Slashdot Mirror

I voted in the last election, and I live in Brevard County, Florida. I voted for Howard Phillips, the candidate that best matches my values.

As years go by I become increasingly disappointed with the lack of non-rehtorical difference between the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans talk a good game, but their implemented policies show their true colors: they're not for limited government any more than the Democrats. They'll drive over the cliff at a safe 55 miles per hour instead of the Dem's 100, but they're going over the cliff just as sure.

Some of my letters to Federal officials were obviously NOT congruent with the Republican platform.

The electoral college of course cast the votes. However given the situation in Florida it can be questioned whether the electors from Florida truly represented the wishes of the voters of that State.

In any case as I said. I don't think on matters like this there is much difference between the two parties, and that is the real problem.

" As a general rule, Democrats want to take away just as many of my civil rights as Republicans do"

I really don't think so.

"If there was a party that reliably paid attention to the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, they'd get my vote every time."

There are parties that claim to do that. There is for example the the constitution party. Also most of the Militia movement also claims to want to go back to protecting the constitution. I don't know you but if you are like most Americans there is little chance you'll find much to like in either one of those parties though.

"So, tell me again: What's voting for?"

The lesser of two evils. That's all you get in a winner take all system. Pick the issues important to you and vote for the candidates that are least likely to undermine those issues. In your case, if creeping police power is important you should vote for Democrats. Why? Liberterians won't win, and the conservatives are unwilling and unable to check the power of the police. The Democrats distrust the police and are more willing to undermine their power and give defendents more rights.

The Constitution Party was at one time known as the US Taxpayer's Party.

Oddly, for a group with such a name, its primary function appears to be pursuit of extremely right-wing social goals (pro-gun, anti-choice, state's rights, anti-immigration and, bizarrely, a return to the gold standard).

Looking at their Year 2000 Party Platform, I'd say they're a "Racial Purity" plank away from being the Aryan Nation Party.

National defence is one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal Government of the United States. Perhaps you, and the rest of the uneducated masses, should study the Constitution of the United States of America, and learn just what the Federal Government is supposed to be doing.

"The Answer" is very simple: the Federal Government must be reigned in, and constrained to the limits established for it by the Constitution. That means that the Federal Government can do only a very small list of things. Anything not on that list is legally forbidden from the Federal Government. How much of today's Federal Monster lives outside this carefully chosen boundary? How many times has Congress ignored the Ninth and Amendments?

The only political organization that shows any respect for the Constitution of the United States anymore is the Constitution Party, whom I support.

You are correct. The one party that can STOP this madness is, of course, the Constitution Party, the only party that promotes constitutionally correct government. A vote for the other parties is wasted on those that would further the decline of the American Experiment.

I didnt say ANYTHING about being trustworthy!
Lets be honest I know that Mossad could come up with legal documents proving you are my 3 year old daughter.
AND I know that the NSA could show my direct email correspondence to Lenin himself.
AND I, especially being in the security business, am paid to be paranoid ( which I would be even if I wasn't in the security field) after all just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really after you. What I am saying is there are 30 big ugly guys standing outside your home with the ability to come in. Some by breaking down your door, others breaking a window. Unless I am a cryptography expert ( I personally am good but am by no means an expert) and a security expert, and a linux expert who has gone through every line of code out there and written appropriate patches yourself you have to trust someone. Me, well I am going to trust the guy with the locksmith business card and teh truck and experience to back it up. After all he is an expert and if i didnt give him the keys he could still walk in. In the end it is not somuch a matter of trust as it is a matter of logic.

"I would be a libertarian but they believe in too much government"

Well, in actuallity, I am a consitutionalist

Popular elections, legislative elections, gubanatorial appointment, those are pretty much the only ones I can think of. My point is, if the goal is to have the senators represent the state, wouldn't it also make sense to have the state choose how to select its representatives?

Yes, voting is a state matter, but Article I Section 4 of the constitution gives Congress substantial powers to regulate voting. I have not yet researched as to if or to what extent such regulations may affect voting reform issues such as these.

Completely federalizing voting is almost guaranteed to be a mess, just trying to see if I could come up with a system that would work well simultaneously for Rhode Island and Montana hurt my head, not to mention Alaska and Hawaii.

I do feel that nationwide standards of voting are appropriate, and that would be a federal thing. For example, "each vote must directly result in a paper ballot, available to election officials for manual recounts" would rule out many of the worst computer voting systems I've heard about.

Hmm, things that got better after being federalized, you're right, that is a tough one. Highways definately got better after Eisenhower partially federalized them. Civil Liberties have clearly improved since the Federal Government took away some of the States' right to say that one person is worth less than another. Our military strength has clearly improved since the increased federalization after the Civil War, but that probably would have happened anyway with strong State Militias and a smaller US Army. I'm sure there are other examples, but they often pale in comparison to the things that Federalization made worse.

