Slashdot Mirror

First of all, I'm not American, but I'd still like to ask you to vote! No, not for any of the main two wankers, but for a third party candidate. It's up to you which one, but my personal suggestion is Michael Badnarik. You can safely vote for him because he is not an idiot.

How could there be a surplus when the Federal Government didn't start collecting taxes until 1894, and not reliably until 1913 (16th amendment). References please, oh wait, this is slashdot politics.

When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil, vote Libertarian.

You cannot justify bad behavior with worse behavior. The deficit is a big problem that needs to be addressed. Also, Bush has done nothing in regards to Social Security reform, other then happily spend its surplus on other government programs. The only reform of Social Security you will get through the Bush administration will be to allow you to put a small percentage into a heavily regulated government account.

If anyone is concerned with the fiscal policies of this administration and getting rid of Social Security, they should be voting Libertarian.

Separate but equal? "If you ask Vice President Cheney's daughter, ... who is a lesbian ..., I'm sure she'd tell you she's just being herself." Sorry, couldn't resist quoting Kerry. "Want some wood? Heh, heh" There's a Bush one.

But, this is utter shit. I'm not gay, I only know a couple of gay people, and this whole state I live in seems to be populated by a majority of redneck homophobics. You don't have to be part of a cultural group to stand up for their rights.

If I recall correctly, about 78% of people in this state approved a bill "defining" marriage and forbidding civil unions. A judge overturned it as "too broad" but I'm sure it will be right back. I proudly voted against it. Haven't any of you ever heard of "and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me"?

Vote Michael Badnarik in 2004. He is the only one who will bring about real change and bring civil liberties back to us. He supports rights for all minorities (I'm a white, straight Male) and majorities. So don't think I'm pandering or whatever to any specific group.

Read why you should vote for him. There are reasons for about every socioeconomic/cultural group.

What's a Libertarian you ask? No, you didn't ask? Read this anyway.

Chris

Separate but equal? "If you ask Vice President Cheney's daughter, ... who is a lesbian ..., I'm sure she'd tell you she's just being herself." Sorry, couldn't resist quoting Kerry. "Want some wood? Heh, heh" There's a Bush one.

But, this is utter shit. I'm not gay, I only know a couple of gay people, and this whole state I live in seems to be populated by a majority of redneck homophobics. You don't have to be part of a cultural group to stand up for their rights.

If I recall correctly, about 78% of people in this state approved a bill "defining" marriage and forbidding civil unions. A judge overturned it as "too broad" but I'm sure it will be right back. I proudly voted against it. Haven't any of you ever heard of "and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me"?

Vote Michael Badnarik in 2004. He is the only one who will bring about real change and bring civil liberties back to us. He supports rights for all minorities (I'm a white, straight Male) and majorities. So don't think I'm pandering or whatever to any specific group.

Read why you should vote for him. There are reasons for about every socioeconomic/cultural group.

What's a Libertarian you ask? No, you didn't ask? Read this anyway.

Chris

Separate but equal? "If you ask Vice President Cheney's daughter, ... who is a lesbian ..., I'm sure she'd tell you she's just being herself." Sorry, couldn't resist quoting Kerry. "Want some wood? Heh, heh" There's a Bush one.

But, this is utter shit. I'm not gay, I only know a couple of gay people, and this whole state I live in seems to be populated by a majority of redneck homophobics. You don't have to be part of a cultural group to stand up for their rights.

If I recall correctly, about 78% of people in this state approved a bill "defining" marriage and forbidding civil unions. A judge overturned it as "too broad" but I'm sure it will be right back. I proudly voted against it. Haven't any of you ever heard of "and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me"?

Vote Michael Badnarik in 2004. He is the only one who will bring about real change and bring civil liberties back to us. He supports rights for all minorities (I'm a white, straight Male) and majorities. So don't think I'm pandering or whatever to any specific group.

Read why you should vote for him. There are reasons for about every socioeconomic/cultural group.

What's a Libertarian you ask? No, you didn't ask? Read this anyway.

Chris

Exactly. I heard a good analogy (which I'm sure will be debunked as "This election won't save your life", although it could if the wars continue).

