Slashdot Mirror

Try Constitution or Libertarian.

As an American, I can say that you're pretty much accurate there. The voting system has led to a two-party system, which has led to bitter, bitter partisanship like you describe - despite the fact that the Duopoly is essentially a single monster with two heads. Now that the election is over, it will return to being the back-patting good ol' boy club.

The OP is right - divided government is good. So then why can't we get some stronger third parties? I, for one, would love to see no single party with a majority in either house. A coalition government seems like it would be much slower to pass new laws as well, which is a good thing for freedom. Nobody in this country looks beyond the "us vs them" of election day to the deeper (though mundane) issues of voting methods that could actually fix the problem we all complain about. All my fellow Americans know how to do is swing the pendulum back and forth. The system itself doesn't allow (much less encourage) real challenge to occur. Voting doesn't make much difference, because there are no choices, so the USA has one of the lowest rates of involvement of any free country.

My analysis is that voters wanted a change. They rejected the leadership of GWB and took it out on Congress, but it isn't necessarily an endorsement of Democrats. I think there are a lot of disillusioned Republicans out there, that would have taken the opportunity to vote Constitution or Libertarian if the media had bothered to inform them of these alternatives. But the media seems to be in collusion with the Duopoly, because those bitter two-way feuds make good news.

Voting for a third party is in the short term throwing your vote away. Is there any way for America as a country to get to a place where it wouldn't be? Is there a better way to bring about reform?

Not that I can think of. The Duopoly has no desire for reform - the current system works just fine for their interests. Alternate systems such as Condorcet voting offer honest chances to all candidates, forcing them to compete on the strength of their platforms and ideals. To get someone in who wants reform, you have to work within the current system to elect someone outside the Duopoly. But the current system is unlikely to get that person without reform. It's catch-22 - but you'll never get anything if you don't try! Vote for any party that promises to shrink the size and scope of government and remove power from the gov't to restore it to the people. You may not agree with them 100%, but if the goal is to shrink gov't, they'll have less ability to do those things that you disagree with.

And isn't that the whole point?

The part of the law creating a database of sexual offenders is a good marketing tool for PORNO DISTRIBUTERS!!! Just think, they now have a free tool to collect the names and addressess of tens or hundreds of thousand potential customers. Ahh! just think, some creep who sells kiddy pr0n now only needs to consult the database and give out samples of product. A nice way to hurt kids at taxpayer expense!!! That monster in Florida, Cooley was on the state's sex offender website, but what good did that do for nine years old Jessica Lundsford? She was raped and and murdered by being buried alive just the same!!! Rather than creating a sex offender database, it would have been better to keep that monster locked away for life for his previous crime. If this were the case, Jessica would be alive today. But NO, lawmakers prefer to pass unconstitutional, feel-good laws that do more harm than good.

Congress critters and others with power should think about the consequences of passing unconstitutional laws. This law can definity infringe on the right to pursue happiness as this not only ostricises the offender, but it also hurts people in his or her neighborhood as it can severely reduce property values. A sex offender lived near my old house, and the registry might be the reason why I could not sell the place. It also denies those who have served their time the equal protection of the law. Those wrongfully convicted are now legally slandered by their own government with no opportunity for rebuttal. If I was to go around an post signs stating that Bush is a child rapist, I could be sued for lible. However, when the government does this to a wrongfully convicted person, there is no recourse for the person slandered.

Despite what people think, most people accused of sex crimes do not get a fair trial, especially when the alleged victim is a child. Their RIGHT to confront their accuser can be suppressed at the whim of the judge. Also, in many cases, the seating arangement of the alleged victim in relation to others in the court is designed to create jury sympathy for the alleged victim as well as dislike for the alleged criminal. I know this for a fact because I had a roommate in the Nave who was accused of molesting a child. His lawyers told him that he would definitely be going to prison because the evidence against him was "overwhelming." His fate was virtually sealed, and he would have gone to prison except the child had a twinge of conscience and admitted that she lied. It turns out that forensic evidence used to prove rape resulted from the girl's voluntary intercopurse with her 14 years old boyfriend.