I'm definately glad to hear that others are also taking an interest in voting reform. I am seriously thinking of writing some party agnostic pamphlets to inform people on the benefits of certain voting reforms (voting as civic duty, splitting each State's EC ballot, and Condorcet voting). If I come up with them, I'll send you a link.

I find this discussion on topics that we mostly agree on very interesting, and don't want it to risk falling into a flame war on the things we strongly disagree on. In this vein, let me just say that, if you were to run for office, and were closely following the platform of the Constitution Party you link to in your signature, I would have many reasons not to vote for you. That doesn't mean we can't agree on the points we agree on, tho :-)

Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I've been saying this alot lately.

• just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns
• plausible alternative to finance reform (thread), with further elaboration
• another plausible alternative for limiting government

Of course, the best way to limit government is to de-fund it. Without a ridiculously inflated budget, gov't couldn't afford to trample our lives. Why won't the IRS and DoJ answer a few simple questions?

Only two "major" parties advocate Constitutionally-limited government: the CP and LP. I hope you're voting for them.

Until we get rid of campaign contributions and begin doing public funding of campaigns

That's about the worst thing that could happen. Who gets this public money? Anybody that throws his hat in the ring, including my neighbor Jim-Bob who's just doing it for the cash? How do you decide who qualifies, and how it's apportioned? If it's based on previous elections, you've just decided to keep incumbent parties in office forever, which is precisely the current problem. What about third parties? What about people (like me) who object to subsidizing views I don't agree with? Or apolitical types who don't want to fund politicians at all? Why should you steal from (tax) them for politicians' gain? Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Some of us still believe that. If I want to support X's campaign, I will...but I don't expect you to, nor would I force you to. If you want to support his opponent Y, you can go ahead, but don't expect or force me to help you.

(The Constitution and Libertarian parties refuse to accept any government money they qualify for on this principle. Rare to find a candidate that is willing to stand on principles these days.)

What we need is not campaign finance reform but electoral process reform. I should be able to give unlimited support to support the views I agree with. There should be no caps, no spending limits. However, current electoral process favors the incumbent Duopoly and discourages third parties. Why are they called "third" parties? Because plurality voting exposes a false sense of a two-party system! Ever heard of the "wasted vote" problem, or voting for "the lesser of two evils"? We should not have to choose between two evils! Condorcet voting gives every contender a fair chance, because voters' freedom of conscience is preserved.

Changing to the Condorcet method would be the single best thing that could happen to American politics. I don't see reforms like this happening any time soon. The entrenched parties have too much to lose, so they're not likely to make it easier to defeat them. But something must be done.

• Condorcet's method
• ElectionMethods.org

Too bad nobody's using real "specie" money anymore. It gives governments too much latitude to tinker with the economy. They withdraw the real value out of the system, while giving us worthless paper that's only valuable as long as we continue to have faith in the system. History bears out that any economy based on a fiat currency eventually dies in hyperinflation.

The banks are a joke, too. If they go bankrupt and you lose you're money, you're FDIC insured, right? Well who pays the gov't to bail out the banks? You do. You're the taxpayer. Your money isn't safe, because you still lost. But the banker's butt is covered, and he gets rich at taxpayer expense. We're headed for a cliff.

Down with the Federal Reserve. Down with the 16th "Amendment".

Want to make a difference?

Exactly. Freedom isn't a point on a continuum. Saying, "Well at least it's better here than elsewhere, so I guess we have liberty," doesn't mean you really have freedom. Freedom is a direction you have to constantly face and strive toward. Turning from that direction at all should not be tolerated by a people that values liberty.

Sacrificing our rights in order to combat terrorism (PATRIOT Act is a complete misnomer) is one of the sickest jokes I can imagine. Wake up, America! Your Constitution is being trampled on by the very people that have sworn an oath to uphold and defend it. How much more will it take before you realize that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans care about you? There are other parties to vote for, you know.

Furthermore, the grassroots parties that are still somewhat democratic like the Libertarians and Green are so far out there that there's no chance of them ever growing beyond their core whacko contingent.

I couldn't disagree more. If they're "still somewhat democratic" then for that principle alone it's worth voting 3rd party. Voting for the establishment Duopoly will not have any effect whatsoever, regardless which half of it you pick. We need to vote against the establishment, and contrary to some popular beliefs, the way to do that is not being a non-voter. If Dems/Reps are both intolerable, find a party that is at least tolerable even if you don't agree with every plank in the platform and vote for them. I don't agree with everything the CP and LP are for, but they both agree with me that we need a smaller, Constitutionally-limited federal gov't, so I vote for them.

