Slashdot Mirror

Hovering around 50% for many years actually -- for the Presidential elections only -- and there are several factors in the way the statistic is calculated that tend to make it underestimate voter participation. The percentage is based on the number of votes cast for the principal office on the ballot divided by the VAP (Voting Age Population). The first number may be a bit low because, according to the FEC, about 2% of voters "fail" to vote for the highest office (I know of a couple of people who did this in the last election because they were disgusted with the choices, but did vote in other races), and the VAP is concededly larger than the number of people truly eligible to vote (millions of noncitizens, illegal aliens, ex-felons, and so on, are indeed "voting age"). Of that number, a somewhat smaller percentage is registered. So, if a 50% turnout is reported based on VAP, the turnout of registered voters may be more like 70%.

Turnout for primaries and local elections can fall *really* low.

I'm describing this because election theory is a personal interest, and because election stats are often misused to try to prove political arguments. The VAP problem shows how little the press knows what they're talking about. But I suppose Election 2000 cleared up the press's competence clearly enough. (Have you heard of VNS? Another wellspring of disaster. Groan.)

ANYWAY, the relevant point is that there's no obvious reason to assume that Mac users vary from the population at large. Many are too young or have other disabilities preventing voting. Some don't show up to vote. Also, I have no idea what Apple's 5% of computer sales translates into as a percentage of individuals. Nor are we users complete slaves: only some of us would vote for Jobs. It's thus a very long shot that Mac users would come anywhere near the 19% of turnout that went for Perot. Perhaps, joined by enough others, they could form the nucleus of a significant bloc. (I wonder what kind of candidate Jobs would make? I'm sure it would be interesting, but I'd rather he stay with Apple.)

Or else he wouldn't have won.

Unless you are suggesting that he won because they were better votes? I suppose one could make that argument. ;)

Or were you confusing electoral votes (cast by Electors) with votes cast by citizens for a slate of Electors? If you were, perhaps you should consider educating yourself.

"They are your representitives don't you know?"

Not true at all. John Ashcroft isn't. He lost his election bid to a dead manand neither is this guy.

The reason we have a Republican Nation is that Americans "do give a shit" and voted for the Republicans.

I have the right to refuse to contribute to their campaign...

(1) A well-established system of matching funds already exists within the electoral system. Any party-based candidate who qualifies, including that Klansman, Communist, or Nazi, can have their campaign funded in part by your tax dollars.

(2) More generally, you have no power to control how or on what your taxes are spent. (Other than the occasional referendum and, indirectly, by electing representatives who reflect your values.) I not only disagree with, but find morally repugnant, some of the U.S.'s current big-stick approaches to foreign policy. But this gives me no right to withhold my taxes from those efforts. (Although some have tried in the past...)

(3) Limit the powers of the government and someone else steps in to fill that power vacuum. Guess who? Big business and those special interest groups you mentioned. Unless you're in a Capra movie, in which case Jimmy Stewart will step up to bat.

"... a reminder about your chance (well, if you're an American) to tell your elected representatives what you think about mandated DRM technology"

Yes, it's coming up this November 5th. Here's how to get involved.

If you're going to write your Congresscritter about DRM, be sure to also write his/her/its opponents in the upcoming election.

>> If we don't like the way the education system is being run we vote em out of office and get someone new.

> That doesn't work when you have 60% of your voting population that is either ignorant or apathetic.

(The statistics to back that up. Perhaps the rest of the population wants Disney running the country.)

Or when a candidate who wins the popular vote by a margin of more than half a million people fails to win office.

Or when there are only two candidates to choose from. It's no wonder Minnesota was able to elect an independent candidate--if you follow the first link you'll see it had the highest voting turnout in the last presidential election. What we need is serious voting reform to increase both voter turnout and choice.

>> If we don't like the way the education system is being run we vote em out of office and get someone new.

> That doesn't work when you have 60% of your voting population that is either ignorant or apathetic.

(The statistics to back that up. Perhaps the rest of the population wants Disney running the country.)

Or when a candidate who wins the popular vote by a margin of more than half a million people fails to win office.

Or when there are only two candidates to choose from. It's no wonder Minnesota was able to elect an independent candidate--if you follow the first link you'll see it had the highest voting turnout in the last presidential election. What we need is serious voting reform to increase both voter turnout and choice.

"I would scream it from the rooftops if I felt it would do any good: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! It may not solve every problem, but strong, enforced CFR would at least help."

The laws are a joke and I should know. All campaign finance reform laws have done is increased the amount of paperwork required to run for office. I have to file paperwork with the Louisiana Ethics Comission, the Clerk of the House the Federal Election Commissions, and I have to send a copy of FEC paperwork to the Louisiana Department of State. All that paperwork does is provide another bureaucratic layer for the candidates to hide behind. Does it increase public access to information on my funding? Not really. Most people don't even know of the existance of these organizations, let alone how to obtain copies of the papers I've filed. It sure as hell isn't as informative to the general public as this, but most politicians want you to know as little about them as possible. It seems that most major candidates spend more time running interference on each other than actually sharing information with the voting public.

"The rich and powerful are vastly overrepresented in the legislatures, some effort at restoring balance is incredibly important."

You're not going to get it with the current batch of party sheep. If anything, they know what they needed to get into office themselves and aren't about to give it up easily.

"I'm a Democrat, but if McCain had been on the ballot I would have voted for him in a heartbeat."

Maybe too many Americans are too busy toeing the party line to see that most of the problems lie in the current two-paty system in the US. Guess how all those legislators probably got all their money? It was likely all funnelled through the state and national Democratic and Republican committees. All that most of the required election paperwork seems to have accomplished is to make sure more money is funnelled ("laundered?") through the party rather than going to the politician directly.

"Now we have a President that has spent over half of his time in office either on vacation or fund raising, or a combination thereof."

Which is completely different from what Clinton, Bush, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Roosevelt, or McKinley have done in office? Should I go through the nineteenth century as well?

Most of the "this president is the most lazy/money-grubbing yet" stuff is just talk from the other party. If anything it's just more politicians running political interference. We have an executive that is very much alone and very easy for the press to focus on, and we have 535 legislators that can easily hide behind each other and can generally get away with more individually and as a group than the president. In my opinion, all this party nonsense about bad-mouthing the president's policies is little more than Congress keeping the attention shifted away from the real seat of corruption in government.

And the same goes for the states as well. Most governors would know better than to shoot themselves in the political foot by vetoing a bill with a title like that. But if it never gets to the governor's office to begin with, who's the wiser?