If a person does get a fair trial and is convicted of rape, child molesting, etc, there should be only two sentences given. One is life without parole, or death (if guilt is absolutely proven). A person convicted should have ample opportunity to appeal. Many neocons would think that I am a coddler of child molesters, etc. but I am not. I believe that punishment should be appropriate for the crime and that sex offender databases set some very insideous legal precedents. Imagine how easy it would be to have shoplifter forced to register in a shoplifter's database. What about laws that permantly restrict where a shoplifter can live, work or play (much like those convicted of sex crimes even after sentence is served)? What about same type of laws applying to speeders? The slope is indeed slippery.

http://www.fija.org/ Judge the law as well as the facts!!!

http://www.constitutionparty.org/ An alternative to "voting for the lessor of two evils."

http://www.lp.org/ Another alternative to the "lessor of two evils."

I support the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. Unlike many so called "Libertarians" or "Constitutionalists" who continue to refuse to vote for the candidate of their choice instead voting the "Lessor of two evils," I voted for the candidate I like. It should NOT come down to preventing some bozo from getting elected, but rather makeing a choice of a qualified person for office. For the most part, the only differences between Republicans and Democrats is the people they choose to lie to and the lies that they tell. It is no wonder why so many people stay home on election day.

Look at the lies the Republicans tell or imply:

They believe in "family values." Republicans in general claim to be against gay "marriage." They claim to be for freedom. They also claim to be for the small business. Now for the truth ... Republicans have been supportive in voting for laws that strengthen the smut-spewing movie and music industries at the expense of customers and idependent producers. There have been more homosexuals appointed to high office in the Bush administration than in any other previous administration. They also have been responsible for passing such atrocities as the Patriot Act, and disregard to haneas corpus as well as rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

Look at the lies the Democrats tell or imply:

Most claim to be for the working man, yet they continue to vote for legislation that send hardworking Americans' jobs overseas to countries that pay very little for their labor. Democrats promise privacy protections, yet they too, also allow warrantless searches as well as increase the number of rules enforced upon the citizens.

These are only a few lies that are told by the "republicrats." Rather than being a nation ruled by law, the United States has become a nation ruled by decree. Rights of the common man are only respected when it is convenient for the government or multinational corporations. Whether one approves of gay "marriage," universal health care, or many other things promised by the republicrat candidates, they will get the same thing when voting for a "republicrat." This is more taxes, more regulations, lower quality of government, more rights being converted to privileges, and less freedom.

It is probably too late to change the system by voting for Constitution Party or Libertarian Party candidates due to the fact that major corporations control the inner (and secret) workings of electronic voting machines. These machines are now used in a majority of districts. However, it does not hurt to stage a protest next election by voting for candidates of both the Libertarian or Constitution parties whenever they run for office. These candidates may not have the perfect solutions to problems, but we already know what happens when we vote for Democrats, Republicans, or the "lessor of two evils."

I believe that there will come a time when the people finally fed up with the repression of local, state, and federal governments, will rise up and claim their freedom. I believe that this will begin when people start by building their own nation or worldwide network. Then there is a free press (and armed citizens), the governments fear the people. Unfortunately there are now attacks on the free press that has sprung up via the Internet and the attack on out RIGHT to keep guns has been non-stop through recent administrations. We no longer just need a new Presidient, Congress, or Supreme Court, we need a new government (or rather an old one). No where on Earth is there a such a thing as a free nation, and this is a reason why people must fight to regain freedom.

http://www.lp.prg/ Libertarian Party website

http://www.constitutionparty.org/ Constitution Party website

http://www.fija.org/ Fully Informed Jurors Association website (Yes, we have the power to judge the law as well as the facts - judges hate this)

As an inhabtant born and raised in the these unites states, I resent the fact that I'm branded as cattle or some piece of merchandise. I too refuse to give out my Social "Security" Number unless it is for a legitimate purpose (taxes) even receive better service in many cases as well. My ex-employer submitted an incorect Social "Security" Number on my W-2, and this incorrect number was used for over 2 years. Nothing came of it, and nobody knew until I brought it to their attention. It is a shame that in order to excercise some of my rights as an American that I have to pretend to be a foreigner.