It goes:
"You are in prison on death row and you get to vote on what happens to you. The three choices are, lethal injection, electric chair, and being set free. Now polls are conducted, and no matter what you vote, you hve a 48% chance of being shocked to death, a 48% chance of being injected with a lethal poison, and only a 4% chance of being set free.

Which would you vote for?"

Michael Badnarik and more specifically, the Libertarian party, are who will set you free.

Vote to make a difference. Vote Badnarik and also any state reps/senators that are Libertarian.

Chris

PS -- Full credit for the story goes to my state LP chair, Vincent Mouser.

Abuse of rights, law, and tax dollars. This is why you should vote Libertarian.

Take the Advocates.org "World's Smallest Political Quiz" to find out what party you belong in based on real issues. According to them, "Take the Quiz now and find out where you fit on the political map!"

It is my belief that everyone is a Libertarian, but they they just don't know it.

Vote Michael Badnarik in 2004. Send a message to Washington and don't choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

Badnarik, so I'm voting for him.

I like Mike.

FWIW, I HATE Bush AND I hate Kerry (note capitalization, though).

Don't forget David Cobb of the Green Party or the Libertarian entry among others.

Bush(www.georgewbush.com): 303 errors.

Kerry(www.johnkerry.com): 2 errors.

Nader(www.votenader.org): unable to validate.

Badnarik(badnarik.org): 13 errors.

Cobb(www.votecobb.org): 217 errors.

North America having more than two presidential candidates?

US registered voters: You too can oust the Republicrats.

It is just the Judicial Branch of government in the USA that still makes rulings to benefit "The People", the Legislative branch and Executive branch have sold out to big business a long, long time ago.

U.S. citizens registered to vote can help take back Congress and the Presidency by voting Libertarian. Libertarians believe more strongly in the invisible hand of the free market than the Republicrats do, but at least one libertarian think tank recognizes that copyright interferes in a free market (PDF) and that its coercion on users should be minimized.

So here's how it boils down: If you want a government that continues to restrict consumer rights in favor of large corporations, vote for Bush; if you want a government that continues to restrict consumer rights in favor of Hollywood corporations, vote for Kerry. It's that simple.

Kerry's stance on the DMCA sounds a lot like his stance on the Patriot Act: He basically thinks these are good laws, he voted for them, but he doesn't want to risk losing independent voters by making a statement one way or another.

This is how I view this election: Bush is saying "If I'm elected, I'll cut off your right hand!" and Kerry is saying "If I'm elected, I'll cut off your left hand!" Well, I could spend time strategizing about which hand I would rather have, but whoever wins, I'm going to lose. Like many here on Slashdot, I'm voting for Badnarik. I know that whether Bush or Kerry wins, I will lose, so at least I'm going to cast a vote that has some meaning.

I put up a Badnarik for President sign on my dad's property on a busy street (his idea). It was only out there a couple of days before it disappeared.

Neither party

I'm sorry, you seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that there are only two parties to pick from. Allow me to share some info with you. For convenience, let's consider only the Presidential election.

There are actually 6 candidates for President who are on enough (I believe) states ballots to have a chance to win the election. Bush and Kerry, obviously, but also:

Mike Badnarik - Libertarian

David Cobb - Green

Ralph Nader - Independent

Mike Peroutka - Constitution

In addition, Roger Calero, the candiate for the Socialist Workers Party, is on the ballots in 14 states.

Finally, there are at least four other candidates who are on the ballots in at least two states:

(from ballot-access.org):

Socialist Party (Walt Brown) is on in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

Socialist Equality Party (Bill Van Auken) is on in Colorado, Iowa, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington, and is in court in Ohio.

Prohibition Party (Gene Amondsen) is on in Colorado and Louisiana.

Workers World Party (John Parker) is on in Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.


More details can be found at ballot-access.org

And a list of political parties in the United States is available as well.

seems to be fiscally conservative anymore.

The Libertarian Party is.

supposedly strong democracy like american (that only has two political parties with only milionnaires running and a pathetic participation rate on election day)

Sorry to burst the media bubble, but there's more than 2 candidates running. And some of them aren't millionnaires either... (computer geek/constitutional scholar in fact)

I guess it's because he's not trying

I guess it's because he's not trying

not on in New Hampshire and Oklahoma.