The only real solution to this problem is both very simple and the one nobody ever brings up:

1.) Go find the California Legislature on the internet

2.) Find the bill on-line

3.) See which state Senators voted against it (whoever is represented by Senator Haynes is in luck, otherwise...). The measure passed the State Assembly, but it might be worth seeing who voted against it there as well.

4.) Vote against them next election. In fact, tell them you're going to do so. Better yet, run against the bastard yourself. It's a cushy job and looks good on a resume at the very least.

It's that easy! And you're still not going to do it, are you? Most people don't even know their national legislators, let alone their legislators at the state level. Nobody even bothers to vote for anybody in the state governments, except maybe the governor. Maybe. This is probably little more than the state legislators showing the same contempt for the voters as the voters seem to have for the legislators. They listen to campaign contributors because they're usually the only people talking to them.

Remember, be polite, and don't flame. Save that for the SMS messages for his phone (wish I knew the number).

Well, it's not their cell phone numbers, but they have a toll free number: (800) 424-9530. We all know what toll free numbers mean ... Maybe we can /. a phone that they pay for?

You can verify that this really is their toll free number at their Web site (it's at the bottom).

Ovid

From your previous post, i rather suspected that you're (formally or informally) trolling for the Dems, but this one proves it. As much as i dislike this phony and destructive Left-Right political paradigm, people like you (and that right-wing idiot who didn't do any fact checking) insist on keeping the ball rolling.

My Sincere Apologies to the thinking/rational members of the /. Community for the excesive length, but "tossed off" facts require real context. SORRY!

Let's deconstruct some of the above post, why don't we?

"Once again you are lying. Insdustries give much more money to republicans while unions tend to give more to democrats. It's the classic struggle. Teachers, cops, firemen, plumbers etc support democrats while CEOs support republicans.

In the last two Federal cycles, Republicans received about 625 million dollars and Democrats received 449 million, or the Democrats recieved about 70% of revenues the Republicans received. Don't know about where you live, but around here, 449 MILLION DOLLARS is a lot of money.

here are some links to real data, you can find verified numbers for just about anything, if you look;

Common Cause
Judical Watch
Federal Election Commission
Roll Call Magazine
Library of Congress' THOMAS legislative info site
Vote dot Com
TownHall dot Com
Pew Research Center (reasonably balanced/verified poll data)

You also neglected to mention some rather important things. Especially as you seem to be attempting to tie the current economic probs to a particular party.

1. The vast majority of Technology CEOs supported Clinton and Gore, and routinely give big donations to the Democratic Party.

2. The vast majority of CEOs in the Finance sectors (stock brokerages, investment banks, bond houses) are also Democrats and are amongst the Dems biggest contributors

3. The Republican Party gets much more of its money from individual "grass roots" contributors (i.e., people sending in twenty or fifty bucks) than the Democratic Party does.

Whereas, the Democratic Party gets the vast majority of its donations from corporations, with very few dollars coming from "grass roots" donations. That's a kinda important point in this discussino, since you seem to be so wound about corporate donations.

4. The two largest contributor groups of the Democratic Party are two of the most regressive and damaging special interests in America. Teachers Unions (NOT the teachers themselves -- for whom i have HUGE respect by and large) and Trial Lawyers.

Teachers Unions have gutted and stalled any meaningful educational reform in this country for 30 years, while students' test scores have plummeted (and they continue to actively obstruct schoool reform) and Trial Lawyers are making it virtually impossible for anyone to start a new business in America without hugely expensive liability insurance (which many entrepeneurs cannot afford). I've done several tech startups in Cali -- next one WON'T be here, i'm done with this messed up state.

Trial lawyers are also increasing the price of virtually every product we buy with frivolous deep pockets liability lawsuits.

The key determinent in politcal fundraising actually seems to be, not so much supposed politcal affiliation, but rather who has control of the House. When the Dems had control of the House (and the White House) they outraised the Republicans by about an average of 20%.

The actual reality is that corporations will give money to whoever can deliver the goods. That will always favor the Party in the Majority. We have the best legislators money can (and does) buy. But, why would any corporation want to waste money on a legislator in the Minority??? What sense does that make? You spend money to buy influence, PERIOD.

When the Republicans took control of the House, they found that they could outraise the Dems, especially in "party building" monies. The reason is generally held to be that whoever controls the House, controls the purse strings. If you're looking for bucks, you go to the Majority Party.

"Once again you are lying. Insdustries give much more money to republicans while unions tend to give more to democrats. It's the classic struggle. Teachers, cops, firemen, plumbers etc support democrats while CEOs support republicans."

nice troll! actually cops and firefighters vote mostly republican (about 68% nationwide), teachers do indeed vote mostly democrat (about 82% nationwide -- though that's starting to change -- there's been nearly a 10% increase nationwide of teachers who are voting republican in the last decade, whoda thunk it?)

(i have no idea how plumbers vote), you're sidestepping the fact that it's actually police and fire unions who give big amounts of their members' dues to far-left candidates.

"All of this adds up to the grim fact that republicans get a ton more money then democrats over all.

True kinda/sorta, but certainly NOT "..a ton more", through the next election cycle, there will probably be about 18-22% advantage for the Republicans. Or about the same numbers that the Dems had over the Republicans when they controlled the House and Senate.

A significant difference, but certainly not fatal. Clearly the Dems aren't attacting voters the way they used to. The Republicans are (and have always been) the "Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight", when it comes to image projection. So, that pretty much suggests that the Dems are just losing their appeal. The Republicans are usually not adroit enough at attack politics, they're too busy blowing off their own media toes. (Look at Bill Simon in Cali,-- this guy couldn't get a BJ in a whorehouse, what were the Republicans thinking????)

From about the 1960's to the late 1980's, the Dems had an (by your standards "large") advantage in money raising. When the Republicans and Gingrich took over the Congress in the '94 mid-terms, the money gap started favoring the Republicans.

My favorite though is "...Combine that with the conservative media and you can explain how they control the country."

Where would this conservatie media be? You've got the looney-tunes Washington Times, the spooky strange FoxNewsChannel and that's about it.

Meanwhile, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washingpost, Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS, and most big city newspapers might as well just print the DNC's "Message of the Day".

Limbaugh gives the Republicans a pretty large presence on talk radio. (despite a decade of dire predictions by the Left about Limbaugh fading away, he's still do quite well, fascinating. i woulda never thunk it.)