Short of an uprising, or nation catastrophy, their is only one option of getting rid of Federal, State, and local government disrespect of our privace. That option is voting for candidates of alternative political parties such as the Constitution Party. http://www.constitutionparty.org/ . Here is the Constitution Party's position on Social "Security" Numbers:

The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate a Social Security system. The Constitution Party advocates phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system. Until the current Social Security system can be responsibly phased out, we propose that:

        * The Social Security tax not be a "rainy day" fund which politicians can pirate, or from which they can borrow to cover their errors and pay for their excesses.
        * Individuals who have contributed to Social Security be allowed to withdraw those funds and transfer them into an IRA or similar investments under the control of the individual contributor.
        * Any sort of merger between the U.S. Social Security System and that of any foreign country be banned, so the distribution of benefits will not go to persons who have not qualified for payments under American law as legal residents.
        * Earning limitations on persons aged 62 and over be removed, so that they may earn any amount of additional income without placing their benefits at risk.
        * Those provisions of the Social Security system which penalize those born during the "notch years" between 1917 and 1926 be repealed, and that such persons be placed on the same benefit schedules as all other beneficiaries.

We support the right of individuals to choose between private retirement and pension programs, either at their place of employment or independently.

Perhaps not a central argument, but part of the platform. Specifically the first and last paragraphs of that section, regarding fraud.

Of course, the problems of plurality voting methods still work to ensure that virtually no one in the USA will take a "third party" seriously enough to vote for them, no matter how good the ideas. You'll generally see good ideas for electoral reform, ballot access reform, etc, in just about every minor party...but because those parties themselves are marginalized, so are the ideas. When groups as ideologically diverse as the Green, Libertarian, and Constitution parties do agree on something, you'd think someone would take notice.

Better yet, it is time to either join, form, or support independent political parties. Face the facts, the Democratic - Republican party is funded and controlled by special interests. Special interests make political campaign contributions and pay for advertising. Voters do not. Things will change ONLY when people decide to smarten up and quit being manipulated by the special interest financed advertisements (and that includes internet advertising such as blogs like this one).

'We the People' have seen what decades of power shifting between Democrats and Republicans has accomplished - more government, higher taxes, and less freedom. Out of the entire Congress, there may be one (Ron Paul) or two members that even care about such a thing as the Constitution. Just about all of Congress is made up of Republicans or Democrats. Each party accomplishes the same thing by eroding different freedoms.

Republicans may not be as hard on gun ownership as Democrats, but they are sure hard on the fourth amendment of the Constitution. Both parties support the flooding of our nation with cheap, slave-made goods. Both apparantly have a disregard for human rights. I know that I for one am tired of the years and years of broken promises and false hope that is preached by these two parties. Both of these parties have shown us what they can do for (to) us. We have seen their work. Now, let's try something else.

This election season as well as 2008, it is high time that we as a people support alternative parties such as the Libertarian Party ( http://www.lp.org/ ), Constitution Party( http://www.constitutionparty.org/ ), Green Party ( http://www.gp.org/ ), Veteran's Party, Socialist Party, and any other political party other than the two corrupt lamescream parties that have been duping the people for decades.

I for one support the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, and Veteran's party (in that order). I will only vote for a "Republicrat" or "Demican" only if there is nobody else on the ballot and there is no write in blank. Even then, I have sometimes abstained from marking a choice. But of course, we will always have some people who insist on voting the "Lessor of Two Evils" because they believe that candidates of other political parties "don't stand a chance of winning."

Tell that to Jim Gilchrist (Founder of Minuteman Project) who ran for Congress under the American Independent Party. He won the most votes on election day and was only done in by absentee ballots (apparantly, the absentee voters never got a chance to hear his message or the election was rigged). Aagree with him or not, he showed that a candidate from an alternative party actually had a good chance of winning. Apparently, the people in that distric in California are sick and tired of the bullsh1t that spew from the Republican/Democratic Party.

I hope that people this election are not so stupid as to give up their freedoms to the sellout lamescream political party that has manipulated them for years. Each time I hear people bitch and moan that Gore should have won the election or that "Democrats" tried to appeal and recount their way to victory, I want to puke. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE which one should have, could have or had won, the results are the same. More government, higher taxes, more rules and fewer freedoms for the people. I want limited government, so that is why I vote for candidates of the Constituion and Libertarian parties. I hope people who read this are not stupid enough to throw their vote away on a Republicrat

Yes, I'm saying that the Senate should revert to the old way of being elected - by the people indirectly via their elected representatives in their legislatures. The Senate is the house that represents the states at the federal level - how does electing Senators purely by the popular will fulfill that role? Senators should not be beholden directly to the people. (That's a laugh - do you think your senators see themselves personally accountable to you? If anything, they are less accountable.) They should be directly accountable to their state's interests - meaning that the legislature and governor have something to say about it. Accountability to a small group can be advantageous.

