improving the accuracy of the prediction. Statistical techniques not only produce forecasts but also quantify precision and reliability. Examples of this are the ERLANG B and C formulae, developed in 1917 by the Danish mathematician Agner Erlang.

Analogous methods
Analogous Methods involve finding similarities between foreign events and the events that are being studied. The foreign events are usually selected at a time when they are more "mature" than current events. No foreign event will perfectly mirror current events and this must be kept in mind so that any necessary corrections can be made. By examining the foreign, more mature, set of events, the future of current events can be forecast.

Analogous methods can be split up into two groups namely:

 * Qualitative (symbolical) models
 * Quantitative (numeric) models

Causal models
Causal Models are the most accurate form of forecasting, and the most complex. They involve creating a complex and complete model of the events being forecast. The model must include all possible variables, and must be able to predict every possible outcome.

Causal Models are often so complex that they can only be created on computers. They are developed using data from a set of events. The model is only as accurate as the data used to develop it.

Combination forecasts
Combination Forecasts combine the methods discussed above. The advantage is that in most cases accuracy is increased; however a researcher must be careful that the disadvantages of each of the above methods do not combine to produce compound errors in forecasts. Examples of combination forecasts include: "Integration of Judgment and Quantitative Forecasts" and "Simple and Weighted Averages".

Determining forecast accuracy
It is difficult to determine the accuracy of any forecast, as it represents an attempt to predict future events, which is always challenging. To help improve and test forecast accuracy researchers use many different checking methods. A simple checking method involves the use of several different forecasting methods and comparing the results to see if they are more or less equal. Another method can involve statistically calculating the errors in the forecasting calculation and expressing them in terms of the root mean squared error, thereby providing an indication of the overall error in the method. A sensitivity analysis can also be useful, as it determines what will happen if some of the original data upon which the forecast was developed turned out to be wrong. Determining forecast accuracy, like forecasting itself, can never be performed with certainty and so it is advisable to ensure that input data is measured and obtained as accurately as possible, the most appropriate forecasting methods are selected, and the forecasting process is conducted as rigorously as possible.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Telecommunications forecasting


text:
John Liptrot Hatton

John Liptrot Hatton (12 October 1809 – 10 September 1886) was an English musical composer, conductor, pianist, accompanist and singer.

Early career
Hatton was born in Liverpool to a musical family, for both his father John and grandfather were violinists. Although largely self-taught as a musician, he became a pupil of Michael Maybrick (uncle of the singer and composer Stephen Adams), who was also the teacher of Charles Santley's father, and also studied in the academy of a Mr. Molyneux. By the age of 16 he had become organist in the churches of Woolton and Childwall and at the Roman Catholic church in Liverpool. (Auditioning for Woolton, he played a voluntary upon the street-song "All round my Hat", hinting at his own name. ) A man of many-sided talents and a broad humour attending them, he appeared as an actor on the Liverpool stage. Subsequently, he found his way to London as a member of Macready's company at Drury Lane, appearing in a cast led by Macready and Kean in Shakespeare's Othello in December 1832. Santley tells that Hatton took the part of Joe Blueskin (who has the song "Jolly Nose") in the play of Jack Sheppard when it was mounted independently at the Liver Theatre (the 'Little Liver') in Liverpool. It happened to be staged simultaneously with the London production during 1839 in which Paul Bedford took the same role: Hatton scored so great a success that the London production disappointed when it came to Liverpool. Meanwhile, he was making his mark as a musician: in 1835 Thomas Attwood wrote to Mendelssohn, "We have recently had a new establishment here which is called 'The Society of British Musicians', in the hope of bringing forward native talent... I, however, wish you would look at your cloak, or great-coat, lest you should have had a bit cut out of it: for there is a young man of the name of Hatton, who seems to have got a little bit of it, indeed he seems to assimilate to your style without plagiary more than anyone I have met with."

The composer in London and Vienna
In the winter season of 1842–43 he obtained an appointment directing the choruses in the English opera series at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and in February 1843 his own first operetta, Queen of the Thames, or, The Anglers (libretto by Edward Fitzball), obtained a successful run of six performances. This included the madrigal "The merry bridal bells", sung by Miss Romer, Mr H Phillips and Mr Allen. Josef Staudigl, the eminent German bass, was a member of the company: at his suggestion Hatton wrote a more ambitious work, Pascal Bruno, again to a text by Fitzball. Hatton and Staudigl presented this new arrangement at Vienna in October 1844, as a benefit for Staudigl, who took the principal part. It had a mixed reception, and was not presented to a London audience, yet still the 'Revenge' song – the only part to be published – was made very popular in England by Staudigl. Fitzball, finding that his text had been presented, in German, without his consent, the playbill naming 'Herr Fixball' as the English author, was obliged to accept the situation, but it seems to have ended his association with Hatton. But Vienna greatly admired Hatton's piano playing, especially the fugues of J.S. Bach which he played from memory. While in Vienna he took the opportunity to study counterpoint under Sechter.

Soon after this he composed a number of songs modelled on the style of German classics, including some eighteen songs to words by Thomas Oliphant, who commissioned the songs, with German translations. Oliphant was a collector of music, and between 1840 and 1849 he catalogued the manuscript and printed music collections of the British Museum. He was 'unsurpassed as a snapper-up of unconsidered madrigalian trifles', and his personal collections were made up, after his death in 1873, into nearly 600 lots for sale. Hatton's Oliphant songs were published in England under the pseudonym 'P.B. Czapek' (alluding to the Hungarian word for a Hat, for 'Hatton'), and became Oliphant's property, as did other of Hatton's copyrights. Among Hatton's settings for his collaborator were "Streamlet gently flowing", "Autumn reflections", "The goldsmith's daughter", and 'My days have been so wondrous free".

In 1846 he appeared at the Three Choirs Festival as a singer, and also played a piano concerto of Mozart. He undertook concert tours at about this time with Sivori, Vieuxtemps and others, serving both as accompanist and solo pianist. He also gave monodramatic entertainments, as for example in this description of a concert in the Assembly Rooms at Peckham in December 1846: "Mr J.L. Hatton was the Atlas of the entertainment, and bore the weight of the concert on his own shoulders. He lectured, sang, and performed on the pianoforte. Like Malaprop's Cerberus, he was three gentlemen at once. The entertainment was novel and interesting. Mr. Hatton gave some capital specimens of pianoforte music by various masters including Corelli, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. He sang songs comic, sentimental, and serious. He levied contributions upon many nations for their compositions, and kept his audience alternately moved with delight and excited with laughter. Mr Hatton was modest enough not to obtrude too many of his own works upon his visitors. 'The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe', a song intended, no doubt, to be very comic, was the only composition of Mr Hatton's performed during the evening." Although differing in that – on that occasion – Hatton did not perform many of his own compositions, this style of one-man entertainment with speech, songs and a keyboard with accessories had been pioneered by Charles Dibdin more than fifty years previously, in his Entertainments Sans Souci: Hatton was certainly well aware of the example of Dibdin.