Who wants to start a new party?

Don't waste your time. The third party movement is small enough already (because the establishment likes it that way and passes laws to keep it that way), and fracturing it further won't help.

Okay, one thing i consistently hear from libertarians are arguments to the tune of 'well, no one is stopping you from doing [x], you're just too lazy to go out and do it...'

sorry if getting elected is such a big effort, but where exactly are the laws written saying that you can't go door to door and convince people to vote for your party via write-in votes?

And that's exactly what we do. The point is, why isn't everyone held to the same standard? That's unfair. America is the land of equal opportunity. We just want equal opportunity. We'll do the rest ourselves.

are you proposing a loose interpretation of the constitution? because last I heard voting laws were specified in the body of the constitution

I'm saying no such thing. The Constitution does indeed set up the Electoral College system, but says nothing regarding how voting is conducted in the States. That is a State issue. And the States can use whatever method they choose for conducting their own internal elections. I believe that the correlation between the number of senators+representatives and the number of EC votes is not mere coincidence. I believe that EC votes are meant to be allocated by district. Maine and Nebraska currently do this, IIRC.

You, like many others today, are taking an overly broad interpretation of the Constitution. Yes, it is the highest law of the land, but the federal government was never given the power to impact every area of our lives. It is limited to a small set of narrowly defined powers. In a republic power derives from the people and that implies that power should be kept as local as possible to guard against corruption and mismanagement. It wouldn't make sense for the federal gov't to be responsible for fixing the city streets in front of my house, would it? So why does the federal gov't have any say in other local issues, like the welfare of my disabled neighbor, or what/where the farmer down the road can/can't plant? If you read the Constitution, you'll see that the federal gov't has no jurisdiction in these areas at all.

what do you want, government regulations to help out 3rd party candidates? that would be the height of irony. as would be caps on campaign donations.

You completely misinterpret the goal of the Constitution and Libertarian parties. We are totally against any kind of special treatment for special interests. All we want is the equal opportunity that is supposedly guaranteed in America. We are strongly against any limitation of campaign funding. Americans spent more on potato chips last year than elections. "Too much money in politics" is not the problem. Money is speech, and donations should not be regulated.

i agree that just about anyone should be able to get on a ballot (within reason).

Yes, and "reasonable" means everyone should have equal chance. No preferential treatment for incumbent parties. Think about it. It's a corrupt government that discriminates against challengers!

however, you'll still lose as candidates that are willing to pass laws favoring big business get into office on the strength of those big business's campaign dollars. free market, people's choice - that's the libertarian ideal if i'm not mistake.

You misunderstand yet again. The goal is liberty coupled with personal responsibility. This means the gov't should stop regulating people so much. If you want to build a big business, good for you! It's good to work hard to get ahead. But don't expect government to help you. Why should it? That's taxpayer money, not business money. The CP and LP are firmly against the airline bailouts that Congress has recently enacted.

Constitution, actually. Very similar to the Libertarians in many respects, and I'll vote Libertarian when there aren't CP candidates on the ballot. I think the difference between them is the primary motivation for achieving the goals is different. Oversimplifying, a Libertarian desires liberty simply to be free, whereas a Constitutionalist desires liberty because God wants us to be free.

Of course, this means I get to take flak for my religious as well as my political views. So be it. I'll get flamed by the very people that say I'm close-minded.

I agree with your assessment. The citizenry has been so conditioned over the last 90 years to believe that government is the solution to all problems. The best thing it could do is to change the law such that it had to back off.

Personal responsibility, yes! Two words one doesn't hear much today. Certainly not during the Clinton years. You have the fundamental rights to life (without it, nothing else matters), liberty (so you can live freely), and property (so you can improve your life). The first law of nature, and that's it. Everything else derives from those. It's not your right to have a job (which many people interpret as "getting a paycheck no matter whether I deserve it or not"), but it's your right to seek one. If you merit a job, you'll be hired. If not, you have the right to improve yourself so that you can. Take the initiative and the responsibility for your own life. God gave you free will...use it, and stop whining. Expecting the rest of us to support you impinges on our God-given free will and liberty.

Dollars are not backed by gold. (See replies by quartz and Brian See.) The US no longer has a value-based money, it has fiat-based money...that is, based on nothing but debt. If the banks go under, they are insured, right? By whom? The US gov't. Who pays for the US gov't? Taxpayers. So we taxpayers are held responsible for bad business decisions of the country's financial institutions.

The Fed governs how much money is in circulation. As they add more "dollars" inflation grows because there is no real value behind it. The value is just spread through more pieces of paper, so each one is worth less. The 16th Amendment keeps this from getting out of hand by permitting the gov't to regulate how much we can earn, sopping up any extra dollars floating around. (IANAE [I am not an economist] so this 5 sentence description hardly does justice.) This was what caused the Great Depression.