(Incidentally, this same problem is creeping into the House as well. Since membership was capped at 435, districts have grown tremendously in size. By the ratio that the Founders thought appropriate, we'd need about 8000 in the House today. This results in Representatives who are not particularly accountable, either. Today we have technology that can make meetings of that large a group feasible. We could easily increase this limit to 1000, at least.)

It doesn't particularly matter to me if the various states have different ways of electing their Senators. It's their Senator, let them decide how to do it. Why do you want to take control away from them, when it's none of your business?

Maybe people with deep pockets were elected Senators pre-17th. But heck, those are the only people being elected now, because they are the only people that can afford to run! I think every single Senator in office today is a millionaire.

The problem is not campaign contributions. Americans spend more on potato chips than we contribute to political campaigns. "Tightening up" the system with more restrictions will not help, but will only further entrench incumbents. The best way to fix the system is to open it up - make voters free to vote for alternatives to the Duopoly (who are mostly interested in maintaining the status quo). Condorcet voting makes alternative parties into realistic options, because there is no such thing as a "wasted vote". Why do we, as Americans, believe there are only two valid points of view? We don't need to reform campaign finance, but the voting system.

Government funding for campaigns is the absolutely worst possible idea. First of all, you'd be letting the people in charge give themselves money so that they can try to stay in charge. What sense does that make? Second, I may disagree with you on every single issue, but if I were a candidate you'd be forced to contribute your money (through taxes) to me - that's unconscionable! It isn't moral nor ethical for me to take your money in this situation. This is why government should be limited to the bare minimum required to perform its essential duties - anything more and you'll encounter unnecessary conflicts of conscience as some people are forced to support things they don't agree with. It's not right to force someone to violate his/her conscience. I believe in this so strongly that I'd refuse government money if I ran for office, even if I qualified for it. This (freedom of conscience) is a big reason I joined the CP.

BTW: Notice that you do have to "qualify" for gov't money - and who sets those qualifications? The people in charge. Do you trust them to make it easy for anyone to challenge them? If you believe that, I've got a trustworthy fox that would love to guard your henhouse...

If we remove power from government (by limiting it to its Constitutional functions - what a concept!), there becomes less reason for "big money" to bribe officeholders with campaign contributions. The problem isn't the money, it's the power! People should be free to spend their money however they want. Instead, remove the incentive to bribe!

Tried it. It's going nowhere.

Rather than support the ACLU, the people would be much better off in supporting any organization which seeks to throw BOT the Democrats AND Republicans out of office. 99% of Congress (both House and Senate) need to be voted out as well as the President. The same thing also needs to happens to just about all state and most local governments. For decades we have been electing both Democrats and Republicans to office only to watch our taxes go higher and higher, be subjected to more and more rules and regulations, and watch our voices get weaker and weaker. I for one am tired of the endless crap being spewed out by the Democrats and Republicans. Isn't it time yet for alternative parties such as those listed below?

Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.org/
Green Party http://www.greenparty.org/
Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
Reform Party http://www.reformparty.org/
Socialist Party http://www.sp-usa.org/
Veteran's Party http://www.veteransparty.us/


With the Democrats and Republicans in office, more and more people have quit registering to vote because they believe that it does not matter which one of these candidates get into office (People are going to be screwed each way). This is one reason I blog this message because I want people to spread the word that we actually do have a choice. I believe that throwing out the Republican-Democrats is a better way to obtain justice than what Marvin Heemeyer did in Granby, Colorado (although I do not frown on his efforts to punish local officials). Another way people can have influence in doing away with the oppressive governments in the P.S.A. (Police States of Amerika) is by excercising their powers to judge the law as well as the facts when serving on a jury. People should look at the Fully Informed Jurors Association . In the P.S.A. we will only gain ou freedom by TAKING IT BACK from those who have usurped the rightful power of citizens.