First American tour
From 1848 to 1850 Hatton was in America, and in 1848 gave several public and private concerts in New York City. For example, on 12 September, at the Apollo Theatre, he performed his own comic songs as well as works by Handel, Field and Scarlatti. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in that year, he shared the stage with Stephen C. Foster. "Contemporary [American] critics deplored the failure of the public to appreciate his great art." He did pander to the public on occasion: in Boston, where he obtained a position in the Handel and Haydn Society, he performed Bach Fugues and a Mendelssohn piano concerto, but also sang "Christmas Sleigh Ride" while he played the piano and jangled sleigh bells, all to the great amusement of the crowd. It is said that on the next day he was due to conduct a performance of Mendelssohn's Elijah (first performed 1846) at which, the baritone being indisposed, Hatton in the relevant numbers turned to face the audience from the conductor's podium and sang the title role himself.

Song-writer and accompanist
Hatton composed various songs to poems by Robert Herrick (including his famous "To Anthea"), Ben Jonson and Charles Sedley at this time which were published in and before 1850. Others became the property of Thomas Oliphant. In his August 1850 Preface, Hatton says that they were written 'at different times under various circumstances. Some few of them were composed previous to my departure to America in the autumn of the year 1848, and presented as little souvenirs to several of my friends on my leaving England. The rest with one exception were written entirely for my own amusement during the time I was away, and all of them were composed without any view to their publication... On my return to England I was urged by one of my friends... to make a complete collection of these little compositions and publish them in a consolidated form. The kindness of my friends in restoring me some of my MSS. has enabled me to do this, and I now send these songs forth into the world, satisfied if they should be the means, in however humble a degree, of adding to the material of musical enjoyment, or of contributing anything to the regeneration of the popular taste in an important department of chamber music.' It was also during the 1840s that he wrote "Simon the Cellarer", another abiding favourite (which he sold to Oliphant for 'a £10 note'). This was incorporated into the ballad opera Diamond cut diamond by Henri Drayton in 1859. Charles Santley, who championed "To Anthea" and "Simon the Cellarer" singing them with Hatton accompanying, lived long enough to record them both, twice, in the early 20th century, preserving his association with the composer.

Hatton was one of the great accompanists of his time, and during the 1850s he toured with Mario and Grisi, and with Sims Reeves. For Mario he composed his famous song "Good-night, sweetheart, good-night", instructing him in the pronunciation of the words and coaching him in the music before it had been committed to manuscript. It was this, and 'Com'è gentil" from Don Pasquale, that became the two favourite songs most associated with Mario. Hatton toured with Reeves in 1850 before returning briefly to America, and made a tour to Dublin, Belfast and Manchester with him in 1853, on which occasion, in Dublin, Reeves first sang Good-night, sweetheart. Mario sang it suavely, and with an Italian accent, so as to break one's heart; Reeves made it vigorous and soul-stirring. Hatton composed Anglican church music including a morning and evening service in E, and a number of anthems such as Come Holy Ghost and Blessed be the Lord of Israel.

Reeves, on account of Hatton's appearance with a bald dome and surrounding fringe, used to call him 'The Sultan'. Hatton used to perform a comic song "The little fat man" which was supposed to be a skit on himself. When, for instance, he sang it before the Leeds Rational Recreation Society in April 1853, he also performed 'La ci darem la mano' with Mme D'Anteny, gave his own song 'Day and Night', and finished off with Handel's 'O ruddier than the cherry' (from Acis and Galatea). Then the Leeds Madrigal and Motet Society performed his work "Sailors Beware!" Hatton was always very diverse. In 1856 his secular cantata of Robin Hood, to a text by George Linley, was given at the Bradford Festival.

Hatton became a foremost exponent of the writing of glees and part songs, both through his love of English madrigals, and through the influences he derived from German music. His connection with Oliphant had given him an immediate path of information and study. A visit to England of the Cologne Choir is thought to have given new impetus to the glee movement in England, and Hatton was in the vanguard. Their harmonised melodies, German part-songs by Mendelssohn and others, were called glees in imitation of the English glees, and attracted a great deal of interest. Among all English composers, Hatton with his new understanding of the German music and his sure foundation in the English melodious idiom, responded by producing a series of part-songs of which it has been said 'they were imitated by many but surpassed by none.' On his return from America Hatton became conductor of the Glee and Madrigal Union, and it was during the 1850s, while working with Charles Kean, that he published the first of his several collections of part songs, including "Absence", "When evening's twilight", "The happiest land", etc. They were performed by the 'Orpheus Vocal Union', a group of professional singers led by William Fielding. Hatton thus set the example for others like Henry Smart, George Alexander Macfarren and Walter Macfarren and very many more who followed where he led.

Shakespeare music for Charles Kean
From about 1853 Hatton was engaged as Director of Music at the Princess's Theatre, London to provide and conduct the music for Charles Kean's Shakespearean revivals. In this capacity he composed music for Sardanapalus King of Assyria (the orchestra including six harps) and for Macbeth, both in 1853. He wrote an overture, and entr'actes, for Faust and Marguerite in 1854; his music for Shakespeare's Henry VIII (1855) was dedicated to Mrs Charles Kean; in 1856 his music for Kean's revival of Sheridan's Pizarro replaced the old score by Michael Kelly. Only the glee by Kelly was kept. Kean sought authenticity: Hatton rewrote it completely, 'based on Indian airs... founded on melodies published in Rivero and Tschudi's work on Peruvian Antiquities as handed down to us by Spaniards after the conquest.' He wrote music for Richard II in 1857, and for King Lear, The Merchant of Venice, and Much Ado About Nothing in 1858. Reference is also found for music to Henry V, for which several mediaeval instruments were required. The arrangement with Kean seems to have collapsed in a legal dispute of 1859. As the music for Much Ado About Nothing had not been published, Hatton sought to show that it remained his own property and could be adapted or performed at his discretion. The court, however, found that it was an inseparable part of Kean's design, and ruled against him.

Later career
Hatton's third opera, Rose, or Love's Ransom (text by Henry Sutherland Edwards), was presented at the Royal English Opera, Covent Garden in 1864. It had the advantage of Helen Lemmens-Sherrington and Mr and Mrs Willoughby Weiss, George Perren, Henry Corri, and Aynsley Cook, but it met with little success. It was in that year that the Ballad Concerts at St James's Hall, London, commenced, for which Hatton held the post of accompanist for the first nine seasons. Hatton developed a fondness for the seaside town of Aldeburgh, in Suffolk, where he lived for some time, and was certainly staying there in October 1865. In this connection he wrote a four-part Aldeburgh Te Deum in commemoration of the place he loved.