But the most successful "politics" shows on TV are O'Reilly (yeech, i'm waiting for Bill to allow a guest to complete a sentence before he starts screaming at them) and Larry King, who spends more time discussing his own opinons than his guests. I can't watch EITHER of them without getting a headache. So, I don't.

O'Reilly is hardly a conservative, and while King is technically a liberal, as O'Reilly continues to pummel King in the ratings, King has drifted back to the center.

So the vast majority of media in this country is pretty much Center-Left.

It is also boring, trite and doesn't spend any real time discussing any alternatives to the obviously dysfunctional Left-Right paradigm that has captured the votes of the majority of the few voting Americans and turned off/over about half the eligble voters in America.

I voted for Nader before, and it looks like i'll be doing it again in '04.

this only explains the indirect-election aspect of such an institution. It tells us nothing about why the Founders chose to make representation in such an institution not strictly proportional

This might be useful.

In l960, 62.8 percent of voting-age Americans went to the polls to choose between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon; in l996, after decades of slippage, just 48.9 percent chose Bill Clinton over Bob Dole.

I think it's idiotic on both sides to label the other party 'the bad guys', as if they weren't organizations made up of individuals with different views and morals.

How are Republicans so pristine, when the Hagel amendment was possibly the worst thing that could've ever happened to campaign finance reform? Everyone I see supporting Hagel talked about how it limited soft money, how it was real reform because it also limited other groups and parties -- no one would address the fact that limiting (not banning) soft money, would have had the complete opposite effect of reform, because it would've been written into law that soft money was an acceptable practice, not deserving of complete removal. We're talking about illegal contributions here. A practice that isn't even necessary; that only exists to serve greed; to "legalize bribes and legalize extortion".

How are the Democrats any better, when John Breaux co-wrote the Hagel Amendment?

How is John McCain so evil? When did he try to put groups like the EFF out of the loop? Who does the EFF contribute to, exactly? Maybe you mean the restrictions on TV ads, which require disclosure of the people funding it? Restrictions that only ban an ad when it's aimed at electing 1 person or the other, and even then only when it's within 60 days of the election. Restrictions that have no effect on ads which only list facts or compare stances, without saying "So and so voted to kill babies." Restrictions that, despite that, still raise questions about the right of people to criticize their government, and so they are restrictions that many people (including McCain) didn't support. And when they were passed, people like McCain voted against the non-severability amendment so that when those restrictions are removed as unconstitutional they won't destroy McCain-Feingold.

How can Democrats be so bad with respectable people like Feingold, Joseph Biden, and John Edwards in their ranks?

There's good people, and there's stupid people. Both parties have their share. And I blame the way this slanted article was phrased for ever starting all this nonsense.

To abolish the EC for a popular vote will mean that states with greater than 11 votes will gain power, while states with 10 or less will lose. According to information at the Federal Election Commission, There are 18 state that would gain, 33 that lose.

Abolishing the EC will require an amendment to the US Constitution. This requires approval of 3/4 of all states (38 states). Assuming the 18 larger states will favor an amendment, you'ld still have to convince 20 of the smaller states to go along...
As a famous politician once said: "All politics are local"

I believe there is a legitimate concern with the controversy concerning the ballot in Palm Beach County. The ballots there were printed such that out of the three ballot punchholes next to the Democratic ticket section, the topmost represented a vote for Buchanan, and the second represented Gore. In spite of the arrow pointing to the correct hole for Gore, this confused many voters who asked poll workers which hole was the right one. The poll workers could not give a definite answer either way, and did not have any other authority to check with.

As a result, Buchanan had more votes in PBC (3407) than in any other county in Florida. This is strange because Gore carried Palm Beach county easily, 64%-36%. The next highest votes for Buchanan by county is Pinellas (1100), which also had the highest turnout for Nader, and was won by Gore, 52%-48%.

Just wait, I'll start heading toward my point now. Pinellas and Palm Beach represent the highest combined turnout of Nader/Buchanan voters by number, followed by Hillsborough (which neighbors Pinellas), Broward, Dade, Brevard, and Sarasota. These represent the highest population counties in Florida. Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Pinellas, and Hillsborough had the top 5 voter turnout, respectively. In four of these counties, Buchanan voters represent .1-.25% of total votes, and ~10% of combined Nader/Buchanan voters. However, in PBC Buchanan gets .8% of the total vote, and raked in 38% of the combined, alternative vote.

This sticks out like a sore thumb, and I'm sure someone with a degree in statistics could prove my point. Why would PBC have SO MANY Buchanan voters if it is decidedly liberal? Why would it buck the trend set by counties of similar makeup and population? If one adjusts the Buchanan vote in PBC to correlate with the statewide average and the averages in other counties, One could assume that the total number of Gore votes miscast for Buchanan is ~2500.

I'm not saying that this is enough to win FL decisively for Gore, but if the final count and recount gives Bush the state with less than this margin, it will be a hotly contested point for years to come.

Addendum: I heard some republican flak on Crossfire claiming that Buchanan got 3000 votes in PBC in 1996 as well. If this were true, I would concede that the ballot confusion might not be the cause of these results. However, Buchanan wasn't ON the ballot in 1996. According to the FEC, Buchanan was not on the ballot in Florida, and must have got less overall than James Edward Harris's(?) 13 votes for president. According to this calendar from the 1996 election, he never specifically visited Palm Beach county in 1996. (He visited Ft. Lauderdale, Tampa, and Orlando in one trip.)

I've been googling steadily while writing this, and I can't find any further evidence of strong Pat Buchanan support in PBC, in 1996 or 2000. I am continuing statistical analysis on the county data as I type this. I want to look at the dramatic difference between PBC's Buchanan support and the rest of Florida, and see if any other states have counties which have this much of a flip flop.

If my math is right, that means that less than 29% of the registered voters actually voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.

No matter what happens this year, the President will have a greater mandate than Clinton did in 1992.

-S

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.)

--

there is a balance between protecting people's rights as citizens and the bottom line of american corporations and their stock price.

Oh, B-freakin'-S. There is no balance - not in existence, and not governmentally guaranteed. Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is a "right to profitability," "right to shareholder confidence," "right to protection of business model," etc.?

I don't buy the "economy" excuse, either. During good times, people often justify lackluster voter turnout on a general contentedness/apathy of the public, since said public is happy with what's going on. During less-than-good-times, voter turnout still doesn't typically improve, despite the logic of economy justification that would indicate the public wants improvement. (And if the first held, and the economy had all that much to do with it, then neglecting oil prices, why is Dubya getting all that much consideration? By the logic of the first, we'd leave a Democrat in the office.)

