Slashdot Mirror

Most of the basic constitutional rights still remain the same no matter whether you are a citizen or not. The Bill of Rights makes this very clear in the fact that it refers to people in almost all cases not involving voting. Read the Bill of Rights . No mention of citizens or citizenship at all. So get your facts straight before you post. The guy still has rights.

Until I get real scientists displaying real data everything is just scare tactics of the invironmental publicity Corperations (earth first, and the other scare for profit groups) to get more money.

What is an environmental corporation?

The National Academy of Sciences has been in complete agreement about global warming for years. This year even the Bush administration admitted it exists.

If you want to know why people even think that global warming is "controversial", read Trust Us, We're Experts. Every person in America has been the target of a multi-billion dollar campaign funded by oil & gas interests, carried out by PR firms, and targeted on boosting skepticism and apathy about global warming.

Looks like they got to you, too.

I am an elementary school Instructional Technology Resource Teacher. I was also director of a technology camp for 2nd/3rd and 4th/5th grade students last summer. Kids are VERY interested in learning about and using computers. It doesn't take much to keep them interested, just hands-on use of skills that you are teaching.
From my teaching experience I can recommend a couple of approaches that I know work for kids!
1) Multimedia Presentations: Kids tend to be expressive. Use PowerPoint, HyperStudio, or KidPix (depending on the level and availability) to create a presentation about their neighborhood, their lives, or whatever. Get a digital camera and document the world around them. This project lets them explore digital cameras, scanners, using audio clips, graphics, and fun fonts.
2) Create a WebPage: Find a local organization or community aspect that you could create a web page for. Teach the kids basic design principles and some HTML code. Have fun laughing at some of the really bad web pages that are out there. Create a virtual zoo, a virtual rock garden, a virtual forest, or anything else.
3) Hack: Get into the nitty-gritty of a low level programming language like (please don't laugh) PASCAL or LOGO. Kids catch on to these languages quickly because they can think through commands in English and then write in PASCAL. (Unlike, for instance, PERL).
4)Explore: Take virtual field trips on the Internet. Go check out the National Archives Exhibit on When Nixon Met Elvis. There are other neat sites that you can preview and then write scavanger hunts about.
Just remember that the kids will need to see what you are doing. Showing them the task is an important step that you cannot skip. Also remember to show them that you love working with computers.
Lahjik

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And you are incorrect in your definition of federalism. Federalism is: "The distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units". It is established in the 10th Amendment by saying "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And it is exactly the ideas of federalism that caused the 1st Amendment to be written as it is.

Try reading it sometime. You would be suprised how few people have.

Just my two cents.

To do so, they are using a new computer language called eXtensible Markup Language, or XML. It is a way of marking up electronic documents with easily understood tags instead of coding dependent on what will some day be obsolete software.

Naturally, NARA's main focus is the archiving of documents that are mainly of historical significance to Americans.

Human reality is socially constructed. That is, most of the "facts" that determine our daily lives are socially constructed facts, which are true as long as enough people believe them to be true. The right to own property, the right to not be murdered, indeed the right to continue to live at all; all of these are socially constructed rights, which are true only as long as enough of us believe in them.

American society has created for itself a Mobius-like reality by privileging capital, or property rights, above all else. This has granted corporations the power to purchase the reality that best suits them, and corporations in turn recreate the reality that privileges money. Communities -- places, real or virtual, where people speak directly to each other, without corporate mediation -- are the only hope we have to reassert control over our own reality, and place it back in the hands of people, instead of the fictional entities we call corporations.

The United States Declaration of Independence reads, in part, as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

"Human rights" are fundamentally a social construct. Your individual right to continue to live is maintained only as long as there is not a more powerful individual or group who wishes to cause your death. Humans have no natural predators -- that is, no species other than humanity itself supports its existence by killing humans.

This puts us in the unusual position of being able to determine a large proportion of "reality" as we experience it. Obviously, if I jump off a tall building, I will likely be killed on impact with the ground, no matter how many people believe I won't be. Reality, and existence, for me, is over. But what this event means to the people who didn't actually jump off the building with me has yet to be constructed. What the majority of others think about this event will determine the socially constructed reality of the event. That is, "what actually happened" is determined by common agreement.