In 1866 he went again to America, where as a member of H.L. Bateman's Concert Troupe he took part in the inaugural concert of the Steinway Hall in New York on 31 October. His daughter, Frances J. Hatton, emigrated to Canada in 1869, where she became a respected composer and the singing instructor at the Hellmuth Ladies' College in London, Ontario.

Hatton was responsible for re-editing the first two volumes of Songs of England, an influential published collection which helped to establish a canon of English song with accompaniments, and cumulatively ran to three volumes under the later editorship of Eaton Faning. Hatton remarked, 'I have culled the choicest of the old ditties... The names of Purcell, Arne, Shield, Dibdin, Horn and Bishop are household words, and no English collection would be complete which did not contain the best songs of these composers... New symphonies and accompaniments have been written to more than fifty of the old songs.' His selection also drew substantially on Chappell's Popular Music of Olden Time, in which many of the accompaniments were rewritten by George Alexander Macfarren, and contrasted with Hullah's Song Book of 1866, in which only the unaccompanied melodies were given. He also edited the companion volume of Songs of Ireland, with J.L. Molloy, a volume of Comic songs, and a volume of the songs by Robert Schumann, for Boosey & Co.

Among the sources for Songs of England was The Beggar's Opera of John Gay and Dr Pepusch. Hatton collaborated with John Oxenford (who died in 1877) on a performing edition, providing it with new symphonies and accompaniments, which replaced the old one by Stephen Storace, and was itself replaced in 1920 by Frederic Austin's version for Nigel Playfair. Hatton and Oxenford also produced editions of Shield and Mrs. Brooke's Rosina, Arne and Bickerstaffe's Love in a Village and Storace and Hoare's No song, no supper.

In 1875 Hatton went to Stuttgart, and also wrote a sacred musical drama, Hezekiah, given at The Crystal Palace in 1877; like all his larger works it met with moderate success. In his last years he lived at Margate in Kent, and died there on 20 September 1886.

Hatton's sheer versatility, his multifarious skills and interests, his energy and the exuberance of his good nature, characterised one of the extraordinary musicians of his age: and yet these same qualities led some to disparage his brilliance. His biographer for the Encyclopædia Britannica of 1911 wrote: "Hatton excelled in the lyrical forms of music, and, in spite of his distinct skill in the severer styles of the madrigal, &c., he won popularity by such songs as "To Anthea", "Good-bye, Sweetheart", and "Simon the Cellarer", the first of which may be called a classic in its own way. His glees and part-songs, such as "When Evening's Twilight", are still reckoned among the best of their class; and he might have gained a place of higher distinction among English composers had it not been for his irresistible animal spirits and a want of artistic reverence, which made it uncertain in his younger days whether, when he appeared at a concert, he would play a fugue of Bach or sing a comic song." Yet he was not irreverent: the lasting value of his own ballads and songs, of which he composed more than 150, the merits of his arrangements of the English songs, his role as composer to Kean and accompanist to Mario, Reeves and Santley, and his service over a long period to Boosey both as publishers and as promoters of the Ballad Concerts, tell their own story of his unique place in English music.

title: John Liptrot Hatton


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penn Counterparts

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 03:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Penn Counterparts
Delete - I discovered this while organizing stubs. Are college organizations notable? I know quite a few universities have a capella groups and other performance organizations, in fact my sister is president of an a capella group at her university. The group has released a few CD's just as this one has, but is this encyclopedic? What about other collegiate performing organizations? See the category for the University of Pennsylvania for more organizations. Ganymead 23:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just under the bar of notability, possible college vanity. Megan1967 00:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to their website, they appear to have released 15 CDs, toured extensively and received a number of awards. As for the more general issue, I don't think there is any point in trying to establish a general principle or precedent on the notability of "college organizations". Some are notable, some are not. Sports are overrepresented at the moment. Not only does every unexciting American college football team seem to get an article, and quite a few football team coaches, but even the odd mascot and local mascotcruft that should probably be merged somewhere. This musical group, on the other hand, seems worthy of inclusion. And your sister's group too, perhaps. / u p p l a n d 12:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep based on Uppland's comments, though I haven't verified that they meet any of the WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 02:40, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nelli Kim/Temp
Delete - After I've rewritten an article which experienced copyvio in the past, and copied it into Nelli Kim (removing copyvio notice from there), Nelli Kim/Temp should be deleted.Cmapm 00:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't how WP:CP works—Nelli Kim should be deleted and /Temp moved over it. (This also isn't how VfD works; you've pasted this into the bottom of Votes for deletion/Penn Counterparts.) —Korath (Talk) 00:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Second mistake was realised by myself before your answer (see Talk page). As concerns first mistake, what should I do now? It's a pity, that nothing was said on it in copyvio notice. I waited for 10 days after writing a stub and placing notice on this on the Talk page (i.e. more than a week, as stated in copyvio), but nobody of admins removed copyvio :(( So, I tried myself Cmapm 00:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Just give it time. WP:CP is a busy place, deletes/moves can take a few days before someone has time. iMeowbot~Mw 03:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
User talk:Slayerfan~enwiki

Don't upload any more copyrighted images. If you do I'll have you blocked permanently. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Slayerfan. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Slayerfan~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Slayerfan~enwiki


text:
Roberto de Nobili

Roberto de Nobili (1577 – 16 January 1656) was an Italian priest, a member of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), who worked as a missionary in Southern India. He used novel methods to preach Christianity, adopting many local customs of India which were, in his view, not contrary to Christian principles, and he won papal approval for a policy of accommodation that allowed coverts to Christianity to continue to engage in Hindu practices deemed social practices rather than expressions of Hinduism.

Biography
Born in Montepulciano, Tuscany, in September 1577, Roberto De Nobili arrived at the ports of the Portuguese in Goa and Bombay in western India on 20 May 1605. It is probable that he met here Fr Thomas Stephens, a Jesuit who had arrived in Goa in 1579, and was probably then in the process of composing his Khristapurana, an epic poem using Hindu literary forms to tell Christ's life story.

Roberto de Nobili, "nicknamed the White Brahman", embodied the missionary fervor of Christianity in Portuguese India and its relations with the court of the Mughal emperor Akbar. His approach to evangelization began by focusing of areas where Hinduism and Christianity agreed.

After a short stay in Cochin in Kerala, he took up residence in Madurai in Tamil Nadu in November 1606. He soon called himself a "teacher of wisdom" (தத்துவ போதகர்) and began to dress like a Sannyasi, someone who following Hindu custom practices a form of asceticism marked by disinterest in material life, wearing a white dhoti and wooden sandals. He adopted such local Indian customs as shaving one's head and keeping only a tiny tuft. He wore a three-stringed thread across the chest which he chose to believe a representation of the Holy Trinity. Claiming noble parentage, he approached high-caste people as an equal and eagerly engaged in dialogue with Hindu scholars about the truths of Christianity.