A cashless society will eventually bring about our downfall. The gov't already has too much power to manipulate the economy; it doesn't need any more. Fortunately there is a remarkable remedy for this situation. Vote Constitution if you want economy backed by something of substantive value.

Email your legislators as well. That's what I plan to do. You've got a better chance of audience with them, and they're the ones who actually draft the laws.

Here are three other good "letters" I've found. I like yours as well.

If you're worried about encroachments on your freedom, you should be voting Constitution or Libertarian.

Yes, I know we have a republic- but we also do have a Representative Democracy. The people should be in control of their representatives. Right now votes are a matter of money, not a matter of ideal, and that should be changed.

I'd agree that the republic has democratic representation in the legislature. I'd agree that people should be in control of their legislators instead of big corps. Look again at what the 17th Amendment (which I suggested repealing in my previous post) did. It made senators "accountable" to the people of the state at large by changing to a popular vote. Instead of being selected by a small group of knowledgable persons (state legislature) they are selected by a big group of mostly ignorant people. Because the campaign must now cover the entire state, the fund raising budget goes astronomical, so large campaign donations are a necessity. The senators thus elected are not any more accountable to the people (and often less) and the US federal gov't has no direct accountability to its constituent states. Repeal the 17th if you want gov't that's less influenced by Big Money and more responsive to the people.

The reason money should not be considered speech is because money is controlled by organizations and not individuals. Yes, it would be nice to donate a few hundred dollars to your favorite politician, but it won't matter when some corporation is donating a few million to his competitor. Or worse, some corporation is paying a few million dollars to the politician you elected so that he'd enact legislation that you and your countrymen oppose.

The solution is not to limit money, because that restricts the rights of individuals to affect their gov't as well. The real solution is to adjust gov't so that money doesn't have as much effect! That's why I support repealing the 17th Amendment. It makes money less of an issue. US senate candidates would "campaign" only within the couple hundred people in their state's legislature. Besides, many corps "hedge their bets" by making campaign contributions to both major parties, just to say they supported the winner. Money is speech, no two ways about it. I don't see any way you can restrict corporate speech without restricting individual speech also.

Besides that, you are naive to think that third parties will in any way benefit with fewer contribution limits. We didn't get anywhere near reaching donation limits to third parties in the last several elections- why would getting rid of those limits help them? It seems to me it would only hurt them as the two major parties (whose multi million dollar campaigns are held in check by the regulations) would be getting even more money.

The Constitution and Libertarian parties themselves want contribution limits removed. They don't care if it doesn't help them, it's the principle. If the principles win, then that party has won a victory. Look at the US Communist Party...they are winning because the Democrats are advancing their principles, even though there are no communists in office.

I just don't think the problem is government. It is corporate control of government. The people should control the government- not the businesses.

I agree with you to a point. The problem is really not that the special interests (more general than businesses) have control (though they do). The problem is that the gov't is too big, and has the power to run our lives. If the gov't couldn't run our lives to the degree it does (that is, if it were held to its proper Constitutional limits), then the issue of special interests in gov't would go away. If there's no power to grab, special interests can't grab it! The federal gov't should be limited to the least amount of power it needs to perform its legitimate duties as outlined in the Constitution.

I expect two things to happen if bills like this pass:

1. Homeschooling will become a lot more popular.
2. Homeschooling will therefore eventually become illegal, since it's important to the corporations and government that kids be properly indoctrinated.

I don't know about you guys, but it looks to me like the good 'ol USA is slowly turning into its former Communist enemy, the USSR.

So are you voting in protest to the current regime? We owe it to ourselves and our posterity to use every legal means to correct this before resorting to a rebellion. The Constitution and Libertarian parties are working to limit the size of gov't. Are you supporting them? Are you voting for them? Are you petitioning your legislature for voting laws that are fairer to 3rd parties?

I voted for every CP and LP person I could in the last election. I'm considering running as a candidate in 2002. You may not agree fully with one or the other (or either, I suppose) but you know things are not going to improve if you keep voting for the Repubocrat duopoly.

I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.

Actually, for Constitutional freedoms, I'd suggest you join the Constitution Party.

You think the American Revolution was merely about taxes? There was a lot more to it than that. Many colonists came to escape religious persecution, and there was threat of an "official religion" being instituted. The government was quartering soldiers in private homes without compensation or respect for privacy and private property. That's just a start. And when the Virginians didn't like it, the government tried to take away their guns. Gosh, you don't like it when the gov't disrespects your privacy, your possessions, and your thoughts, and then they try to take away your means of defending these rights. Sounds familiar.