Until you stop letting your Government using the Constitution as novelty toilet paper, your hysterical rantings about the "land of the free" are nothing more naive, foolish posturings.

At the risk of sounding like Katz...

It happens because America is a land of consumers, not citizens. Anything that doesn't specifically enable us to dole out more money for goods and services (to the benefit of corporate interests everywhere) is effectively deemed unnecessary, and anything (such as personal rights) that hinders market reach, share values, and profitability is a threat to be removed or otherwise addressed.

And it's not just that we're being forced into such a position - we're accepting it, settling into it nearly wholeheartedly. (A minority of eligible voters even bothered showing up to vote in the last presidential election, and it gets even worse during years when we're not voting on that office.)

Point and jeer all you want - we earned it.

Until you stop letting your Government using the Constitution as novelty toilet paper, your hysterical rantings about the "land of the free" are nothing more naive, foolish posturings.

At the risk of sounding like Katz...

It happens because America is a land of consumers, not citizens. Anything that doesn't specifically enable us to dole out more money for goods and services (to the benefit of corporate interests everywhere) is effectively deemed unnecessary, and anything (such as personal rights) that hinders market reach, share values, and profitability is a threat to be removed or otherwise addressed.

And it's not just that we're being forced into such a position - we're accepting it, settling into it nearly wholeheartedly. (A minority of eligible voters even bothered showing up to vote in the last presidential election, and it gets even worse during years when we're not voting on that office.)

Point and jeer all you want - we earned it.

According to this page, there are 16 candidates for President who will appear on the ballot in at least one state. They are:

Cathy Gordon Brown (TN Only)
Harry Browne (All except AZ & PR)
Patrick J. Buchanan (All except DC, MI & PR)
George Dubya Bush (All 52)
Earl Dodge (CO Only)
Al Gore (All 52)
John Hagelin (38 States)
James Harris (14 States)
Denny Lane (VT Only)
David McReynolds (CO, FL, IA, NJ, RI, VT, WA)
Monica Moorehead (FL, RI, WA, WI)
Ralph Nader (44 States)
Howard Phillips (41 States)
L. Neil Smith (AZ Only)
Randall Venson (TN Only)
Louie G. Youngkeit (UT Only)

So of these 16 candidates, 7 have a mathematical chance of winning. Why not have a debate between the 5 who are not Gush and Bore? That would be an interesting debate... probably a source of some ideas that we would never hear from the Republicrats. Has anyone made an effort to get these 5 people (Browne, Buchanan, Hagelin, Nader and Phillips) all together in one place? Make it a choice between them!

If Browne has qualified and turned down the money, not only would he have been most likely featured in the television debates,...

A question: Do you know what is required for public funding for a campaign?

Apparently not.

There are in fact three types of federal funding for Presidential campaigns:

Federal Matching Funds This is what Browne declined.

1. Partial public funding is available to Presidential primary candidates in the form of federal matching payments. Candidates seeking their party's nomination to the Presidency can qualify to receive matching funds by raising over $5,000 in each of 20 states (i.e., over $100,000). Only contributions from individuals apply toward this threshold. Although an individual may contribute up to $1,000 to a candidate, only a maximum of $250 counts toward the threshold and is matchable. + lots o' red tape.

General Election Funding

1. 20 to 50 mill for "Presidential candidates received between
2. 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) "

Convention Funding

1. "Each major party is entitled to a public grant of $4 million" for "a party whose Presidential candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) ...".

Bill Clinton (Democrat) 49.24

Bob Dole (Republican) 40.71

Ross Perot (Reform) 8.40

Ralph Nader (Green) .71

Harry Browne (Libertarian) .50

Howard Phillips (U.S. Taxpayers) .19

John Hagelin (Natural Law) .12

and so on

Now, in terms of the number of candidates for political office the Liberatrians appear to have the most of any 3rd party by a large margin.

1420 vs. 244 for the Greens(the next highest)

170 elected officials vs. 72 greenies.

If Browne has qualified and turned down the money, not only would he have been most likely featured in the television debates,...

A question: Do you know what is required for public funding for a campaign?

Apparently not.

There are in fact three types of federal funding for Presidential campaigns:

Federal Matching Funds This is what Browne declined.

1. Partial public funding is available to Presidential primary candidates in the form of federal matching payments. Candidates seeking their party's nomination to the Presidency can qualify to receive matching funds by raising over $5,000 in each of 20 states (i.e., over $100,000). Only contributions from individuals apply toward this threshold. Although an individual may contribute up to $1,000 to a candidate, only a maximum of $250 counts toward the threshold and is matchable. + lots o' red tape.

General Election Funding

1. 20 to 50 mill for "Presidential candidates received between
2. 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) "

Convention Funding

1. "Each major party is entitled to a public grant of $4 million" for "a party whose Presidential candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) ...".

Bill Clinton (Democrat) 49.24

Bob Dole (Republican) 40.71

Ross Perot (Reform) 8.40

Ralph Nader (Green) .71

Harry Browne (Libertarian) .50

Howard Phillips (U.S. Taxpayers) .19

John Hagelin (Natural Law) .12

and so on

Now, in terms of the number of candidates for political office the Liberatrians appear to have the most of any 3rd party by a large margin.

1420 vs. 244 for the Greens(the next highest)

170 elected officials vs. 72 greenies.

If Browne has qualified and turned down the money, not only would he have been most likely featured in the television debates,...

A question: Do you know what is required for public funding for a campaign?

Apparently not.

There are in fact three types of federal funding for Presidential campaigns:

Federal Matching Funds This is what Browne declined.

1. Partial public funding is available to Presidential primary candidates in the form of federal matching payments. Candidates seeking their party's nomination to the Presidency can qualify to receive matching funds by raising over $5,000 in each of 20 states (i.e., over $100,000). Only contributions from individuals apply toward this threshold. Although an individual may contribute up to $1,000 to a candidate, only a maximum of $250 counts toward the threshold and is matchable. + lots o' red tape.

General Election Funding

1. 20 to 50 mill for "Presidential candidates received between
2. 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) "

Convention Funding

1. "Each major party is entitled to a public grant of $4 million" for "a party whose Presidential candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) ...".

Bill Clinton (Democrat) 49.24

Bob Dole (Republican) 40.71

Ross Perot (Reform) 8.40

Ralph Nader (Green) .71

Harry Browne (Libertarian) .50

Howard Phillips (U.S. Taxpayers) .19

John Hagelin (Natural Law) .12

and so on

Now, in terms of the number of candidates for political office the Liberatrians appear to have the most of any 3rd party by a large margin.