As a Founding Father of the United States, he recognized the need for a REASONABLE patent and copyright system in order to make sure that authors and product creators were able to recoup the costs of creating their works. The patent and copyright system today rewards mostly corporations. Individual creators are left out. As a Founding Father of the U.S. he also stood for for individual right. This is something tht very few mainstream party affiliated politicians think about today. If we want to try to restore the protections of our right by voting, then we need to vote for members of alternative political parties such as the ones listed alphabetically below: Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.org/ [constitutionparty.org] Green Party http://www.greenparty.org/ [greenparty.org] Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org] Reform Party http://www.reformparty.org/ [reformparty.org] Socialist Party http://www.sp-usa.org/ [sp-usa.org] Veteran's Party http://www.veteransparty.us/ [veteransparty.us] Even though I am not a Christian, I prefer the Constitution Party. I can deal with looking at 10 Commandments posted in a court room, they will not jump out and shoot me. I can even stand still while leaders pray as long as I am not forced to join in. If you do not like the ideas put out by the Constitution Party, look at a party that fits what you believe in. Just don't fall for the bullshit spewed by the Democrat or Republican parties. We already know what they are about (taking bribes and serving their special interests). As another not, we can also judge the law as well as the facts. Visit http://www.fija.org/ .

Benjamin Franklin was an absolute genius. Not only was he responsible for the rediscovery of electricity. he was also responsible for many other scientific advances of historic proportions. Not only that, he was also partly responsible for drafting the founding document of one of the greatest nations in history. Unfortunately he would mostly be fighting mad at how his genius has been misused by the main two political parties of today along with their corporate and special interest paymasters. These entities have distorted the intent to help pay for innovation with laws that has brought innovation to a standstill. Both Democrats and Republicans have destroyed the legal protections which the U.S. Constitution provided for the inhabitants of the U.S. In fact, the U.S.A. should be no longer known by that name. It is more appropriate to call it the "Police States of Amerika." With not only free speech stifled by the abuse of copyright and patents, property rights are now virtually unprotect as any major corporation can have a local government force people to give up their own land for a pittance. Things can be changed though. It has to be done by people not doing what they normally do. In order to make any significant change for the better and have laws passed that protect freedom to hack and free software, people will have to register to vote. Not only will have have to register, they will have to register under an ALTERNATIVE political party instead of the republicrats or demicans. There are many parties out there that fit the different agendas of many who are Slashdotters. These parties are listed below in alphabetical order:

Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.org/
Green Party http://www.greenparty.org/
Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
Reform Party http://www.reformparty.org/
Socialist Party http://www.sp-usa.org/
Veteran's Party http://www.veteransparty.us/

Some of these parties I disagree with, however, I list them to give voice to diverse ideas. Isn't it time to register and vote for candidates based on their ideas and character instead of by which one will stand a chance of winning in order to keep out the "greater evil?" The corrupt, bullshit and lie spewing Democrats are just as bad as the corrupt bullshit and lie spewing Republicans. There are much better choices. Get behind them and support them while we have a few legal protections left.

That's the problem! We have only one chance to express a preference, and when there are more than two options, that is insufficient. We need to change the voting system to allow more expression of voters' honest preferences, as I state elsewhere in this thread.

I do tend to think the Duopoly parties are very similar. They are both statist, differing only slightly on what they should use government power for. I think part of the problem is that most people think of the political spectrum as one-dimensional. It isn't. There are as many dimensions are there are issues. Practically speaking, however, positions on many separate issues seem to come together based on general worldviews.

I consider the Constitution Party to be basically a libertarian party that believes it is "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion" and is pro-life, whereas the LP has a vocal atheist fringe and does not take an official stand either way on abortion. Other than that, they are very similar in promoting a return to limited government. The rationale behind the desire is different, based on whether you consider the Judeo-Christian God a valid concept or not, but that's relatively immaterial as far as actually implementing policies to reduce gov't and keep it in check. Whether liberty is simply a pragmatically good idea to keep some from harming others, or God's will to keep sinful people from harming others, both groups want to work toward it.

Keep voting Democrat and a police state is what you'll get, too.

You're fooling yourself if you think they're much different. Both major parties want to increase government power. That power can then be abused by anyone who happens to grab it. The only solution is to strip government of its excessive power, and strictly limit it to legitimate functions that we the people authorize it to do. Much like the Constitution actually intended. *gasp* What a concept!