I'm not talking about just the police abusing their power. I'm talking about the entire system going bad. And yes, the Nazis are a perfect example of this. Without their guns, no one had even a small chance of opposing them. But hey! The economy was on the rebound so who cares! Whatever.

The US government itself has multiple agencies unconstitutionally equipped to bear arms against its own citizenry. Add to that the numerous state and local agencies. This is wrong and I don't deny that. This is why I vote Constitution, because no other party is working to change this. As another poster said somewhere in this story, US gov't in practice is a far cry from what it is on paper.

I'm not talking about petty thieves, here. I'm talking about somebody that wants you dead for whatever reason. If he's willing to break that law, I'm sure he can track down a gun (or a simple baseball bat to bash your head with!) if he wants to. An armed victim is a good deterrant.

There are lots of doling-outs of federal money that are of a dubious nature [, ...] that somebody could object to. [...] We could start with the Republican and Democratic parties, if you like.

Exactly. This is what needs to be addressed in McCain's campaign finance reform bill. I applaud the Libertarian and Constitution parties for their stand on not accepting matching funds. The gov't is forcing all of us to finance the promotion of ideals we don't agree with, and that's wrong.

I have no sympathy for anyone who voted Green in November, either, since the point was about securing matching funds for next time. None for the Reform voters either, since Buchanan abandoned his principles in order to get to the money.

Rather than being worried that the feds are giving religious organizations money [...]

That's precisely how they'd like you to look at it. The truth is that once you start feeding at the federal trough, it's hard to get away from it. If you start accepting their money, they've already started exerting control over you. If the church starts accepting money, the next thing is the gov't will want to dictate acceptable doctrines to preach, or start wanting to collect taxes from churches. No, thanks. This would set a very dangerous precedent.

If GWB really wants to help religious (or any sort really) charities, cut taxes. If I had more money free to do with as I pleased, I'd do more to help others. I already give 10% of my gross to my church, and still pay taxes besides. With taxes reduced there's just that much more I could give directly to charities without gov't bureaucracy as the middleman.

It should be wildly amusing to watch as the party of personal responsibility tries to explain government censorship of the internet. [...] I'm sick and tired of the right ranting about small government and then pulling shit like that. The only way to stop it is to vote for personal freedoms.

That's because the Republican party is not truly about small government any more. Both the Dems and Reps are centrists, the only difference is the rhetoric they spew.

If you really want smaller government, you should be voting Libertarian or Constitution. While they differ in philosophy, they agree on this point. If you don't vote for what you believe, you won't get what you want.

Oh boy. I don't know where to begin. First off, you confuse conservative values with the silence of free speech. My God you gobble up the FUD on CNN/NBC. For a good idea of true Conservative values, check out The Constitution Party. Now if you weren't a thoughtless drone, you'd be able to see that many ideologies co-incident with liberal non-criminal thoughts (Nader) as compared to the criminals (CommieCrats/Republicans). Our country was founded on Conservative, Christian values all of those are hardly "anti-free-speech".

Case in point: when I was in middle school, my drama teacher brought in "Terminator 2" because he felt that despite its R-rating, it was useful for teaching us 8th-graders what we needed to be taught. That's "against the rules"... nevertheless, he won a national teaching award a few years ago.

Child, movies like T2 have no place in a middle school even if it is for a "party" day. Think of it from a more mature, responsible view as a parent; as a tax paying adult, its a waste of time where even a small amount of learning could be occuring rather than watching some pickling piece of production piss.

So they can keep you right where they want you, feeding at the federal trough. Once you're on the dole, it's hard to leave.

That's why gov't aid to religious charities is equally evil. It would corrupt these independent organizations and make them beholden to gov't.

I don't want the government telling me what is and what is not appropriate for my children. I'll make that decision.

Then quite frankly, you really should not be sending your children to an institution where the government acts in loco parentis.

In other words, if you don't want the government dictating the way your kids are raised, don't let the government raise your kids.

And this is exactly why the federal gov't should not be involved in education in any way, shape, or form. Where in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is the federal gov't given authority to have any say in educational matters? Nowhere.

A Democratic president is expected to sign this into law. The Republicans no longer have this plank in their platform. Don't expect this to change any time soon. The Constitution party supports parental control of their children's education though. The Libertarians have a somewhat similar view. Limit the gov't to what it's actually allowed to do, and we'd be better off. Doesn't the Constitution matter any more?

We don't need vouchers. What we do need is for the federal gov't to not tax us for education in the first place. Let parents choose where their children go to school, and let them finance it directly, or at a county or state level. All the DOE is good at is wasting money while test scores continue to drop.

I don't want the government telling me what is and what is not appropriate for my children. I'll make that decision.