1420 vs. 244 for the Greens(the next highest)

170 elected officials vs. 72 greenies.

If Browne has qualified and turned down the money, not only would he have been most likely featured in the television debates,...

A question: Do you know what is required for public funding for a campaign?

Apparently not.

There are in fact three types of federal funding for Presidential campaigns:

Federal Matching Funds This is what Browne declined.

1. Partial public funding is available to Presidential primary candidates in the form of federal matching payments. Candidates seeking their party's nomination to the Presidency can qualify to receive matching funds by raising over $5,000 in each of 20 states (i.e., over $100,000). Only contributions from individuals apply toward this threshold. Although an individual may contribute up to $1,000 to a candidate, only a maximum of $250 counts toward the threshold and is matchable. + lots o' red tape.

General Election Funding

1. 20 to 50 mill for "Presidential candidates received between
2. 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) "

Convention Funding

1. "Each major party is entitled to a public grant of $4 million" for "a party whose Presidential candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) ...".

Bill Clinton (Democrat) 49.24

Bob Dole (Republican) 40.71

Ross Perot (Reform) 8.40

Ralph Nader (Green) .71

Harry Browne (Libertarian) .50

Howard Phillips (U.S. Taxpayers) .19

John Hagelin (Natural Law) .12

and so on

Now, in terms of the number of candidates for political office the Liberatrians appear to have the most of any 3rd party by a large margin.

1420 vs. 244 for the Greens(the next highest)

170 elected officials vs. 72 greenies.

The other thing to remember is that the Presidential Election is not and never has been a popular election - It all comes down to winning states. That's the purpose the Electoral College serves. It makes sure that populous states don't have the ability to elect a President at the expense of minorities in less popular states. If that's not a good thing, then very little is. So, if a candidate wins a whole bunch of big states at the expense of pissing off a whole bunch of little states, then he loses the election, even if the majority of the population voted for him. It's called the Tyranny of the Majority. It's a bad thing, one that the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, and it's the reason we have the Electoral College.

Now, before you go nuts and start arguing that Electoral College members don't have to vote for their sponsors, let me point out that you're technically correct. They are under no real obligation to do so. OTOH, if a candidate is stupid enough to choose Electoral College nominees who won't vote for him, he doesn't deserve the Presidency in the first place. The only times in history that Electoral Collegiates have not voted for their candidate is when the election was already guaranteed, and they wanted to make a statement. They have *never* voted for the other candidate, nor have they ever done so when their vote would change the outcome.

I'm really getting tired of pointing this out (and I'm sure that others are too). Stop reading those conspiracy zines or whatever you're wasting your time with, and actually check the facts before you post.

Some info on the Electoral College

Additionally, somewhere on /. awhile back, the subject came up of a site describing a mathematician who quantitatively determined how the Electoral College functions to increase your voting power. Anyone have that site?

In the 1829 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in Kentucky's 2nd District, Jackson Democrat Nicholas Coleman defeated National Republican Adam Beatty 2,520 to 2,519.

In the 1847 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana's 6th District, Whig candidate George G. Dunn defeated Democratic candidate David M. Dobson 7,455 to 7,454. Also in 1847, Whig Thomas S.Flournoy defeated a Democratic candidate named Treadway 650 to 649 in the race for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 3rd District of Virginia.

In the 1854 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 7th District of Illinois, Democratic candidate James C. Allen bested Republican William B. Archer 8,452 to 8,451.

In the 1882 election for U.S. House of Representatives in the 1st District of Virginia, Readjuster Robert M. Mayo defeated Democrat George T. Garrison 10,505 to 10,504.

RECENT EXAMPLES IN NONFEDERAL ELECTIONS

In 1977, Vermont State Representative Sydney Nixon was seated as an apparent one vote winner, 570 to 569. Mr. Nixon resigned when the State House determined , after a recount, that he had lost to Robert Emond, 572 to 571.

In 1989, a Lansing, Michigan School District millage proposition failed when the final recount produced a tie vote, 5,147 for, and 5,147 against. On the original vote count, votes against the proposition were ten more than those in favor. The result meant that the school district had to reduce its budget by $2.5 million.

In 1994, Republican Randall Luthi and Independent Larry Call tied for the seat in the Wyoming House of Representatives from the Jackson Hole area, with 1,941 votes each. A recount produced the same result. Mr. Luthi was finally declared the winner when, in a drawing before the State Canvassing Board, a PingPong ball bearing his name was pulled from the cowboy hat of Democratic Governor Mike Sullivan.

In 1997, South Dakota Democrat John McIntyre led Republican Hal Wick 4,195 - 4,191 for the second seat in Legislative District 12 on election night. A subsequent recount showed Wick the winner at 4192 - 4,191. The State Supreme Court, however, ruled that one ballot counted for Wick was invalid due to an overvote. This left the race a tie. After hearing arguments from both sides, the State Legislature voted to seat Wick 46-20.


---------------------------------------------

I didn't bash the liberal media. I said I suspect that there may be ultra-liberal elements involved in the media that are giving Nader attention. I didn't say whether I thought that was negative or positive per se. I only offered that as one explanation of Nader's media exposure, which is totally unwarranted, based on polls.

In the 1996 election, (If I counted right) Browne beat Nader in 16 of the 37 states where Nader was on the ballot. Browne was on the ballot in all 50 states also. Nader got .71% at large, and Browne got .50% Now you tell me if Nader deserves so much more attention than Browne after reading these numbers.

1996 election results.

Totals
-

I didn't bash the liberal media. I said I suspect that there may be ultra-liberal elements involved in the media that are giving Nader attention. I didn't say whether I thought that was negative or positive per se. I only offered that as one explanation of Nader's media exposure, which is totally unwarranted, based on polls.

In the 1996 election, (If I counted right) Browne beat Nader in 16 of the 37 states where Nader was on the ballot. Browne was on the ballot in all 50 states also. Nader got .71% at large, and Browne got .50% Now you tell me if Nader deserves so much more attention than Browne after reading these numbers.

1996 election results.

Totals
-

As this fine question concerning electoral reform has been moded up to a score of 5, I offer the most up-to-date information I could find in regards to the facts.

According to an excerpt from this link to the Federal Election Commision's explanation of how the electoral college works:

"Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district]."

From the: Path-of-least-resistance Dept.