If enough people believe I was pushed off that building, the individual they believe pushed me will go to jail. Buried in that sentence are a whole host of other socially constructed "truths", among which are that pushing someone off a building is murder, that murder is wrong, and that society may physically and behaviorally confine those who commit murder. None of these things are fundamentally "true" to any greater extent than that they are made true by enough people believing in them.

Take a different example. I die of pancreatic cancer. As with the first example, it makes no difference to me whatsoever what caused this event, since I am dead. But again, the larger meaning of this event, the "what actually happened" has yet to be determined, and in this case, it may become a lot more complex. You see, before I died of pancreatic cancer, I was a small farmer in Colorado. To save costs, I accepted cakes of processed sewage sludge from New York City, which I used to fertilize my tree farm. This was legal, because American society, acting through the EPA, has determined that "sludge farming" is an acceptable way to dispose of combined human and industrial wastes, despite the fact that these sludge cakes contain extremely high concentrations of heavy metals, petroleum byproducts, and carcinogenic chemicals.

An autopsy determines that my pancreatic cancer was the result of high concentrations of nickel and lead in my body. The concentrations of nickel and lead in the soil of my farm are hundreds of times the base levels in other soil in the area. It takes little imagination to conclude that my death was a result of the toxic sludge that I've been using to fertilize my farm.

The physical facts of my death are now known. But the social reality of the event still has not been determined. Seeing a potential disaster in the works, SludgeCo, who were my source of toxic farm sludge, will inevitably swing the PR machine into action. Company spokes-people will insist that I chose, of my own free will, to use their safe, inexpensive fertilizer. They will point to other possible explanations of my cancer, and produce "independent" company-paid scientists to cast doubt on the link between heavy metals and cancer. "Grassroots" organizations of farmers, funded by the company, will protest that limiting the flow of cheap SludgeCo fertilizer will harm their ability to compete in the market, and damage the competitiveness of Colorado's agriculture industry.

The point of all this public relations work is to create a socially accepted "reality" which does not make SludgeCo a murderer. This process is the bedrock on which American society creates its reality. Laws are made by representatives. Representatives act based upon what they believe are the opinions of their constituents. Constituents base their beliefs on information provided to them by media, such as television, radio, and newspapers. And at every level of this process, the public relations industry intervenes to create the "reality" that best suits their client.

American society is essentially capitalist. Capital is another one of those social fictions which has effaced its own socially-constructed nature to the point that most people accept it as "real," in and of itself, and beyond their ability to control. Like murder, though, money has no reality beyond that which we collectively grant it. In American capitalism, money is exchangeable for property, and vice versa. The reality of money is founded in our belief that the ownership of property is a fundamental right. Communist revolutions all over the world have proven that individual ownership of property is not a fact of nature, but is a socially constructed reality that holds true only as long as a sufficient number of people believe in it. If a sufficient number of people believe that they own the property you previously considered "yours," then that becomes true.

The base belief in individual ownership of property means that in order to continue to live, each of us must obtain money to purchase the basic things that enable that. That is, I have to get food, and in order to get food away from those who "own" it, I have to give them money. So life, in a capitalist society, is subordinate to property. My life, and yours, is sustained only at the pleasure of a social fiction. Because of our assent to this form of reality, those who hold the most property may dictate the views of the largest number of people, which in turn recreates and reinforces the reality which enables those property-holders to continue to hold property.

There's the rub. The individuals who control the largest amount of property are without exception corporations. Corporations, in the American legal reality, act in a limited sense as individuals. But unlike you or I, whose opinions are not mandated by law (but instead are codified into law), corporations are individuals who must value certain things in order to exist. Public companies must "maximize shareholder value" over all other things, or risk being destroyed by lawsuits. Like humans are biological organisms that must obtain food, water, and air to survive, corporations are social organisms that must obtain money to survive. Corporations live in a completely social reality -- a meta-world which we constructed for them to inhabit. But by making our belief in the right for humans to live subordinate to our belief in the right for humans to own property, we have made our ability to control the existence of corporations weaker than their ability to control us.