De Nobili mastered Sanskrit, Telugu and Tamil languages and literature, with the help of his teacher, Shivadharma. Max Muller, a key figure in establishing the discipline of Orientalismes said of De Nobili: "I can only speak of him here as the First European Sanskrit scholar." As De Nobili explained Christian doctrine in Tamil, he coined several words to communicate his message. He used the word "kovil" (கோவில்) for a place of worship, "arul" (அருள்) and "prasadam" (பிரசாதம்) for grace, "guru" (குரு) for priest or teacher, "Vedam" (வேதம்) for the Bible, "poosai" (பூசை) for Mass, and others. He composed Catechisms, explanatory works and philosophic discourses in Tamil and contributed to the development of modern Tamil prose writing.

The Portuguese missionaries who preceded him had found their converts among the lower classes, which had also earned them the scorn of the brahmins. De Nobili's methods implicitly criticized the Portuguese approach and were therefore very controversial with his fellow Jesuits and the Archbishop of Goa Cristóvão de Sá e Lisboa. Their dispute was settled by Pope Gregory XV, who issued the apostolic constitution Romanæ Sedis Antistes on 31 January 1623. The customs of the three-stringed thread, the tuft, the use of sandalwood paste on the forefront and baths were allowed, inasmuch as they did not imply any superstitious ritual. The Pope invited Indian neophytes (converts) to overcome their caste sensitivity and their contempt for pariahs.

Roberto de Nobili died in Mylapore near Chennai in Tamil Nadu on 16 January 1656 at the age of 79.

The Ezourvedam
Some have identified Roberto de Nobili as the author of a spurious document that purported to be a French translation of an ancient Sanskrit scripture by the name of Ezourvedam. Max Mueller concluded that de Nobili was not its author. Ludo Rocher published a detailed study of the Ezourvedam which shows that the author of this text must have been a French missionary and he proposed several names. Urs App has offered evidence for Jean Calmette (1692–1740) as the author.

Legacy

 * In the autumn of 2013, Loyola University Chicago opened a residence hall called de Nobili Hall at its Lake Shore campus. This five-story building houses approximately 200 first year students, the international learning community, and features a 350-seat dining hall.
 * In Ekaveera, a Telugu historical novel by Viswanatha Satyanarayana, the character of Tattvabodhaka swami appears to be based on de Nobili. He preaches Christianity wearing the Hindu sanyasi attire and ascetic style of living and engages in discourse and debate the protagonist Ekaveera
 * In Jharkhand, India, there are 8 Jesuit-run schools named De Nobili School after him. They are affiliated with the Council for Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (CISCE), New Delhi.

title: Roberto de Nobili


text:
Talk:United States Electoral College/Archive 2

"Opponents also point out that the electoral college assumes that voters within states vote monolithically, when in fact this is not the case. Many states are often deeeply decided over how to vote in a Presidential election."

Nope. It works like this. The assumption is, is that large blocks of people are Democratic or Republican and they will vote along party lines no matter what. From what I've read about 60% of people are strongly affilated. This has been true since the parties crystalized over the last century - but that still leaves 40% who aren't. The battle is for the swing voters. So you go after the swing voters. Where are the largest number of these people? Cities. Since they have no party affilation, they respond to what the candidate can do for them. Take the appeal of Regan and the "Regan Democrats" - swing voters who normally can be counted on to vote Democratic, but decided not to. It would be easy for a candidate to take all the money normally spent on flying around, massive TV advertising, and geographic political palpability and instead concentrate on the large cities. Anyone who would mount a national campaign against someone pursuing this strategy would be committing suicide. You would see a cycle where everyone keeps placing more and more $$$ into the cities, restricting the process to these areas. Take a look at this article, to see that, even more than 100 years ago, regions against one another was going strong. And cities nowadays certainly are regions with their own political motivations.Dobbs 05:50 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

 * Of course it is true that voters do not vote monolithically. That is the whole point.  But all the arguments you have been making are are assuming that voters vote monolithically, since you claim that people in states only vote for what is in the local interests of the state.  You have repeatedly made this point, over and over again.  I'm glad to see that you now reject this argument, although it of course removes the main argument you have been using in favor of the electoral college. soulpatch

 * Ok, without me getting excited.   Here are my overall reasons for being so fearful about majority vote, and why I think as a voter in a small state I will be disenfranchised.  The argument does not weigh in on majority takes all in the state (as it is now) - thus providing an artificial monolithic voting block where none exists.  The real issue is how the political system would change (I think for the worse) if it was instituted.  Since we both basically agree that 60% of people are affiliated, each major party has that 30% of the vote locked up - no point in preaching to the choir, as it were.  So the vote moves to the swing voters.  Well, again, all 40% of those swing voters aren't going to vote all the same way, not even close.  Realistically, their votes will come down to close to 50 / 50 if no one really campaigns to them.  Since who is going to win in that area (since it is a strict majority, no sense talking about the state anymore) will be determined by a small proportion of swing voters located throughout a very large area, it is counterproductive for a campaign to spend time looking for those few hearts and minds - they really don't matter anyway.  At most those small number of votes overall will make very little difference.  Campaigns will spend time in cities and their associated metropolitan areas.  Winning a 48 / 52% vote in New York city proper - or The Northeast overall, would easily overwhelm any 40 / 60 winner (our worst, and impossible case) in the West.  So why bother ever campaigning in the mountain west at all?  The short answer is, neither side would.  It would be pointless - and that is my concern.  You may well be right about getting a small majority of votes being "more fair" (in the metaphysical sense) than minority rule, I'd even be willing to concede that to you if it will move the debate forward.  But the corrosive effects to national unity would far outweigh giving the election to a plurality winner.  People are apathetic as it is.  The Presidential election is the one that people most identify with (that's why we are so excited, after all).  Taking the ability to influence the election by having the candidates campaign to us and our concerns away, will stop most people for voting - about anything (since all that voting is done at once).  Then, you get something close to a collapse in the democratic process that underpins the republic.  You think people are suspicious of the Federal government now (the fringe Ruby Ridge and Waco people ARE a fringe, but more moderate justifiably paranoid people exist) just have the Presidential candidates start ignoring Idaho completely.

 * Yes I may be overstating it for now, but 20 years under that sort of system would destroy what faith many in these parts of the country have in the basic idea of a federal government. These same concerns lead to the first civil war.  Now, I don't think there is going to be a civil war anytime soon.  But, if serious economic concerns (like the lifeblood of the West, water) are run roughshod over by the government, and no one here thinks that they are getting a fair shake, or even being listened to - then you are shaping up events to come to a head just like the south.  National unity by providing a balance between regional concerns and preventing regionalism from dictating the national executive is more important than belief in majority rule.  Now, can you at least see that I'm not crazy, overreacting, or PREFER minority rule?