In the words of George Carlin, I don't think you have the right to complain if you vote. If you vote and elect a guy in, you were the one who did it, shut up and go with it. If you voted and the other guy got in, then you picked the loser. Congrats. If you don't vote at all, then you can complain about anything. Not that it matters anymore nowadays if you vote or not. I vote, but only out of curiosity and a sense of "playing the game" along with a lot of other Americans. Voting doesn't really do much in the long run at large levels...only at small gov't levels does your vote really count. (thank you, electoral college)

Fact is, goverment will always try to step on the rights of good, decent ppl like you and me, and we will always fight to keep them in check. It's a balancing act more than anything. If either side got leeway, we'd have havoc. (too many rights is just as bad as too few)

So join the game! Vote today.

It's been years since a majority of Americans even bothered to vote in a national election.

Well, a quick bit of research with a search engine gave me this page which shows that every year up until 1992 was over 50%, and if you browse the rest of the site, you see that it was 49.08% for 1996. Admittedly, if you count those not eligible to vote, you would drop below 50% for most of the historical data, but surely Katz is above lying with statictics to further his cause?

Google is my friend:

How the Electoral College Works
--
Ski-U-Mah!

1.

... unlike ordinary radio and TV broadcasters, Webcasters must pay royalties to record companies. Webcasts are limited to three songs from one album in any three-hour period.

This is false. Radio stations - like TV stations, cable networks, etc. - need to get licenses from performing rights groups like ASCAP or BMI. Even businesses and restaurants larger than a certain size (2000 sq. ft. and 3750 sq. ft., respectively) need to get licenses. Those licenses are not free - they are bought for millions of dollars sometimes, and the money from their purchase goes to the songwriters and performers.

2.

[The DMCA] also dramatically restricts the right of individual artists to have their works seen, heard and sold. That makes it a First Amendment as well as a corporate issue.

Well, duh. All copyright laws are First Amendment issues in part. All of them. Why? Because copyright laws are inherently about what you can and cannot do and say. The DMCA is no more especially a First Amendment matter than any other copyright law.

And recognizing that there are free-speech issues involved, the DMCA (like other copyright acts) leaves intact the "Fair Use" doctrine, which permits the use of copyrighted material for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.

3.

[The DMCA is] a back-door effort by lobbyists and politicians to circumvent debate or discussion entirely.

First of all, calling it a "back-door effort" ignores the facts that there were lobbyists and politicians on both sides of every part of the issue, and that comments and input were solicited from the online community and libraries and computer makers. What's more, some of the Act's provisions had been discussed and debated internationally, as part of a World Intellectual Property Organization treaty - and were first publicized years and years ago. Calling it secretive or "back-door" is plain inaccurate.

4.

... blind copyright protection that in no way takes into account the Net's unique nature, nor the rights and sensibilities of a generation that defines culture differently.

This is nonsensical. How is the DMCA "blind"? The point of the law, whether you like it or not, is that it does take into account the Net's unique nature, by recognizing that the Net can be used to disseminate information instantly everywhere. It isn't blind: it tries to stop some of that information from just disappearing into the ether, possibly leaving creators unpaid. What do you mean this generation "defines culture differently"? Every generation defines culture differently, and (if you'll allow me to follow your logic to its natural conclusion) every person defines culture differently. This is not a culture gap, and there is no acceptable reason for lawmakers, musicians and other copyright holders to be held hostage by people who don't want to pay for anything.

5.

Corporatism isn't the same as capitalism, or corporations. It's new, bigger, more global and vastly more powerful. It has acquired most mainstream media. It is the primary contributor to the political system.

Like the theory of phlogiston, your argument here sounds great. But, like the theory of phlogiston, there is not a great deal of empirical evidence to back it up. First of all, your statement about "mainstream media" is circular since you are defining mainstream media as "those media which are owned by corporations." Second, the primary contributor to the political system, in terms of money and in terms of vocal input, is the ordinary voting population; it contributes more money than any other contributing segment. In fact, even though nobody talks about this, corporations are not allowed to support candidates for federal office.

6.

... corporatism discourages creativity, pushes individuals to the margins and promotes conformity and control of software, hardware, intellectual content and culture.

O, Katz, come on. Compare the words you use for corporations (discourages, pushes, conformity, control, rampaging, drooling) with the words you use for geeks (free, diverse, individualized, unprecedented, unique). What propaganda!

Things are a whole lot more complicated than that. First of all, you refuse to admit the positive effects of the corporate control you so disdain. Thanks to AOL, 20 million people are online. Thanks to Microsoft, lots of confused non-techies are able to use these machines we take for granted. Thanks to WalMart, people have access to more and cheaper products.

How you can claim this is not capitalism is beyond me. With the exception of monopolistic behavior (the integrated-browswer debate is not worth getting into here), each of these companies is behaving as capitalist firms should - by offering products and services that consumers are drawn to.

What's more, it's ridiculous to cast corporations as an Evil Empire trying to crush the plucky, charming geeks who can see how "culture" is changing around them. Even as the Net lets people express themselves more individually, it also spreads a common culture, full of common language and terms and beliefs which can themselves become tyrannical. Before writing "Geeks," you should have sat down and read some Alexis de Tocqueville.

7.

The belief that even if laws restrict the Net, innovative software and hardware will triumph, is pervasive. The DMCA suggests that may be wishful thinking.

I disagree here again. Technology is extraordinarily powerful, and right now, it is shaping the law - not the other way around. (And if you believe Lawrence Lessig, in many ways, the technology is the law.) I expect that trend will continue for several decades.

8.

The primary political struggle of the 21st Century -- corporatism versus individualism -- has erupted right under our noses. And with little political consciousness or response, we seem to be losing the first big battle.

First of all, to claim that "corporatism versus individualism" is the "primary political struggle" of the next century demonstrates as much a sense of history as the people who called the O.J. Simpson trial the "trial of the century." Life always ends up amazingly unlike what we had supposed.

Second, again, you are unwilling to see political activism by geeks because you are defining "geeks" circularly - as those who are not politically active. There are many people, including many people here in Washington, D.C., who share the political and technological views of geeks, and are fighting every day to prevent new dumb laws from being passed. Most people are not politically conscious - not just geeks - and that's a wonderful thing. It's a sign of our freedom and safety. The places where political cognizance is a necessary good are places like Chechnya or Somalia or Cuba or China, where a lack of political sense can land you in jail.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

Nearly 70 years ago, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the first president to take advantage of the radio to connect directly and instantly with millions of American citizens across the country.

In the 1960s, John F. Kennedy was the first president to effectively employ the power of television as a visual communications medium.