Belief in capitalism makes it a fact. Similarly, belief in the right of people to live would also make that a fact. American society privileges the former above the latter. Neither is more "real" than the other, indeed both are completely created and supported by the belief of people. But it will always be in capital's best interest to privilege property rights over any other socially constructed right, and if possible, to elevate that right to the status of "Natural Law" in order to maintain it as firmly as possible. The only way this can be reversed, the only way that people can reassert their control over the reality in which we exist, is by people speaking directly to each other, without capital mediating their voices.

Right now, the "voice of the people" is assumed to be the news media. American media is corporate -- that is, all major organs of media are corporations, without exception. Corporations, as seen above, will always privilege capital over all else, since it is the only way they can continue to exist. Therefore, media is in fact not the voice of the people at all, but the voice of corporate reality. Corporate media speaks to you, not for you, and cannot be trusted to reflect the views of humans. Instead, it is the organ with which corporations will continue to recreate the reality that allows them to exist at our expense.

This, finally, is why community matters. The only potential way out of this mousetrap we've created for ourselves is to actually speak directly to each other. Town meetings, open hearings, internet communities, places where people may actually speak as human individuals to other human individuals; these are the only places that we may examine what we have decided will be our reality, and the only places we may possibly decide to change that reality.

To take one example which is already happening: Peer-to-peer file sharing. The essence of P2P is the fact that large numbers of individuals have decided that their reality does not recognize the so-called "right" for corporations to own the files on their computer. Swapping MP3s, in their view, is not "stealing" because those who share their files don't consider themselves to be gaining or losing property. That is, they are challenging the assumption that music is an object that can be owned, by an artist, a record company, or indeed anyone. The socially constructed nature of this phenomenon is very evident in this case, as the record companies struggle to define file sharing as "piracy," while file-sharers counter that it is "fair use." Both of these terms are social constructs -- one defines the act as "wrong," the other as "acceptable." The battle is over whose reality will ultimately be stronger and become true.

What's striking about this struggle is that it is one of the few open battles directly waged by people against corporations. Few voices in corporate media have come out in defense of file-sharing, while the unfiltered voices of individuals have loudly and repeatedly, if not often eloquently, defended it. This is possibly the first time the internet has served as a means for individuals to attempt to change a basic social reality which was previously held to be unquestionably true.

What other "truths" do we hold to be self-evident? Which of them do we privilege over the lives of other humans, over even our own lives? Which of your opinions determines the reality in which you live, and from where did you derive that opinion? Are we, as a species, satisfied with the reality we've constructed for ourselves? It is only by asking and truthfully answering these questions, like Jefferson did, that we can begin to reassert control over the basic facts of our existence. Community matters because communities are people, and people create reality. What world do you want to create?

• But patenting an invention and making a profit from it are two different things. After considering possible options, Whitney and his business partner, Phineas Miller, opted to produce as many gins as possible, install them throughout Georgia and the South, and charge farmers a fee for doing the ginning for them. Their charge was two-fifths of the profit -- paid to them in cotton itself.

You need a better apples-to-apples comparison before you try to defame Franklin for his choices in not patenting his stove. Whitney did lose his rights to his patent due to problems with patent law at that time; perhaps if he had been a bit more gracious in his marketing of the invention he would have fared better!

A lot of people seem to havea misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights here, so let me try to sort this out. First of all, the Constitution applies (affirmed in Amendment 14) to every citizen in the United States and on every square inch of every US state and territory. The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, ratified December 1791 and taking effect somewhere around 1792.