Then quite frankly, you really should not be sending your children to an institution where the government acts in loco parentis.

In other words, if you don't want the government dictating the way your kids are raised, don't let the government raise your kids.

And this is exactly why the federal gov't should not be involved in education in any way, shape, or form. Where in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is the federal gov't given authority to have any say in educational matters? Nowhere.

A Democratic president is expected to sign this into law. The Republicans no longer have this plank in their platform. Don't expect this to change any time soon. The Constitution party supports parental control of their children's education though. The Libertarians have a somewhat similar view. Limit the gov't to what it's actually allowed to do, and we'd be better off. Doesn't the Constitution matter any more?

We don't need vouchers. What we do need is for the federal gov't to not tax us for education in the first place. Let parents choose where their children go to school, and let them finance it directly, or at a county or state level. All the DOE is good at is wasting money while test scores continue to drop.

I will let others describe the legal and constitutional procedures for electing presidents, but the U. S. Supreme Court basically told the Florida Supreme Court that it had to play by the rules.

{soapbox mode on}If we would pay more attention to what the document actually says, the feds would not own us to the extent that they do. I could go on and on about this, but Washington has no business doing most of the things that it now does, and the Fouding Fathers of this nation never intended that the present abuses of power that are the norm these days would never occur.

As far as political partisanship goes, Goerge Washington was against it from the start, and knew that politicians would over time give more allegience to their party than to the good of the nation.{soapbox mode on off}

{political plug inserted here}I voted for GWB in an effort to keep Communist Al out of the White House, but I am registered as a member of the Constitution Party. Before you cry foul, let me say that we favor a return to government limited to that outlined by the Constitution of the United States. In other words, we espouse freedom from government as it is presently (mis)administered, for the most part --- even freedom from the IRS, with is patently unconstitutional, and was never ratified as an amendment thereof. Before you flame or moderate negatively, at least load the link I posted ...ok?

If I had my way, Nader would take a single state worth 3 electoral votes. The other candidates would come in at 269 and 268.

Still, it would crack me up to no end if each candidate got 269 votes... Although CNN.com is reporting Bush leading 246-242, with FL (25), IA (7), OR (7), and WI (11) still not having been called. The way I read that, if Bush gets Florida, it's all over. Gore needs to get Florida and one other state. If Bush gets all three other states, he wins.

Interesting race, this. What surprised me was how well the Constitution Party did in Pennsylvania, the state where I currently reside, compared to Buchanan and Browne.

(Hmm, the Pennsylvania link seems not to be working in Preview. If that fails, go here and follow the link if you're interested.)

--

Then you're not aware of Howard Phillips, running for the Constitution Party. He recognizes that the federal gov't does have a role, but the constitutionally-limited scope is much smaller than the present one.

And here's Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party, from an interview...

PHILLIPS: The government has no right to interfere with the Internet.

ORVETTI: Even Internet pornography?

PHILLIPS: It's not a federal issue.

It is tyrranical. Vote Phillips on November 7 to restore a constitutionally limited gov't. You know Gore and Bush won't do it.

HOWARD PHILLIPS (Constitution Party)
www.phillips2000.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4 or Windows 98

Phillips2000 is only the site for the current campaign. The Constitution Party site runs Apache/1.3.1.1 SSL/1.15 PHP/4.0b2.

I would like to see more political stories. I would love to see Slashdot used as a mobilization force for the geek voters of the world.

The problem is that there is no such voting bloc. There is no such thing as the "techie vote". I've noticed that a lot of the /. crowd seems to lean Libertarian or Green. Personally, I lean Constitutionalist, which is a totally different (though not necessarily completely opposite) direction. "Tech" isn't a fundamental issue that bonds people together. Political motivations always have been and always will be shaped mostly by two things: 1) what you think about a person's relationship to God, and 2) what you think about a person's relationships to other people. How you feel about the nature of those two fundamental kinds of relationships will pretty much determine your political stance. Tech is just a tool. Life is still about relationships to others.

About the only commonality you'll find among geeks (like the /. crowd) is that they're disaffected by the current system. We're big into 3rd parties, and being the active minority voice. That's a good thing, if for no other reason than it keeps the big guys on their toes — at least a little more than otherwise.

If you want politics, there are other good places for that. I don't want Slashdot to turn into a "catch all" board for anything that happens across CmdrTaco's brain after eating too many bean burritos. Keep it limited to tech-oriented issues. I'll go to Liberty Rally (or my own board once I set it up) to discuss politics and freedom.

Posted with NN6PR3.

1) So is Phillips.

2) Wrong, Phillips is doing that, too.

3) Hey, so is the Constitution Party.

4) Howard Phillips here, too.

And should I mention that the Constitution Party has been way ahead of both the Reform and Green parties in getting ballot access?