The republican party is IMO really showing signs of strain, and looks like it may split.

I do not know if it will be this election, but it may be the next (if dubya gets in again)

Bob Barr

LANCE LAMBERTON

Vin Suprynowicz

not on in New Hampshire and Oklahoma.

The republican party is IMO really showing signs of strain, and looks like it may split.

I do not know if it will be this election, but it may be the next (if dubya gets in again)

Bob Barr

LANCE LAMBERTON

Vin Suprynowicz

not on in New Hampshire and Oklahoma.

The republican party is IMO really showing signs of strain, and looks like it may split.

I do not know if it will be this election, but it may be the next (if dubya gets in again)

Bob Barr

LANCE LAMBERTON

Vin Suprynowicz

As it is forbidden for surveyors to call cell phone numbers, those people who have ditched their landlines and only have cells are not included in the polls... and these are exactly the Slashdot dwelling technophiles which traditionally have been apatic to politics, but are now waking up...

Will we see some surprise support for Kerry on November 2nd? Or even better: for Badnarik or for Nader...

As it is forbidden for surveyors to call cell phone numbers, those people who have ditched their landlines and only have cells are not included in the polls... and these are exactly the Slashdot dwelling technophiles which traditionally have been apatic to politics, but are now waking up...

Will we see some surprise support for Kerry on November 2nd? Or even better: for Badnarik or for Nader...

"Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph"
What proof do they have for this?! It's just a smear campaign by the Democrats.

It's just the Democrats learning from Karl Rove: attack your opponent's strength, not his weakness. Nader's whole raison d'etre is that he's not "beholden" -- so accuse him of it, and defuse his strength.

On the other hand...

Don't vote for the "better" of two evils, vote Nader in 2004! Evil is still evil and there's very little difference between the two major parties.

I say, don't vote for the "better-known" of the less-evils. If you're going to vote on the left side of the aisle, vote for the Green Party candidate -- David Cobb. We told Nader to take a hike at the Green Party convention.

Personally, I'm hoping that on November 3, we're looking at the map and smiling at the votes that Badnarik "stole" from Bush. If third parties on the left *and* the right are changing the outcome, maybe people will see that it's time the Big Two got put out to pasture.

I signed up. It's a neat concept. I'd normally vote for Badnarik, but I'm in a "swing state" so that vote might help miserable failure win. I can trade votes with someone who is in a democrat "safe" state like Massachusetts. We both win. They basically cast their vote which wouldn't make a difference in my state, and I cast mine for a third party candidate in their state, upping the percentage for the third party candidate and helping swing my state away from Bush.

It seems like an awesome idea!

How about we cut the size of the federal government, and all its associated wasteful and slow bureaucracy, and slash taxes for everyone at the federal level? Devolve healthcare, education, road construction, and more, down to the state level. This would give everyone more say in how their money is spent (because your local representative is much more accessible than your rep in Washington D.C.); and would provide an opportunity for different states to try different methods of administrating costs and managing overhead -- making solutions more customized to local needs and giving fertile ground for the best ideas to grow and flourish.

This is the original idea behind having multiple states instead of a massive federal bureaucracy that has too many layers and too many factions to be efficient.

This would give *everyone* more money, and more say in how it's spent. We know this works, because it's the way our country was run until the last few decades. Just compare the prosperous 1950s (where the average tax burden was only about %12 of income); or pre-1913 America (no income tax); to the ruinous %40-50 tax burden of today (once you factor in the hidden costs of tax compliance, taxes during production, and accounting overhead) which requires both parents to work and leaves the children to the not-so-tender mercies of the public school system.

So far, the only party that supports this is the Libertarians [lp.org]. Listen to Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org] speak sometime, like on this radio interview.

>If they'd talk straight about taxes, I'd be more willing to vote for them.

Aren't Badnarik/Campagna and the LP talking about taxes enough? They clearly say that they would lower taxes and let you keep more money, just watch/listen any of the debates with Michael, read about the LP at badnarik.org or take the shortest political quiz

Why was Micheal Badnarik (Libertarian Canidate)not a part of this Q&A?