Now, regarding the statement "The First Amendment doesn't apply to private schools. They can make whatever rules they want.", the point they're trying to get at is correct, but the statement is technically wrong. Let's take a look at the Amendment in question:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment to the Consitution, http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/bil lrights.html

This is where "freedom of speech" come from. Unfortunately, many people seem to think this means "I have the write to say whatever I want, wherever I want!", and this just isn't the case. What the 1st Amendment says (and it's right there in the previous paragraph for anyone who wishes to question it) is that Congress (and the federal government) cannot limit your freedom of speech. It doesn't say that private citizens or organizations cannot restrict your speech on their property or retaliate against you for something you say. For example, if I wrote a Shroom Manefesto (*1) that annoyed a lot of people and I placed it around the Internet, the federal government would have no right to stop me. Slashdot could, however, remove my posting at their will and it would be completely legal. You also have the right to prohibit me from reading it from your front lawn. The Constitution guarentees that I can speak, but not that anyone has to listen. Back to the issue at hand, though. It's not that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply in private schools (I can't reiterate enough times that it in fact does), it's that the 1st Amendment just doesn't give you any protection from private schools for your speech. They're not the government. As long as you're going to their school, they can punish you for pretty much anything they don't like, within the rest of law. In short, the 1st Amendment applies in private schools, it just doesn't protect you from private schools. (*2)

Sorry if that sounded like a lesson in semantics, I didn't intend it to be. It's just that so many people misunderstand the Constitution.

Jeff Sand (Shroom)
shroom@bradley.edu

*1: This assumes that I'm not soliciting violence or something like that. That's not protected the same way as other speech, or so says the Supreme Court.

*2: Not to say that private schools can do anything they want to you for speaking out against them. They can't break your arm or lock you in a room without food or water all day, that would violate several other laws - just not the 1st Amendment

The issue is that in the course of the schools investigation, they found the line about the shotgun, which due to the Perl error, was taken out of context, literally.

Now the police are monitoring this kid saying he is a potential psycho, and don't see this as the stupid programming error it was.

They are giving students more reason to be paranoid, as if anyone needs more of a reason these days.

And actually, this is not really even a first amendment issue either. Perhaps it would be better to take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

From National Archives and Records Administration

Doing this would create an enormous market (the Government buys a bunch of software) for open formats, which would hit Microsoft right in its upgrade-treadmill solar plexus.

Only 47,000 variations on this track, and 2.5 million songs to go.

I guess you've never heard of Soundex hashing. (Of course, PayNapster would use something more advanced, but this illustrates the point.) It would also have the side effect of keeping illegal (under US "derivative work" copyright law) cover songs off PayNapster.

Maybe you read a different post than you replied to, FFFish didn't argue for legitimized theft. He argued for boycotting industries whose behavoir he didn't agree with. Just like you asked. Perhaps you're replying to "The government never gave two shakes about whether you and I swapped software, music or video." Actually, swapping music and video is still (basically) legal. Copyright was never intended to restrict sale, trade, or gifting of materials, but to restrict copying (thus the copy in copyright). Swapping copies is restricted, but he never said he was doing so.

He's not whining that the RIAA, MPAA, and SIIA are "protecting their constitutionally guaranteed right." He's complaining that those organization are trying to pervert the constitution. Copyright was supposed to be granted for a limited time. Thanks to the recent extensions on the terms, I don't anticipate ever seeing the copyright expire on anything created during my lifetime. Or my parents lifetime. I'm pretty sure that's not what our forefathers meant by limited. Thanks to the DMCA, anything on a medium with access controls is effectively protected forever. Maybe I can legally copy it after copyright expires, but I can't legally create or purchase tools to do the copying.

These organizations are attempting to steal our right to resell our copies of music, movies, or software. Our rights to timeshift media, to translate a media's format, to watch media on whatever technology we like.

These organizations aren't protecting their constitutionally guaranteed right. Please, take a look at the constitution. There isn't much in there about rights granted to people or corporations. It's mostly about the rights that the government has. The single, lonely sentence in question simply says "The 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;". Yippee. Congress can choose to create copyright. They did choose to do so. They can just as easily choose to undo it. This isn't a protected right. It's right up there with Congress's power to create a post office system. If you're going to claim that the US was founded on intellectual property, you're also going to have to claim that the US was founded on establishing the USMail.

If you're looking for guaranteed rights for the people, you'll need to take a peek at the amendments. The concept of intellectual property didn't seem to make the list.