So you think your candidate is "worthy" to rob me of my money? Explain to me again why anyone should be compelled by law to finance a political campaign he is ideologically opposed to?

Not for me, no thanks. I'll vote for the Constitution Party. Even if it qualified for matching funds it would turn them down. Your tax money isn't meant to be used as campaign financing, and neither is mine.

(As far back as May the CP has been ahead of the Reform and Green parties in getting ballot access, yet the media continues to ignore them. Why is that?)

I'm stumped. Ideas?

Vote for who you want to, and encourage others to do the same. Convince them of the stupidity of what you call "strategic voting". The presidency is not about being the "least objectionable", it's about being the guy that the most people think can do the best job.

As soon as you start voting for politics rather than principle you've already started to lose.

For what it's worth, I've been told the same things about supporting Phillips this November. "He'll never win! You're throwing your vote away! You might as well vote for Gore!" But I can't vote for Bush because I don't think he'd represent my views as well.

Shake up gov't. Vote third party. In a way, it's probably the best thing you can do for the US, regardless of which party you actually vote for.

Very interesting.

I guess you're saying that Nader is to Democrats what Phillips is to Republicans. Very much the same point to make, with very much the same rationale.

I completely agree with everyone saying, "Vote for who you want for president, not for who you think will win." When did the presidency turn into the office of the least objectionable slimeball? Vote for who you really want!

Since a vote for a minor party will have basically no chance of being reflected in the overall representation in Congress or elsewhere, my only way of influencing politics at all is to vote for the "lesser of two evils" from the major parties.

Not to pick on you personally, but I'm really tired of hearing this. Comments like this strike me as being from someone who is just looking for an excuse to complain.

Hear, hear! I was going to say the same thing. When you vote for the "lesser of two evils" you are still voting for evil. Stop voting on politics and start voting on principle! If everyone would stand up for what they really believe in, instead of second-guessing how everyone else will vote and wondering if their vote is "wasted", maybe we'd actually make a difference.

I'm voting third party this year. Why don't you try it, too?

If you folks in the media would frame this issue properly, perhaps the general public would [...] take away those federal powers NOT enumerated in the US Constitution that they seem to think they have

Exactly! I say this over at Liberty Rally all the time, and every other chance I get. It's why I'll probably be voting Constitution this fall. Let's limit the gov't to the power it's actually supposed to have and we'll see our lives improve.

Interesting! This issue (among others) is why I consider myself a Constitutionalist.

But the tricky thing is that I want control of *my* own life as well. I don't want people telling me how I have to live my life. [...] The problem is, a person cannot be perceived as at "upright moral person" to every one. Its along the lines of the axiom, "You can't please everyone."

It's only important that I please the One who sets the standard.

From the CP platform regarding religion:

Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.

We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people.

We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.

We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.

The platform does not address homosexuality, per se. But it does say this about the AIDS and Family:

The first duty of civil government is to protect innocent human life. AIDS and HIV is a contagious disease which is dangerous to public health. It should not be treated as a civil rights issue. Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct. Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting AIDS or HIV.

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family. We affirm, therefore, that no government may authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. Parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. Assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency usurps the role of the parents.

I think this amounts to saying that the government's job, as described in the Constitution, is to "promote the general Welfare". So do what you want, but don't expect the gov't to treat you any differently than anybody else. By this it means, "If you carry a contagious disease, you should be treated that way," and, "Gay people have the same right to marry as anyone else: a man may marry a woman."

Proper instruction for women entering marriage should be that it is their *place* to accept a submissive role to the husband, who becomes the defacto head of the household and the one with the final say on what goes.

No, because that's the view of a particular religion, and the government's job is not to dictate religion. Don't forget that these folks are the type that quote stuff like, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The CP believes that strong families build a strong nation, but how you run your family is your concern.

I hope this clears up your questions about the CP a little. I don't believe that they out to tell you how you should live your life, as you feared. I believe they're out to get gov't to stop telling you how to live your life. Read through the platform sometime. The preamble alone makes their position clear. The rest is just the same principle applied to specific issues.

My comments should not be construed as the official position of the Constitution Party.

But the tricky thing is that I want control of *my* own life as well. I don't want people telling me how I have to live my life. [...] The problem is, a person cannot be perceived as at "upright moral person" to every one. Its along the lines of the axiom, "You can't please everyone."

It's only important that I please the One who sets the standard.

From the CP platform regarding religion:

Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.

We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people.

We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.

We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.

The platform does not address homosexuality, per se. But it does say this about the AIDS and Family:

The first duty of civil government is to protect innocent human life. AIDS and HIV is a contagious disease which is dangerous to public health. It should not be treated as a civil rights issue. Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct. Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting AIDS or HIV.