Rad Adam -- http://badnarik.org/

"Appropriate Damages...

Assuming that the 3rd infomercial goes on without Michael, there is still a chance to seek damages.

Were Michael allowed into the debate tomorrow, he would essentially be receiving 30 minutes of free national airtime (90 minutes divided 3 ways). In order to compensate him for this loss, the CPD should provide him enough money to air 30 minutes of national commercials. In 2000, the average cost for a 30-second commercial was $332,000. Thus, to compensate Michael for the loss of 30 minutes of commercial airtime, the CPD should pay him $19.92 million. (Of course this is using 4 year old data, so the current value is likely to be over $20 million.)

Of course, I would much rather see him in the debate tomorrow, but $20 million would get him some serious media attention!" http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/12/our -day-in-court-new-comments-thread/

As for the argument of "There's no real difference between the parties" I'm sick and tired of hearing it. I would say the policies or "plans" you'll find at http://badnarik.org/plans.phpMichael Badnarik's website are huge policy differences from those posted on georgebush.com and johnkerry.com. (or many other third party sites) That said, I agree with you. There are large differences between Bush and Kerry's platform, but those radically polarized differences have emerged under George "Dubya" Bush's administration. "There's no real difference between the parties" is leftover campaign rhetoric from the elections in 2000. Campaign rhetoric uttered by a growing number of people disenchanted with the direction that Republicans and Democrats have been taking this country. While they may be voicing it in the wrong way, their sentiment is noteworthy. Historically third parties have been the catalyst for change in American goverment. Often in the form of the two major parties adopting popular third party ideas. It's definitely time for a change, but I'm not so sure that Kerry is enough of a change.

So let's not celebrate yet. For these things to be truly dead and gone, it must be either a Supreme Court ruling, or it must be done legislatively. Let's hope that our legislature will take some steps to reset the balance between protecting creative authors and protecting the free flow of information. Disney wouldn't be where it is today without the public domain (expired copyright) contributions of the Brothers Grim and many others. This means vote!

Badnarik is on the ballot in at least 48 states.

Otherwise, I agree with you 100%. The deciding rule should be "on the ballot in enough states to be electable", not "already has enough mindshare".
-russ

PROFESSIONAL

Became a Computer Programmer in 1977 for Commonwealth Edison at their nuclear power plant in Zion, Illinois; taught control room operators about computers. Was promoted to Senior Software Engineer for their Braidwood Nuclear Simulator project, which he managed from '82-'85 (his favorite job assignment, basically a $6-million "computer game" for which he was totally responsible).

Moved to Montebello, CA, and held a "secret security" clearance at Northrop to work on the Stealth Bomber simulator, '85-'87.

Relocated to San Luis Obispo, CA, in 1987 as a System Administrator and computer trainer at PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant; spent 10 years as a member of the Applied Technology Services Team writing software and traveling the state installing real-time data-collection servers to their remote power stations; was an instructor for hundreds of employees teaching state-of-the-art systems being installed.

Moved to Austin, TX, in 1997 where he was a programmer and a trainer for Evolutionary Technologies International. He quickly became the Senior Trainer and began traveling across the U.S., and to Canada, England and Australia, as instructor, consultant and "high-tech diplomat."

Became an independent computer consultant in 2001, but began to turn his attention (and talents as an instructor and communicator) to teaching his 8-hour "Introduction to the Constitution" class.

But, his background is not as illustriously geeky as Al Gore, whom we all know invented the internet.

Because somewhere around (i.e. pulled from my ass) 97% of Americans have never heard of the Libertarian Party and 99.9% of Americans have never heard of Michael Badnarik.

Quite pulled from your ass. Actually Badnarik has a similar level of voter support as Nader -- check the figures, and consider that there were enough signatures to get Badnarik on 49 ballots, which is more than Nader (38 I think?).

He now gets prominent headlines and a nice association with freedom of speech.