If you enjoy freedom and you're not voting Libertarian or Constitution, you're wasting your vote. It's quite obvious we don't get more freedom by voting for the incumbent Duopoly.

Yup, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them anymore. The goals are slightly different, but they both believe in using government power to force the outcome. That's not right. Increased government power is a limit on freedom. I say, vote Constitution or Libertarian.

I think that America is turning more and more into a police state

You only just realized this?

There will be finger-pointing. But know that the Democrats and Republicans are equally culpable.

There are solutions, however.

You want a less intrusive government and you switched from Republican to Democrat? Good grief! There are other alternatives that still advocate small government, you know.

And Congress did declare war.

Uh, no, they didn't declare war. They gave the President the authority to use force, but stopped short of a true Declaration of War- the likes of which we have not seen since WWII

If Congress had declared war, by international treaty our soldiers would be facing international war crimes tribunals rather than simple court martials for Abu Gharib and the like- and such international tribunals would not stop with low-ranking soldiers, but travel up the chain of command to Bush himself. Do your really want that?

The Republicans haven't stayed true to their platform for quite some years now. The grassroots party activists have great conventions and come up with a great platform, but then endorse candidates based not on how much they will advance that platform but on how "electable" they are. Foolish waste of time, GOP. It's no surprise that there's an exodus from the GOP to the Constitution and Libertarian parties, where people can be found that still stand by their principles.

As long as you change your mind from Bush to Badnarik, or even this creep, we won't face Skeletor heading the Department of Justice. If you're changing your mind from Kerry to someone else, change it back again, or you'll be counting on the power of Greyskull for the next 4 years.

and for the nation's sake DO NOT VOTE FOR KERRY EITHER!!!!

vote in our constitution and bill of rights!

stop voting for democrats!

the differance between democrats and republicans at this point is very little. they BOTH are corrupted self-carrer-centered thieves

vote back to our constitution and the freedom of OUR peoples

Hey Taco--
Can we get Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party as the next candidate? He is on the ballot in most states.

The energy spent trying to tear down the Republicrats in those manners would be better spent working with a third party such as the Libertarians or Constitution Party. You can go to jail while being a nuisance, or be free AND fix the problem.

Vote Constitution or Libertarian. Granted, not an overnight solution. In the meantime, exercise your 2nd Amemendment rights, get a CCW.

and what about the "left wingers" who do the same. as stated above the DMCA was a liberal loved democrate bill clinton. stop bashing the "right" or rebublicans. the left is just as bad.

long live the constitution!

AC due to login handycap

If people are interested in a party that aims to return America to its roots, based upon the Constitution... you should check out the Constitution Party

I think people have stopped thinking proactively on governmental topics. Everybody's so disillusioned and cynical that they've given up hope of improving it. I've got enough cynicism regarding government, but I still try to come up with effective ideas. :) I don't know how to go about actually implementing them though. Most of the support you find for ideas like this come from third parties, and it seems you can't get a third party into office without enacting some of these reforms first. Chicken, meet egg. :P

If only half of these cynical disillusioned citizens would actually vote (third party, any third party) on election day, we might see some massive reform in this country. Can you imagine what the response would be if several major races came back with a tally of ~33% Repugnican, ~33% Democrap, ~9% Libertarian, ~8% Green, ~8% Constitution, ~9% Reform, with a voter turnout ~78%? Especially since this would virtually guarantee that these minor parties actually won more than a mere handful of races? (Odds are that somewhere the number of these "'new' non-traditional" voters would overwhelm the Duopoly voters and carry some elections for a particularly effective 3rd-party candidate.) The political landscape and course of debate would be transformed overnight. The reaction would be far disproportionate to the number of seats actually won by minor parties. Just the fact that they had a significant showing would have huge impact.

And all it would take is some lazy disaffected people to get off their butts one November Tuesday. If you don't like the system, then buck the system! I'd almost say it doesn't matter which alternative party you vote for as long as it breaks the Duopoly's lock, but I still advocate making an informed decision. Investigate all the parties' platforms and vote for the one closest to your own beliefs, regardless of their showing in the polls. If you don't vote what you believe, you won't get what you want. I know it is difficult to stick to this when we have a plurality vote system, but unless we vote our principles now, the current corrupt system will continue to erode those principles further.