Maybe you read a different post than you replied to, FFFish didn't argue for legitimized theft. He argued for boycotting industries whose behavoir he didn't agree with. Just like you asked. Perhaps you're replying to "The government never gave two shakes about whether you and I swapped software, music or video." Actually, swapping music and video is still (basically) legal. Copyright was never intended to restrict sale, trade, or gifting of materials, but to restrict copying (thus the copy in copyright). Swapping copies is restricted, but he never said he was doing so.

He's not whining that the RIAA, MPAA, and SIIA are "protecting their constitutionally guaranteed right." He's complaining that those organization are trying to pervert the constitution. Copyright was supposed to be granted for a limited time. Thanks to the recent extensions on the terms, I don't anticipate ever seeing the copyright expire on anything created during my lifetime. Or my parents lifetime. I'm pretty sure that's not what our forefathers meant by limited. Thanks to the DMCA, anything on a medium with access controls is effectively protected forever. Maybe I can legally copy it after copyright expires, but I can't legally create or purchase tools to do the copying.

These organizations are attempting to steal our right to resell our copies of music, movies, or software. Our rights to timeshift media, to translate a media's format, to watch media on whatever technology we like.

These organizations aren't protecting their constitutionally guaranteed right. Please, take a look at the constitution. There isn't much in there about rights granted to people or corporations. It's mostly about the rights that the government has. The single, lonely sentence in question simply says "The 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;". Yippee. Congress can choose to create copyright. They did choose to do so. They can just as easily choose to undo it. This isn't a protected right. It's right up there with Congress's power to create a post office system. If you're going to claim that the US was founded on intellectual property, you're also going to have to claim that the US was founded on establishing the USMail.

If you're looking for guaranteed rights for the people, you'll need to take a peek at the amendments. The concept of intellectual property didn't seem to make the list.

>> I've said it before and I'll say it again, all coders should get out of the states

>Do you mean the uSA or the U.S. ?

>Yes, uSA is spelt right, and there IS a difference.

>The preamble:

>The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

>And the last paragraph:

>We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America

>Do not just take my word for it, but please read it for yourself: Declaration of Independance (http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/d eclaration.html)

The Declaration is not the founding document of the federal government, Constitution (http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/ constitution.html) is, and it capitalizes "United." Additionally, it begins "We the People of the United States," rather than "We the States." Granted, the government layed out in the Constitution is more or less a federation of individual states (which I believe is the point you were making with your uSA capitalization,) subsequent amendments have made clear that we are not a pure federation of states, but also a nation of people with rights and priveledges that can not be withdrawn by the states (well, unless they're fighting a "War on Drugs." Or the corporations pay enough politicians off. Or the particular withdrawel of a right or proviledge is something that might win a few votes for some politician.)

My main beef with many States' rights advocates is that, while superficially they talk about getting an intrusive federal government off of the backs of the people, what they really seem to mean is that they are against the federal government intervening with a state or local government's intrusiveness. I'm not accusing you of this, just noting my own experience with others.

To answer the original question (and to make some attempt to get back on topic,) If I were inclined to leave the U.S., I'd probably move to Holland given their history of tolerance. But I'm not giving up on the U.S.A. (or the u.S.A. if you prefer,) yet.

Cheers,
Craig

--

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America

Their search engine for the nail database is awesome too.

tcd004
Janet RenoMargolis

Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Actually, I would argue that this amendment from the Bill of Rights clearly supports the states' rights line of reasoning. I definitely agree with you that states' rights have, historically, been used as a support for some extremely nasty things. On the other hand, the framers of the Constitution also wanted to avoid giving too much power to the federal government.

Authentication Issues
Passwords are one of the flimsiest forms available. At least with a signature there is a little real-time originality. It seems to me it is necessary that people shuld still physically visit the polls:
1. There is the opportunity to eye-witness the actions of the voter as (s)he presents ID, signs hte book, and proceeds to the booth.
2. There is no question as to what transpired at the poll, whereas a vote from the privacy of your own home invites the danger of mistakes (or accusations of mistakes) where no eye witnesses can verify anything.
3. Issues of equipment failure, verification of choices, answers for questions, are all kept public. Likewise, any imposters or similar frauds would have played out their actions before witnesses, making detection and reaction easier.