Today, candidates and elected officials of every political persuasion are tapping the power of the Internet to interact with citizens in ways that one day may rival the impact of radio and television combined.

• In 1999, Steve Forbes became the first presidential candidate to announce his bid for office over the Internet.
• Since last April, more than 200,000 questions and comments have been submitted to Vice President Al Gore's "Interactive Town Hall," a location on his campaign's Web site, where he and his staff provide answers on a variety of subjects.
• In the 48 hours after winning the New Hampshire GOP primary earlier this month, Senator John McCain raised more than $1 million in contributions over the Internet.
• George W. Bush was the first presidential candidate to publish a complete list of his campaign contributors online.
• Bill Bradley, like many other candidates, has used the Web to detail his political agenda and substantive policy announcements.
• Jesse Ventura organized a long shot and ultimately successful independent bid for the Minnesota statehouse in 1998, with a campaign that demonstrated the grass- roots power and fundraising capabilities of the Net.

But it's not only candidates who are taking advantage of the power of the Web to reach out to citizens. In January, the President's State of the Union Address and the Republican response were the first to be broadcast live over Microsoft's Web TV, enabling thousands of viewers to learn more about Administration and GOP policies and initiatives instantly, simply by clicking on an Internet link.

Meanwhile, public agencies are making access to government resources more convenient. Today, in certain jurisdictions, you can download an application for a business license, search for a government job, track the status of a building permit, or file a tax return, all online.

Increasingly, the Internet also is being used as a vehicle for citizens to organize and express their views. When the City of Seattle recently considered a controversial ordinance to prohibit the display of exotic animals in circus performances, thousands of e-mails flew back and forth between voters and their elected officials.

Parents are using the Internet to organize Web sites where information about school meetings can be posted, and where vibrant forums exist to bat around ideas regarding new academic programs, school test results and grading standards.

Meanwhile, political Web "portals" like those hosted by USAdemocracy.com, vote-smart.org, Issues2000.org, grassroots.com, MSN.com and others are providing interested citizens with up-to-the-minute information that is fundamentally changing the way citizens learn about and get involved in important issues.

Technologies are emerging on Web sites like selectsmart.com that match a voter's views on issues with the positions of candidates. This kind of "comparison shopping" will empower voters by allowing them to obtain substantive and current information about candidates' positions, and to make informed decisions at election time.

In the near future, the Internet may also serve as a medium for voter registration and online voting. Several test projects to facilitate online voting are in progress. Ensuring equitable access, security, privacy and reliability are concerns that will need to be addressed before voters are able to cast their ballots from the convenience of their home or a nearby public facility.

The neighborhood polling booth won't go away, but with voter participation at historic lows - particularly among young people - online voting offers the potential to encourage easier and greater involvement in our electoral process.

At Microsoft, we're enthusiastic about the Internet for many reasons, not the least of which is the promise it holds to create a more informed electorate and to encourage the participation of more people - especially young people - in our democratic process.

This is one in a series of essays on technology and its impact on society. More information is available at www.microsoft.com .

Additonal Readings

• Federal Election Commission Web Site
  FedWorld Information Network Web Site
  MSN Politics Web Site
  

H. Ross Perot, for the Reform Party, got eight million votes, Ralph Nader, for the Green Party, got about two-thirds of a million votes including mine (I just couldn't pull the lever for that worm Clinton a second time), Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party got about a half-million votes, and Earl F. Dodge of the Prohibition Party got 1,298 votes.

See http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/summ.htm for exact figures.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

This is a classic case of the ACLU and some hyper-active first-amendment activists blowing things out of proportion and slanting the facts to suit their purposes.

I actually went to the FEC's web site and citizen's guide (http://www.fec.gov/pages/citnlist.htm) for some information before posting this reply and learned some interesting things.

First, volunteering does not make someone a PAC as some people have immediately starting yammering on about. From the site:

Personal Services

An individual may help candidates and committees by volunteering personal services. For example, you may want to take part in a voter drive or offer your skills to a political committee. Your services are not considered contributions as long as you are not paid by anyone. (If your services are compensated by someone other than the committee itself, the payment is considered a contribution by that person to the committee.)

As a volunteer, you may spend unlimited money for normal living expenses.

Further, what the article is talking about when you personally make a web page about a campaign is called "Independent Expenditures" -- meaning that you are doing it as an individual and independently, not linked in with some candidate campaign. Again, from the site:

Independent Expenditures

Independent expenditures provide yet another way to support Federal candidates. An independent expenditure is money spent for a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. It is "independent" only if the individual making the expenditure does not coordinate or consult in any way with the candidate campaign benefiting from the communication. Independent expenditures are not considered contributions and are unlimited. You may spend any amount on each communication as long as the expenditure is truly independent.

You may, for example, pay for an advertisement in a newspaper or on the radio urging the public to vote for the candidate you want elected. Or you may produce and distribute posters or yard signs telling people not to vote for a candidate you oppose.

When making an independent expenditure, you must include a notice stating that you have paid for the communication and that it is not authorized by any candidate's committee. ("Paid for by John Doe and not authorized by any candidate's committee.") Additionally, once you spend more than $250 on independent expenditures during a year, you must file a report with the Federal Election Commission, either FEC Form 5 or a signed statement containing the same information.

There are a couple of relevant caveats in that. First, you have to say that you are independent. Second, if you spend over $250, you have to file a form. This DOES NOT mean your free speech is being restricted. All it means is that the goverment is requiring you to register how much you spent on your speech. Why? So that political campaigns can't get around federal law by pretending to have lots of independent contributions.

You can download the form from the web site. It's about a page long. Name, address, how much you spent. Not much more than that.

Finally, I personally think it would be hard to say that a page on your website with a political message should be "calculated" as the cost of the machine, web-space, etc., as the marginal cost of adding a page to an existing site is essentially zero. If you had a dedicated machine, they'd have a better case.

In any case, people should go looking for the facts (since they're in plain sight) before overreacting to whatever FUD people want to use /. to spread.

-XDG

Here's the relevant section. Note that it only says $250 in a year...

See Citizens' Guide to Contributions and the Law, put out by the FEC.

If you advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate, you may need to put up a notice, and report it to the FEC (if the value exeeds $1K), according to the section on "Independent Expenditures". However, it may perhaps be unlimited if it's *not* targetted at/for a specific candidate, and is independent of various organizations and political folks...