 * And finally, if you believe in majority rule, start proportioning state representatives solely on the basis of majority vote over the whole state. Work that through in a thought experiment what that would do to politics.  It is the same argument I make about the College.  Northern California would lose their cool if the large cities took over the state government, that's why it is seperated into districts, each with the same vote.  That amplifies the Northern California vote, why allow it at all?  And this divide is real.  As a resident User:soulpatch of California you know what I'm talking about. Dobbs 15:28 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

 * First of all, in a democratic election where majority vote determines the winner, where each voter is equal, then every single vote--every single "heart and mind"--matters. And I might add that in this era of television, where the vast majority of campaign money goes towards TV advertising, the entire electorate can and is blanketed by each of the major party campaigns.  By the way, it is interesting that you are talking about the Mountain West as a rural entity, when in fact the state of Colorado where you live has the overwhelming majority of its population living along the highly urbanized Front Range.  Your whole conception of regional  identity as being one of rural versus urban is ridiculously simplistic.  State boundaries don't correspond to the type of scheme you are trying to defend.

 * As for California, the fact is that in the gubernatorial election, the big cities already do have the biggest say in who wins the governor's race. That's true in every state already, because states directly elect their governors.  I accept that Southern Californians have a bigger say than I do in Northern California because I accept the principle of majority vote in the governor's race.  Your analogy with distict elections raises an interesting point--namely, that the legislative branch is designed precisely to give regions a say in the legislative branch.  But the analogy is flawed.  First of all, legislative elections implement the principle of one-man, one-vote, which is the very principle that you oppose (since you endorse giving people in certain states more of a vote for President than those in others, based on a supposed "rural" versus "urban" identity of those states).  There is only one President, and that person has to be chosen somehow.  There are many legislators, and the whole point of having many legislators is that they each represent a smaller constituency.

 * I favor making minority viewpoints available to the electoral process, but it should be in the context of a democratic mechanism that reflects the will of all the people and which does not give some individuals greater say in choosing their legislators than others. That is why I advocate making elections more democratic, not less--that means instant runoff elections, for example, which makes sure that minority viewpoints are included.  Included does not mean controls, however--the will of the majority is ultimately what should determine election results, not the will of a priviliged minority. (The legislative body is in fact a way of implementing regional representation within the government, which you favor, as do I.  Of course, if you really want to make sure everyone is enfranchised in the legislature, then you should favor proportional representation, as almost all European governments have.)  More importantly, there is only one executive, but many legislators.  The question we come back to, again and again, is how we should elect both those legislators and the executive--by majority vote, or by a convoluted mechanism that gives some privileged minorities more of a say than others in how the single executive who governs the country is chosen.

 * And on the question is how we should elect the people who represent us, Irepeat my question of whether you favor giving rural counties more of a vote than urban counties in a gubernatorial election.

 * And by the way, this whole rural versus urban thing is absurd for another reason. Making rural minorites privileged while ignoring other minorities of voters seems a little bizare.  The electorate can be divided and sliced into many categories, not just urban versus rural.  The fact is that lots of electoral minorities exist out there.  If you oppose majority vote because minorities will be ignored, then perhaps we should give African Americans, gays,and the poorest citizens, a host of other groups of people a higher proportion of the vote to make up for the fact that politicians tend to ignore these smaller minorities, especially if they are unlikely to vote.  The whole premise of giving rural voters the ultimate control over who wins elections is just plain absurd. soulpatch

 * If anything, this is an argument that electoral college district lines should be drawn up separately from the state boundaries, since regional concerns are much more distinctly different across rural vs city divides. Of course, that would erode states' rights. Oh, wait, those haven't really existed since 1865. ;) --Brion 06:13 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

- Deleted the irrelevant bullet point on land mass. Actually, the number of counties is also irrelevant, as AFAIK counties have no meaningful status in any state's federal electoral process. However, counties are at least political entities. Land mass is not, at least not until dirt gets the right to vote. k.lee - Minesweeper toned down my contributed section about the stranglehold of the two political parties over U.S. politics (stranglehold changed to domination), and I just wanted to say, I think it was a good choice to do so :) -Perry

This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither has ever split its electoral votes.

I seem to recall that Maine did split in 2000; I don't recall, swadly, and I suspect a Google for a 2000 electoral vote map would overwhelm me. --Charles A. L. 21:14, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Charles, you silly goose. The answer is right under your nose! Click on the last link of the first paragraph of this article....where it says election maps. :) Kingturtle 21:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah. You'd never know I've been literate for 23 years or so.... --Charles A. L. 23:59, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

On the topic of electoral maps, would it be possible to change the maps in U.S. presidential election, 1996 et al so that the Democratic candidate gets blue states? Every other election map uses this color scheme, and to not do so is damn confusing. I'd do it myself, but how? Yours, Meelar 21:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) - This view of Electoral College supporters continue to be slowly defaced in this article. The overall tone of the article is that the Electoral College is a racist hateful system that only evil people would support. Why not just go ahead and say this outright rather than insinuating it oh so subtly.
 * I am unsure that I understand your question. All the U.S. presidential election maps have the Democratic party as Red. When you say "every other election map"....what are you referring to? Kingturtle 21:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Conventional usage on TV news, newspapers, magazines, etc. is to shade Democratic states blue--so much so that "Blue states" and "red states" have passed into common political parlance to signify the divided state of the US following the 2000 election. Meelar 21:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe User:Hephaestos made all the Electoral College maps in Wikipedia. Ask him about it. It might be easy for him to change. He probably still has the original files. Or he can tell you why he chose the color scheme we have. Kingturtle 21:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks very much, Meelar

 * I don't think the addition goes quite that far, but in any case it was dropped in by someone who's recently been making a bunch of POV additions -- see Richard Nixon, for example. --Charles A. L. 02:51, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * I can't see a problem with the first change (the phrasing was awkward but is better now). The second change (the one implying inherent racism) is rather POV, and I can't find anything credible to back it up; the third change just complicates an already convoluted paragraph.  Reverting the second change, and going to attempt to tidy up the third one (though I'm still not happy with that paragraph). - Jim Redmond 06:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Re: the second change...it was not implying racism. The term minority vote, in this case, refers to the group of voters whose vote totals are in the minority. Kingturtle

 * I think we're looking at different things here. (In retrospect, I shouldn't have described the anonymous user's changes that way.  Too late now, though.)  The anon-user changed the lead paragraph in the "A controversial system" section to imply that only conservatives supported the E.C., and then only because it overrepresented the votes of rural whites.  I couldn't find anything through a quick Google to back up either of those assertions, so I reverted that paragraph to Skyshadow's earlier version. - Jim Redmond 18:48, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The United States is one of very few liberal democracies to use an indirect method of selecting its chief executive.