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family. We affirm, therefore, that no government may authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. Parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. Assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency usurps the role of the parents.

I think this amounts to saying that the government's job, as described in the Constitution, is to "promote the general Welfare". So do what you want, but don't expect the gov't to treat you any differently than anybody else. By this it means, "If you carry a contagious disease, you should be treated that way," and, "Gay people have the same right to marry as anyone else: a man may marry a woman."

Proper instruction for women entering marriage should be that it is their *place* to accept a submissive role to the husband, who becomes the defacto head of the household and the one with the final say on what goes.

No, because that's the view of a particular religion, and the government's job is not to dictate religion. Don't forget that these folks are the type that quote stuff like, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The CP believes that strong families build a strong nation, but how you run your family is your concern.

I hope this clears up your questions about the CP a little. I don't believe that they out to tell you how you should live your life, as you feared. I believe they're out to get gov't to stop telling you how to live your life. Read through the platform sometime. The preamble alone makes their position clear. The rest is just the same principle applied to specific issues.

My comments should not be construed as the official position of the Constitution Party.

I disagree that moral leadership has a role in government, outside of the government providing good role models.

Isn't "providing good role models" moral leadership? You don't have to tell people what to do to be a leader, you can show them. And it's usually more effective, too. Billy Graham may stand on a pulpit and say, "Thus sayeth..." and whatever, but he wouldn't have nearly the respect he does if he didn't live his own life with the integrity he does. That's real moral leadership, IMO. (Do you think anyone would listen to Bill Clinton preach on the evils of extra-marital sex? He's lost his integrity.)

I think it's the government's job to be at the other end of the tunnel- to be there to impose order when people don't receive good values from [whomever].

Ummm, do you want an entity that hasn't exhibited good moral character to impose their order on you at any time??? All the more reason that a nation's leaders must be of good moral character. They have too much power. You either need to guarantee that people with that much power are upright moral people (HA!), or you limit the power of gov't so that tyrants can't abuse the citizenry. And right now we've got immoral people with lots of power, and that's a bad place to be.

The federal gov't of the United States has, over the years, usurped alot of power that rightfully belongs to the people and the states, according to the U.S. Constitution. That power needs to be brought back to where it should be, and that's why I'll be voting Constitution Party this November. I want control of my own life. Our freedom is a right we need to hold on to.

First, sorry about starting a new thread. I wanted to reply to several other posters at once.

DonkPunch said, "[...] However, the Second Amendment is one of those freedoms and the ACLU chooses to ignore or "interpret" it in a such a way that it becomes meaningless. Therefore, painting the ACLU as the Grand Defenders of the Bill of Rights omits a pretty important detail.

"[...] The high rate of imprisonment in this country continues under a Democratic administration, yet the implication is that it's the fault of Republicans."

I completely agree with you here. I tend to lean quite conservative. In fact, I think the Republicans give in to the Democrats too much, so I'm looking into the Constitution Party as an alternative. I see them as doing a better job of protecting Constitutional freedoms than the ACLU. killbill said, "I would love to join the ACLU, but not until they stop their bigoted prejudices against people of faith. If a validictorian senior wanted to quote Nietzce in her speech, the ACLU would be defending her to the death. If she wants to quote the New Testament, they would have her for dinner. I believe she should have the right to quote either." That's exactly what I mean. The framers of the Constitution were Christians, but they knew that the natural rights of mankind were universal. I have more trust that God-fearing men would have the moral fiber to protect the rights of their fellow man than men who don't acknowledge God.

TraceProgram wrote, "It goes along with what Stallman is saying about morals as well. They are defined by the society in which they are constructed (whoa I think that was circular logic there)." And that's exactly the problem. RMS may have said he doesn't believe in relativism, but any time you let society define its own morals that's exactly what you have. There must be an objective entity to set the moral/ethical standard, or you have relativism.

Let me add that I agree with RMS's basic idea of free software (I think the RIAA is wrong and needs to adapt to the times, down with UCITA, etc...), but I strongly disagree with his basic philosophy.

Also, angelo said, "The bill of rights guarantees that all are equal under law (despite its wording) and the ACLU tries to force the distinction on people." Yeah, what's up with that? The ACLU uses terms like "Afro-American" or "Hispanic-American". If anything, that's just more divisive! Hyphenation makes adjectives into part of the noun. It makes our differences into barriers rather than just adding flavoring to life. He continues, "[The second amendment] guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but a "civil" right is the right not to get shot. The constitutional right would be the right to shoot back. Which is more important, and which is more feasable to guarantee?" Amen, brother. I want the right to defend myself. I will not give that up to someone else.

There were some more very good posts, too, but I don't have time.