When was the last time a Congressman was heard to say "We can't do that -- it's not in the Constitution" ?

It's been a looong time. We just need to get some different people in office, that's all.

Unfortunately, I still feel obligated to cast my votes for the most freedom-oriented Republicans (or Democrats), until the Libertarian Party has a chance of winning, but how can you knock the party that advocates more FREEDOM?

You can't knock them - you join them. (Or if you happen to believe that rights derive from God and not from man, join the CP like I did.) Until you start voting for them, then of course they will never win. My question to you is will you stand up for what you believe in, even when the going is rough, or will you cave in to pressure?

The problem is that the voting system is rigged in favor of the two major parties. A simple plurality vote, with only one vote to express preference between candidates, will always lead to people sacrificing their principles in order to vote for the "lesser of two evils". That's why we need Condorcet voting, to restore liberty of conscience. (Ask yourself this: If you have to sacrifice your conscience in order to feel like you're having an impact on an election, is it truly a free country?) There's absolutely no reason that we cannot have a diverse range of viewpoints in a race together, instead of being stuck with two parties that squeeze to the center so tight that they're essentially the same with different rhetoric. The laws these guys make is going to govern our lives, you know - darn right I want some real debate and some real choice between candidates.

I've posted about this many times in the past, with more explanation than I have time for now. If you search Slashdot for my nick and "condorcet" or "voting" you should be able to find it. Condorcet's method trashes every other voting method I've heard of, including Instant Runoff Voting (also called Single Transferable Vote), Approval, Borda Count, and definitely Plurality.

Another problem is ballot access laws. Again, the major parties shape this to favor the status quo. Why is it so hard for challengers to get in the race? Obviously, the major parties don't want competition. If collecting a half million signatures is "good enough" for a minor party, why don't we require the same thing of a major party?

It's also the corporations' fault. Every time they try to levy a standard tax the lobbyists come out and beg, wheedle, and bribe to get loopholes in the law. They should just set a standard import/ export tax, no exceptions.

True, that's what they (corps) do. But it's our fault for voting such pushovers into office. Elect some people that stand for principle over politics and you'll get fair across-the-board standards.

As long as the 16th Amendment allows the gov't to squeeze "the rich" for whatever they want to give it to "the poor", they can continue to buy their votes in November. As long as they have the power of office, they will continue to get money from corps for these special favors. And as long as the 17th Amendment removes State gov'ts from having any balancing influence at the federal level, nothing will change. Money and power are powerful and perverse incentives.

However, the solution isn't "campaign finance reform" or "term limits". Some of the most expensive races are US Senate, which removing the 17th Amendment would solve. Besides, we ought to be able to spend our money how we please. There's been more money in politics now since the "reforms" of the 70's than before. And we already have term limits - you get to "vote the bums out" every November. What we need is voting method reform so that we have a real choice, so that non-Dem/Rep votes make a difference.

I'm already voting for third parties. Of course, we need these same Congress-critters to enact Condorcet voting, so that such "protest" votes get noticed...

Or even the Constitution Party. :-)

"Libertarianism with morals" ... that the Constitution Party seeks to immpose on others through force of law.

How is this like Libertarianism?

No, it's convenience, but price plays a part in that. Sure it's inconvenient to go to the store (less so to find your selection in an online store), and inconvenient to work to make money -- but it's very inconvenient to pay fines or sit in the pokey for pirating.

OTOH, I find most copy protection loathsome. Stealing is a social problem, and technological solutions will always be imperfect. If I buy a game, I have the right to play it however I want. If I had to hack something to do it, I see nothing wrong with that. The consumer has rights. (And if enough people voted Constitution or Libertarian, those rights would get defended. But, more likely, people will keep voting for the Duopoly in power and we'll maintain the status quo.)

(Hey, Slashdot, why can't I enter entity references any more?)

It's staggering to realize the number of people killed in the 20th century by their own governments. Clearly we need less government, not more. At least the Constitution and Libertarian parties are supplying that option in the US.

Only? What about The Constitution party? I suspect there are others. They have minor disagreements with the libratarian party on what the constitution means (things like abortion), and that the libratarian party is willing to accept handouts from the govermetn for campagn finance if they can get it.