Ok, so no money exchanges hands there, it might be harder to argue in a court. But my web page now (nevermind my profile, I need to update it) is on a web server at a public university. I pay tuition and am the primary administrator of this machine -- I like to think of it as mine even though it really isn't. If I put that Nader site here, with all kinds of fun stuff like petitions and links and essays and endorsements and yadda yadda yadda, is someone supposed to pay then?

This is stupid. I can almost follow the FEC's logic: expensive equipment is being used. If you were to publish in a newspaper or run a radio or television broadcast ad, you would have to pay the publisher of that media for the space. In this case, you've already paid for it (via tuition & fees) but from a certain point of view it's the same thing.

But that's an insane point of view. Would it be better to pay by the percentage of clock cycles or disc space that goes to serving out the political page? Arguably, but it's a weak argument at best.

God I hope this doesn't stand up in court...

My arguement against voting, period, is that it can be unreliable and fudged.

For example, there was recently a big problem when thousands of voter ballots were found thrown out behind some building and after investigating, they apparently found that they were never even counted! On the Internet, if I vote -- some spooge can't just throw my ballot in the garbage and some geezer with four-inch-thick glasses can't lose count as she's thumbing threw the stacks.

In the three years I've been able to vote, I've not done so, unless the issue was directly regarding First, Second or Fourth Amendments. Partially because of inconvenience as I do not drive and spending and hour or two on a bus just to spend an hour or two in a voting-line is rediculous after a hard day's work.

The other reason, aside from the fact that I'm skeptical of all politicians and have never known someone I wanted to vote for, is that I'm not going out of my way to vote on some obscure measure that I've never heard of and have little knowledge of.

If one could just log-in to some government site and register their votes, a larger number of people would vote on a larger number of issues -- and probably be better educated on them, too.

Every year, voter turn-out is lower and lower in this state. If going on-line can encourage more people to participate, then by god why aren't we doing it? This seems the best example of what the Internet is supposed to offer in the first place!

Overall, this state actually has more active voters than the National average, which shows that in 1996, only 49% of all Americans over the age of 18 bothered to vote (compare this to the 73 percent in 1960!). That means that 51% of the country's adults did not give a damn. Less than 96-million voters out of a country that has some 300-million residents.

I suppose you can't blame people and where they've gone in the last three decades, though. When the leading candidate has $40-million in campaign contributions a year and a half before the election even begins and you know that your vote is as influential as pissing into a lake considering the whole "Electoral College", it's easy for someone who really wants their vote to matter to be overwhelmed by.

Of course, that's why we have MTV and the combined intellect of Hollywood stars to tell us how to align ourselves, politically.

Resources:
Voter Registration and Turnout - 1996
International Voter Participation Figures
2000 Elections Candidate Financial Reports
Electoral vs. Popular Voting History
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com

My arguement against voting, period, is that it can be unreliable and fudged.

For example, there was recently a big problem when thousands of voter ballots were found thrown out behind some building and after investigating, they apparently found that they were never even counted! On the Internet, if I vote -- some spooge can't just throw my ballot in the garbage and some geezer with four-inch-thick glasses can't lose count as she's thumbing threw the stacks.

In the three years I've been able to vote, I've not done so, unless the issue was directly regarding First, Second or Fourth Amendments. Partially because of inconvenience as I do not drive and spending and hour or two on a bus just to spend an hour or two in a voting-line is rediculous after a hard day's work.

The other reason, aside from the fact that I'm skeptical of all politicians and have never known someone I wanted to vote for, is that I'm not going out of my way to vote on some obscure measure that I've never heard of and have little knowledge of.

If one could just log-in to some government site and register their votes, a larger number of people would vote on a larger number of issues -- and probably be better educated on them, too.

Every year, voter turn-out is lower and lower in this state. If going on-line can encourage more people to participate, then by god why aren't we doing it? This seems the best example of what the Internet is supposed to offer in the first place!

Overall, this state actually has more active voters than the National average, which shows that in 1996, only 49% of all Americans over the age of 18 bothered to vote (compare this to the 73 percent in 1960!). That means that 51% of the country's adults did not give a damn. Less than 96-million voters out of a country that has some 300-million residents.

I suppose you can't blame people and where they've gone in the last three decades, though. When the leading candidate has $40-million in campaign contributions a year and a half before the election even begins and you know that your vote is as influential as pissing into a lake considering the whole "Electoral College", it's easy for someone who really wants their vote to matter to be overwhelmed by.

Of course, that's why we have MTV and the combined intellect of Hollywood stars to tell us how to align ourselves, politically.

Resources:
Voter Registration and Turnout - 1996
International Voter Participation Figures
2000 Elections Candidate Financial Reports
Electoral vs. Popular Voting History
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com

My arguement against voting, period, is that it can be unreliable and fudged.

For example, there was recently a big problem when thousands of voter ballots were found thrown out behind some building and after investigating, they apparently found that they were never even counted! On the Internet, if I vote -- some spooge can't just throw my ballot in the garbage and some geezer with four-inch-thick glasses can't lose count as she's thumbing threw the stacks.

In the three years I've been able to vote, I've not done so, unless the issue was directly regarding First, Second or Fourth Amendments. Partially because of inconvenience as I do not drive and spending and hour or two on a bus just to spend an hour or two in a voting-line is rediculous after a hard day's work.

The other reason, aside from the fact that I'm skeptical of all politicians and have never known someone I wanted to vote for, is that I'm not going out of my way to vote on some obscure measure that I've never heard of and have little knowledge of.

If one could just log-in to some government site and register their votes, a larger number of people would vote on a larger number of issues -- and probably be better educated on them, too.

Every year, voter turn-out is lower and lower in this state. If going on-line can encourage more people to participate, then by god why aren't we doing it? This seems the best example of what the Internet is supposed to offer in the first place!

Overall, this state actually has more active voters than the National average, which shows that in 1996, only 49% of all Americans over the age of 18 bothered to vote (compare this to the 73 percent in 1960!). That means that 51% of the country's adults did not give a damn. Less than 96-million voters out of a country that has some 300-million residents.

I suppose you can't blame people and where they've gone in the last three decades, though. When the leading candidate has $40-million in campaign contributions a year and a half before the election even begins and you know that your vote is as influential as pissing into a lake considering the whole "Electoral College", it's easy for someone who really wants their vote to matter to be overwhelmed by.

Of course, that's why we have MTV and the combined intellect of Hollywood stars to tell us how to align ourselves, politically.

Resources:
Voter Registration and Turnout - 1996
International Voter Participation Figures
2000 Elections Candidate Financial Reports
Electoral vs. Popular Voting History
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com