Is this true? In a British-style parliamentary system, isn't the prime minister elected indirectly? Can't a party that gets fewer votes than another wind up with a majority of seats in the parliament, and hence elect the PM? Josh Cherry 03:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Technically, yes, a member of a non-plurality party can become PM; in practice, though, it doesn't happen often. It's rather complicated for quick discussion here; Westminster system should cover most of it. - jredmond 04:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I read Westminster system, but it didn't set me straight. Suppose there are just two parties, A and B.  A gets the majority of votes, yet B wins the majority of seats.  Who becomes PM?  I presume it's the leader of party B.  Is this incorrect?  If not, how is this fundamentally different from a U.S. presidential candidate losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college? Josh Cherry 04:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * In that fundamental way, it's no different. Indeed just like the US system, there have been times when the party winning less votes has had more seats in the House of Commons. It happened in the 1950s when Labour won more votes, but the Conservatives more seats for example. David Newton 17:24, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, mean to direct you to presidential system - strangely, it has a good explanation of the distinctions between the two models of republican government. (I smell a better article coming out of this.)

 * The PM must have majority support from the Parliament at all times. Through a vote of no confidence or through a shift in the makeup of the ruling coalition, a PM can lose his or her position.

 * A president chosen by direct or indirect election cannot be removed just because the legislature, Electoral College, or electorate as a whole have stopped liking him or her.

 * Does that answer your question? - jredmond 05:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It doesn't respond to my point. I understand that there are differences between the systems.  What I am questioning is whether the prime minister in such a system is directly elected.  People don't vote for the PM, they vote for a member of Parliament.  A majority of voters might favor the leader of party A for PM, yet party B might win the most seats in Parliament, and hence the leader of party B would become PM.  The fact that MPs continue to exercise discretion about the PM's continuing in office does not make the election of the PM any more direct.  In fact it could be argued that it makes it less direct, much as if the members of the Electoral College could take a new vote at any time and oust the president. Josh Cherry 14:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, was misinterpreting your question.

 * Voters in most parliamentary systems do not vote for a particular MP for their particular riding - they vote for a party, that party receives seats in Parliament based on its proportion of the vote, etc. Because those voters know that any party leader will become PM if their party gets enough clout, and because party loyalty is fierce in parliamentary systems, it can be argued that electing a Prime Minister is more direct than using an Electoral College. - jredmond 16:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I buy that in a parliamentary system with proportional representation the election of the PM is more direct than the election of a U.S. president. But I think you see my point that in a parliamentary system without PR, e.g. with first-past-the-post voting, the election of the PM is just as indirect.  So are the latter really so rare?  According to the article on PR, In general, first-past-the-post is only used in former British colonies, and even Britain itself uses PR for the Scottish and Welsh assemblies and for its EU delegation.  This seems to suggest that the British Parliament uses first-past-the-post, along with some others.  The article on Westminster Parliament confirms this for Britain, and Canadian House of Commons says that in Canada it's one MP per constituency by fist-past-the-post.  Australia seems to elect one MP per constituency too, just not by first-past-the-post.  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding how these systems work, but if not, the few liberal democracies claim is tenuous. Josh Cherry 00:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * With respect, given the large number of democracies that use the Westminster System, I'm not certain the United States is all that unique in using an indirect method of electing its head of government. Also, I would submit that its use of an indirect method for electing its head of state is also not unusual for republics.  Examples include Germany and India.  Ed Unneland   01:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * My two cents worth... Deciding whether or not an election is a direct or indirect election has nothing to do with non-plurality winners -- simply, a direct election is one in which a voter votes directly for the candidate, not for some intermediary, whatever the name.  otherwise what you got is inherently an indirect election.  So, based on that, it seems that relatively few (liberal) democracies directly elect their executives: France, Russia, Finland, Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, to name a few...  and even in the case of France, the President, although very powerful, is not the head of government -- the prime minister, who is appointed by the president, is the head of government.  In any event, it seems that the majority of European, North American, and Asian (liberal) democracies chose their executive through indirect elections, generally through (1) parliamentary-type elections (leader of winning party becomes head of government, such as in Britain, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, New Zealand); (2) by electing someone else (say, a president) who chooses the head of government(such as in Israel, Czech Republic, Bangladesh, Iceland, Austria); or (3) through some other system (electoral college, for example, in US, Italy, India, Germany).  The point is that the sentence in question -- The United States is one of very few liberal democracies to use an indirect method of selecting its chief executive. --  is not accurate and should be removed.  I assume that no one is against this, right?  Fufthmin 20:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yet another problem with the electoral college is what would result if no candidate won a majority of electoral votes...

How is this a problem with the electoral college in particular? With a simple popular vote, it is also possible for no candidate to receive a majority. In fact it's much more likely to happen with a popular vote. In the last three U.S. Presidential elections no candidate had a majority of the popular vote, yet in all cases somebody had a majority in the electoral vote. Josh Cherry 23:10, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * But I mention that if no one wins a majority in the electoral college,  there is no winner at all.  In a direct first-past-the-post election, at least the person with a plurality could become president, governor, etc.

 * (In many countries, France being an example, if no one wins an outright majority, there is a runoff) User:Dinopup

 * My point is that what to do when nobody gets a majority is always an issue (one with no good solution in fact) and has nothing to do with the popular vote vs. electoral college question, so it doesn't belong here. Josh Cherry 03:42, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Changing the system [to a direct popular vote] requires amending the Constitution, and amending the Constitution requires ratification of three-fourths of the States. Smaller states would be unlikely to ratify such an amendment, as their votes would count for less under direct popular vote than under the current electoral college system."

That statement is just factually incorrect. Consider that the eleven largest states control outright the requisite 270 electoral votes to determine the presidency. If each of those eleven large states changed their election laws to choose their electors based upon the winner of the national popular vote rather than their own state vote, then we would have achieved the equivalent of direct election of the president without amending the constitution and without the consent of a single small state.

Not even all eleven large states would be required to produce a popular vote winner in some cases. In 2000, had only one Bush state chosen its electors by national popular vote rather than state popular vote, the popular vote winner would have been elected.