I know it says Bush or Gore, but it figgures answering third party's would be ignored.

1: This is a issue for the individual states. The constituion does not allow the federal goverment to get involved. We belive the states should legislate against the use of deadly drugs, but that is their buisness. However all enforcement must be in a mannor respecting the limits placed by the constitution, in particular the fourth ammendment.

In addition consider the following quote from http://www.constitut ion party.org/lets_take_back_america.htm[On Colombia] This war is not about fighting drugs. It is not about defeating the narco-terrorists or the Communist influences from Cuba and from China in Colombia. This is another New World Order adventure in which American lives will be lost for no good purpose unless we can provide leadership in cutting off the money for this unconstitutional activity.

2: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That said I'm a Christian, and so I don't recignise other religions as valid. However, as president, my country doesn't recignise any religion. So long as your religion isn't horrid (that is human sacrafice is out) the US should stay out of your way. So as long as you can freely practice your rediogigion (which means not participating in mine) you should have no cause for complaint.

I belive that tax breaks for religions (churches) simply are a way to bribe ministers [to not mention anything the goverment is doing wrong], and when looked at that way, it is clearly something the first ammendment was trying to prevent.

To turn this around, is your minority religion oppressed because there are many who belive you are wrong, or are you oppressed because laws are preventing you from practicing. If the former, I will not prevent one person from having free speach so you can have your religion, but if the latter I will work to repeal the oppressive laws.

3: Anytime you do major changes to the tax code there will be changes are people adjust to them. However my platform is more then a massive tax cut, it is also a spending cut. So we are allowing you to spend more money, but because the goverment is spending less, there will overall be LESS money in the system. This money will come from unconstituional programs, of which there are many. Of course many people will be hurt in the short run, but in the long run we will be better off, and can adjust if they have to.

4: As a third party I don't like the current system, but there are worse things the goverment does. However since we are touching election reform let me ask why tax payer dollars are going to political partys. My party has pledged to never take any goverment money to run our campaign (even if the current rules didn't discriminate against us)

5: [Congress shall have power] "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

I belive in the constitution, and will enforce keep patents and copyrights for a limited time as required. It is however unclear to me how to call the current duration of copyrights as limited. Otherwise, while there are specifics of everything that is wrong, the reforms needed are minor.

6: "Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..." That looks like encrption to me. I am secure at home against unreasonable searches and seizures in part becuase I use a lock. My comptuer papers are secure (or not) because I use (or don't) encryption.

This does not cover reasonable searches. If there is probable cause (and other requirments met), then things change, a court may order you to give up your keys if they cannot break the lock.

As for exporting strong encryption, the constitution does not allow anyone to prevent exports.

7: The following was taken from an essay by Howard Phillips, and ways it better then I can (url in answer to question one):

"We favor, and given the chance, will secure the immediate withdraw of our country from the United Nations.

"The other day I received a questionnaire from the League of Women Voters of Nevada, and they said we have a nuclear waste problem in America and a lot of the nuclear waste is targeted for certain locations in the state of Nevada. Do you agree that the nuclear waste should go to Nevada? I was asked. And I said, absolutely not. We should place that nuclear waste in Turtle Bay, New York under the United Nations Building.

8: Congress (Not the president) is charged with protecting the nation from invasion. While the framers of the constitution could not envision a day when we could defend ourselves from asteroids or other threats from space, today we can envison it, and in the future can achive it. Congress has power to maintain a navy, and I expect one day the navy will provide defense against space based attacks.

"we favor defending Americas borders, we support a strong national defense"

That said, today while we can envision technolody to do this defense we cannot achive it now. However we should consider threats from space in defense plans. Our missile defense plan should eventially extend to cover them. Today however we cannot reasonably defend ourselves against those attacks.

9: History makes it easy to see these times. Some were obvious while we were in them, others not. Manifest destiny didn't cover all the 19th century, and much of the population didn't move west as new territory opened up.

I suspect that history will give the answer, if anyone has a time machine to go forwards and check. However we can move to a mission of freedom, and limited goverment, and that is what a vote for me represents.

I've been looking at the Constitution Party as a way of defending my inalienable rights. The Constitution the way the framers intended it, without all the undue restrictions and alterations the past 200 years have added. Freedom is good.