However the 1-3% or so that plan to vote for him may be approximately how many have actually heard of him -- coverage in the mainstream has been pretty much nonexistant, and that's highlighted by this event; just try to find mention of it anywhere. I'd love to see the prominent headlines, but my only hope at this point is that bloggers pick it up and force the mainstream to notice, as happened with CBS. If Nader were arrested, do you think we'd hear about it? Is our press maybe a little biased?

Badnarik was trying to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates with an order to show cause (located here from an Arizona judge. Members of the LP attempted to serve the CPD earlier in the day at their Washington D.C. headquarters and were met with security guards.

The official Badnarik/Campagna 04 website has a page that is being continuously updated with news as it comes in, it appears that Badnarik is now out of jail and resting. The page is located here.

http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346 and http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/n ews/nation/9872659.htm

Here you go, Michael Badnarik,

Surely you don't actually believe no one supports Bush? Don't vote Kerry because he's the lesser of two evils, vote Badnarik (Libertarian Party) or Cobb (Green Party) if that's what tickles your fancy.

WEOS radio in Geneva, NY will be broadcasting locally and streaming over the Internet.

Full info in this Badnarik blog post.

Back to the original subject:

I believe that voters _should_ be informed in order to vote, but would not argue for any restriction requiring them to be informed--due to the almost certainty of abuse. Consequently, I do not think that people should be blindly encouraged to vote. Uninformed voters are too easy to manipulate.

I'll not be voting for either GWB or JFK, but I will be voting Libertarian, because I strongly support the platform--despite the fact that Badnarik has essentially no chance of winning. I'd rather not have my vote diluted by a popularity contest amongst people who don't really care who wins.

If I couldn't find a candidate I felt I could support, I'd leave the position blank, but I'd still show up and vote--because I believe it is important, not because someone told me it is.

-se

This guy may not fit your preferences totally, in particular I'm unsure of his stance on abortion, but check out www.badnarik.org and www.lp.org. Those are for the Libertarian candidate and party, respectively. The gist of his platform is smaller gov't and more personal freedom (which fits well with the philosophy in your last sentence).

I may be telling you things you already know, but others may benefit as well if I am.
It's hard to find a party that matches your personal values exactly, because there are just too many different people with different interests for that to happen often. I was raised conservative republican but a nonvoter until only a few weeks ago. I realized I didn't like either of the primary candidates, so I wasn't planning on voting this year either, until the Badnarik interview on Slashdot. I was impressed by his honesty, or candidness if you will, and even his defense of ideas that I don't agree with (such as no public land).

Check him out - he seems to match your views pretty well, and he also seems to have a good head on his shoulders.

It appears that the Badnarik site is being /.'d please view the cornel site for more information on the debate until the bandwidth usage subsides.

Or even better this guy.

Why did everyone think the parent was saying to vote for Kerry?

I assumed he meant to vote for Michael Badnarik, who really would 'put an end to this horseshit'.

Oh Please.

There are plenty of reasonable criteria for screening out the kooks. One is having ballot access in enough states to win the Presidency, so that all those voters who have the ability to vote for you can make informed decisions. How many candidates make that? Just 6, including Bush and Kerry. There were nine in the Democratic Primaries.

Another is commisioning polls to find out if a majority of voters want to hear from each of these candidates. Open Debates commisioned a poll and found that Nader should be included. Badnarik has commisioned his own polls, using different verbiage, that show he too should be included.

These are reasonable, easily applied criteria that will allow alternative viewpoints be heard without stealing the show.

This country needs real Presidential debates. If we'd had them in the past, we may not have been left with Bush and Kerry as our candidates now...

Oh Please.

There are plenty of reasonable criteria for screening out the kooks. One is having ballot access in enough states to win the Presidency, so that all those voters who have the ability to vote for you can make informed decisions. How many candidates make that? Just 6, including Bush and Kerry. There were nine in the Democratic Primaries.

Another is commisioning polls to find out if a majority of voters want to hear from each of these candidates. Open Debates commisioned a poll and found that Nader should be included. Badnarik has commisioned his own polls, using different verbiage, that show he too should be included.

These are reasonable, easily applied criteria that will allow alternative viewpoints be heard without stealing the show.

This country needs real Presidential debates. If we'd had them in the past, we may not have been left with Bush and Kerry as our candidates now...