My point is not to debate the political probability of this happening, only to point out that a constitutional amendment really is not required to achieve a direct popular vote (though that is a very widely accepted view). --Pgva 19:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Given that a user saw fit to delete the paragraph on this topic, calling it an "unrealistic" proposal, a word in its defense is in order. The conventional wisdom is that achieving a popular vote through a constitutional amendment is unlikely because the small states would never go along; yet we proceed here to list a number of proposals for constitutional amendment anyway. Well, there exists a way to achieve a popular vote that requires no constitutional amendment and no small state consent, and would be in the interest of the large states to enact. Why this is, therefore, viewed as any less realistic a solution is beyond me, unless we consider ourselves forever bound by our own conventions and lack of imagination. Certainly it deserves at least as much of a mention here as such terribly unlikely proposals as French-style runoff voting. Pgva 11:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Anonymous user added: "However the clause of the U.S. constitution that forbids treaties between individual states makes such an agreement difficult in practice." But a state need not sign a treaty with another state to tabulate the national popular vote. A treaty is a mutual commitment among parties. A commitment neither is required nor results from simply taking account of and using another state's vote totals. Of course there is no guarantee that every state publish its vote totals for other states' use (indeed, the lack of such a guarantee proves that no interstate pact would exist), but any state which chose not to make its vote total public would simply disenfranchise itself under this system. That is the common-sense view; Anonymous user has another view, but it is a point-of-view and thus does not belong in the article. I will give others an opportunity to debate the issue before making an official correction of the sentence in question. Pgva 22:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Pgva, long time, no see. An idea even simpler than your eleven states proposal would be for the two major party candidates to simply agree that the winner of the popular vote will become president.  The candidates could promise that if there were a pop vote/e college mismatch, the e vote winner would urge his electors to vote for his opponent (and electors would be chosen who would do so).  Since this idea would require the agreement of two parties, rather than eleven, I would say it is more feasible.

 * You point out that a Constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college is unlikely to pass, but at least such an amendment is on the table. Many high profile politicians, journalists, and academics want to do away with the e college, a few even want French style runoffs (or IRV).  AFAIK, no high profile politician favors the eleven state method.  dinopup

 * Hi, Dinopup. Our proposals are the same fundamentally: no constitutional amendment, and a sufficient number of electors back the national popular vote winner. Yet unless such an arrangement was enacted as a matter of law (as opposed to a "gentleman's agreement"), freelancing electors could very easily throw the outcome into doubt. In fact, they would have numerous incentives to do so, including that current law in many states renders electors who fail to support their party's candidates liable to criminal prosecution. Better to take the electors' will out of the equation (more or less) by appointing the electors loyal to the national winner in the first place. As you point out, no politician has ever favored the "state law solution". But then, few people have thought it through enough to even realize that it's possible (one of the reasons I thought it worthy of mention here) - the conventional wisdom is that a constitutional amendment is required. I will say that no change is likely unless the system implodes, in which case Congress would likely take a leading role, and in that event I would put odds on a constitutional amendment. It's more for the principled advocates of "one man, one vote" that I thought the "state law solution" a potentially useful idea. Pgva 04:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Given yesterday's close call in Ohio, we could have easily seen another electoral college/popular vote split, this one favoring the Democrats with 272 EVs versus the one in 2000 that favored Republicans with 271 EVs. Having the minimum 270 EVs allocated by national popular vote would foreclose such an outcome, while a fewer number would render it less likely. But given the EC's ability to reverse the popular vote outcome in favor of either party, any "less than 270" approach would have to include a substantial number of EVs from both red and blue states to handle either situation. Yet an incremental state-by-state approach in tandem with evolving public sentiment may be the best way to eventually achieve a nationwide popular vote without having to amend the constitution. Pgva 05:27, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List of electors
The list of electors at the end of the article is currently hard-coded as a multicolumn table. It should really be a straight list, but I agree that that wouldn't be good use of screen real estate. Then again, I don't think thats a big issue, and to have it correctly marked up and looking good in many forms (small screen, printed, etc.) we should not have it split with a table. (and anyway, long lists with mostly short items can be shown nicely in CSS3 in the future.)

Comments? Luke 02:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The United States is one of very few liberal democracies to use an indirect method of selecting its chief executive (the UK being the other notable example).

How about Canada and Australia? Josh Cherry 03:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good Work
I see why this article is selected to be featured, it is of excellent quality. Good work everyone! ( Feel free to choose to delete my comments afterwards so they don't get in the way :) )--ShaunMacPherson 13:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


text:
Limited availability

When customers of a public switched telephone network make telephone calls, they utilize a telecommunications network called a switched-circuit network. In a switched-circuit network, devices known as switches are used to connect the calling party to the called party. Each switch has a number of inlets and outlets, and by connecting a specific inlet to the correct outlet, each switch helps to complete an end-to-end circuit between users. This method is used in, for example graded multiple banks of selectors.

In a modern circuit-switched network, switches can connect any inlet to any outlet; this is known as full availability.

title: Limited availability


text:
Network performance

Network performance refers to measures of service quality of a network as seen by the customer.

There are many different ways to measure the performance of a network, as each network is different in nature and design. Performance can also be modeled and simulated instead of measured; one example of this is using state transition diagrams to model queuing performance or to use a Network Simulator.

Performance measures
The following measures are often considered important:

 * Bandwidth commonly measured in bits/second is the maximum rate that information can be transferred
 * Throughput is the actual rate that information is transferred
 * Latency the delay between the sender and the receiver decoding it, this is mainly a function of the signals travel time, and processing time at any nodes the information traverses
 * Jitter variation in packet delay at the receiver of the information
 * Error rate the number of corrupted bits expressed as a percentage or fraction of the total sent

Bandwidth
The available channel bandwidth and achievable signal-to-noise ratio determine the maximum possible throughput. It is not generally possible to send more data than dictated by the Shannon-Hartley Theorem.

Throughput
Throughput is the number of messages successfully delivered per unit time. Throughput is controlled by available bandwidth, as well as the available signal-to-noise ratio and hardware limitations. Throughput for the purpose of this article will be understood to be measured from the arrival of the first bit of data at the receiver, to decouple the concept of throughput from the concept of latency. For discussions of this type, the terms 'throughput' and 'bandwidth' are often used interchangeably.

The Time Window is the period over which the throughput is measured. The choice of an appropriate time window will often dominate calculations of throughput, and whether latency is taken into account or not will determine whether the latency affects the throughput or not.

Latency
The speed of light imposes a minimum propagation time on all electromagnetic signals. It is not possible to reduce the latency below

 * $$t=s/c_m$$

where s is the distance and cm is the speed of light in the medium (roughly 200,000 km/s for most fiber or electrical media, depending on their velocity factor). This approximately means an additional millisecond round-trip delay (RTT) per 100 km (or 62 miles) of distance between hosts.

Other delays also occur in intermediate nodes. In packet switched networks delays can occur due to queueing.

Jitter
Jitter is the undesired deviation from true periodicity of an assumed periodic signal in electronics and telecommunications, often in relation to a reference clock source. Jitter may be observed in characteristics such as the frequency of successive pulses, the signal amplitude, or phase of periodic signals. Jitter is a significant, and usually undesired, factor in the design of almost all communications links (e.g., USB, PCI-e, SATA, OC-48). In clock recovery applications it is called timing jitter.

Error rate
In digital transmission, the number of bit errors is the number of received bits of a data stream over a communication channel that have been altered due to noise, interference, distortion or bit synchronization errors.

The bit error rate or bit error ratio (BER) is the number of bit errors divided by the total number of transferred bits during a studied time interval. BER is a unitless performance measure, often expressed as a percentage.

The bit error probability pe is the expectation value of the BER. The BER can be considered as an approximate estimate of the bit error probability. This estimate is accurate for a long time interval and a high number of bit errors.

Interplay of factors
All of the factors above, coupled with user requirements and user perceptions, play a role in determining the perceived 'fastness' or utility, of a network connection. The relationship between throughput, latency, and user experience is most aptly understood in the context of a shared network medium, and as a scheduling problem.

Algorithms and protocols
For some systems, latency and throughput are coupled entities. In TCP/IP, latency can also directly affect throughput. In TCP connections, the large bandwidth-delay product of high latency connections, combined with relatively small TCP window sizes on many devices, effectively causes the throughput of a high latency connection to drop sharply with latency. This can be remedied with various techniques, such as increasing the TCP congestion window size, or more drastic solutions, such as packet coalescing, TCP acceleration, and forward error correction, all of which are commonly used for high latency satellite links.

TCP acceleration converts the TCP packets into a stream that is similar to UDP. Because of this, the TCP acceleration software must provide its own mechanisms to ensure the reliability of the link, taking the latency and bandwidth of the link into account, and both ends of the high latency link must support the method used.

In the Media Access Control (MAC) layer, performance issues such as throughput and end-to-end delay are also addressed.

Examples of latency or throughput dominated systems
Many systems can be characterized as dominated either by throughput limitations or by latency limitations in terms of end-user utility or experience. In some cases, hard limits such as the speed of light present unique problems to such systems and nothing can be done to correct this. Other systems allow for significant balancing and optimization for best user experience.

Satellite
A telecom satellite in geosynchronous orbit imposes a path length of at least 71000 km between transmitter and receiver. which means a minimum delay between message request and message receipt, or latency of 473 ms. This delay can be very noticeable and affects satellite phone service regardless of available throughput capacity.

Deep space communication
These long path length considerations are exacerbated when communicating with space probes and other long-range targets beyond Earth's atmosphere. The Deep Space Network implemented by NASA is one such system that must cope with these problems. Largely latency driven, the GAO has criticized the current architecture. Several different methods have been proposed to handle the intermittent connectivity and long delays between packets, such as delay-tolerant networking.

Even deeper space communication
At interstellar distances, the difficulties in designing radio systems that can achieve any throughput at all are massive. In these cases, maintaining communication is a bigger issue than how long that communication takes.

Offline data transport
Transportation is concerned almost entirely with throughput, which is why physical deliveries of backup tape archives are still largely done by vehicle.

title: Network performance


text:
Telecommunications tariff

A telecommunications tariff is an open contract between a telecommunications service provider and the public, filed with a regulating body such as state and municipal Public Utilities Commissions and federal entities such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Such tariffs outline the terms and conditions of providing telecommunications service to the public including rates, fees, and charges.

Reasons for tariffs
At a minimum, tariffs imposed must cover the cost of providing the service to the consumer. The consumer may be the final user or an intermediary such as a service provider. If a telecommunications operator cannot recover its costs, it will make a loss and the company will go bankrupt. Tariffs must also be used to cover maintenance, additional research and other indirect costs associated with providing the service. However, telecommunications service providers must be careful not to over-price each service, as prices have a direct influence on demand for that service (see supply and demand). Such an operator must constantly balance the need to provide cheaper rates, especially if there is strong competition, with the cost of maintaining the service at an optimum quality that is acceptable to the customer. If an operator charges too much, it risks alienating its customers, resulting in a loss of traffic and therefore revenue; if they charge too little, they will have insufficient capital to maintain the network's quality of service. Over time this will result in customer attrition.

Components of tariffs
Tariffing systems vary from country to country and company to company, but in general they are based on several simple principles. Tariffs are generally made up of two components:
 * Standing charges: these are fixed charges that are used to pay for the cost of the connection to the nearest exchange and the equipment to monitor that customer's phone line or service connection. They are usually paid on a monthly basis, and called rental.
 * Call charges: these charges are variable and are used to pay for the cost of the equipment to route a call from the caller's exchange to the recipient's exchange. These call charges can be calculated on a fixed per call basis, a variable basis depending on the time or distance of the call, or a combination of the two. Call charges can even vary at different times of the day. For many local calls the charge is zero; see flat rate.

These components form a basic tariff system but, as telecommunication advances, tariff structures become increasingly more complex. Usually there is the option of calling collect (in the UK known as reversing charges), where responsibility for charges normally paid by the caller is accepted by the recipient. Tariffs also depend on the bandwidth provided. For example, dial-up modem connections are charged at normal telephone costs, but connections such as DSL are usually charged using a completely different accounting system due to their always on nature.

Special tariffs
Increasingly, in some countries, the call charges are fixed at a monthly rate and included as a supplement to the standing charges, known as inclusive calls.

Emergency calls can invariably be made without charge.

Most countries have a number sequence that enable the caller to make calls without charge, sometimes known as free calls or freephone, these are usually used by companies for their sales line (in the UK these are 0800 and 0808 numbers and in the US they are 800, 888, 877, 866, 855, 844 and 833).

Tariffs substantially in excess of the normal rate, known as premium rate, are used for information services, competition entries and pornography calls.

These telecommunications tariffs originated with the advent of public phone service. In these times, the services provided were less complex, and customers were able to simply read the tariffs to understand how much they would be charged for each type of call. Additionally, only a few telecommunication industries participated in the market, facilitating decision-making. As the market became increasingly competitive, the need for regulation decreased. In 2001, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) declared the telecommunications market was fully competitive in the United States, and eliminated the need to file tariffs with federal regulatory agencies. However, to continue operating, many state and local governments still require telecommunications tariffs.

Impact of tariffs on traffic
Call minutes are highly elastic against price, this means that the demand for call minutes varies greatly according to price. A slight decrease in price leads to a great increase in call minutes. The higher the price, the more this effect is noticeable, for both business and residential customers on international or local calls. This means that it is often the case that more revenue is achievable at lower prices, that is, E < -1.

Internet traffic research show that the traffic intensity is directly affected by the tariffs charged in connecting customers to their Internet Service Provider (ISP). For example, a circuit-switched network provider charges different tariffs at different times of the day. It was noted that at the time that the rates decreased, the traffic intensity logged by the ISP increased dramatically and then decayed over time at an exponential rate. The conclusion of the research was that by varying prices over time, a telecommunications service provider can reduce the level of the traffic intensity at peak periods, resulting in lower equipment costs because of the reduced need to provision to meet peak demand, which in turn leads to increases in long-term revenue and profitability. See Time-based pricing.

title: Telecommunications tariff