Computers used Right
1. Photo-confirmation of the Presidential-pick is a great idea. Those punchholes in Palm Beach couldn't be an issue, even if the choices exceed the ten that Florida dealt with.
2. Weighted Votes would be great: Rank the picks from top to bottom. The Computer could summarize your top pick, but also distribute the weighted results of the popular vote (i.e. Checking Nader, then Gore, then telling the others to smegg off). ;-)
3. We could view the web results not only by county, but by district. If a district htinks they have been misrepresented, they could check with their neighbors and contest the results.

That last one has a funny tie-in with this Florida thang... Even though two-thirds of America would like to disban the Electoral College, it was the very thing that drew the attention to Florida's irregularities. Ironic. Yet, we can only guess how much of this goes on in the other 49 states and D.C.

Judging from this, it's not clear that Congress is even authorized to grant copyright protection to music or other fine arts.

Let's say it all together, people...
...Fuzzy Math Sucks!
Let's ban the Electoral College!

I think that we're watching intently, not because the actual candidates are in any way interesting, but because it's a morbid fascination to watch the electoral system on its death throwes. According to a poll today on the Election 2000 news site and also the Electoral College FAQ, more than Two Thirds of America want the Electoral College banned from the Constitution, and have so since at least the 1960's!

I hate to defend this process in any way, but fact is stranger than fiction: It was the Electoral College that led us to discover the level of irregluarity in just on state due to the focus of an entire nation on this outcome. If we went solely by popular vote, we may have heard just as little of these scandals as we have from the other 49 states combined! =-O

There's no federal law requiring them to go with the popular vote, but does anyone know whether Florida has laws requiring this? See answers to the questions Are electors required to vote for the candidate who won his or her State's popular vote? and What would happen if two candidates tied in a State's popular vote, or there was a dispute as to the winner? in the FAQ on the Electoral College section of the National Archives web site.

There's no federal law requiring them to go with the popular vote, but does anyone know whether Florida has laws requiring this? See answers to the questions Are electors required to vote for the candidate who won his or her State's popular vote? and What would happen if two candidates tied in a State's popular vote, or there was a dispute as to the winner? in the FAQ on the Electoral College section of the National Archives web site.

Actually, they get 3, the same as the least populous state. See the complete list here.

According to A PROCEDURAL GUIDE TO THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE prepared by The Office of the Federal Register, "No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their State."

"most" was an overstatement but the sentiment is correct: 24 states require that the elector vote as they were elected.

According to the Electoral College FAQ, there have been 700 proposed changes to the Electoral College and not one has been implemented. It would require a 2/3 majority in US Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the States to amend the US Constitution to 'do away with' the Electoral College. It hasn't been changed for 224 years and it probably won't in the next 224 years.

"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."

Another interesting note is that Maine and Nebraska specifically allow for proportional casting of electoral ballots. Theoretically, the election results could change between now and January 6, when the electoral votes are actually counted.

See http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/faq.html for more details.

The first time they posted the results as 100%, Bush led by 1,210 votes and at the bottom it said "Runoff Election Indicated" (I saved the page, as of about 3AM).

Now I've reloaded the official results p age again at 6AM. It's still 100% reporting. Here Bush leads by 791 votes. But more interesting (to me) is that the "Runoff Election Indicated" sentence now says:

"Recount Indicated"

So this obviously means that they're gonna do a recount. But if the recount is unsatisfactory or still very close, is there a provision within national or state (Florida) statutes to have a runoff election?

Ah, someone just sent me this link from the National Archives with the following information:

What would happen if two candidates tied in a State's popular vote, or there was a dispute as to the winner?

A tie is a statistically remote possibility even in smaller States. But if a State's popular vote were to come out as a tie between candidates, State law would govern as to what procedure would be followed in breaking the tie. A tie would not be known of until late November or early December, after a recount and after the Secretary of State had certified the election results. Federal law would allow a State to hold a run-off election.

A very close finish could also result in a run-off election or legal action to decide the winner. Under Federal law (3 U.S.C. section 5), State law governs on this issue, and would be conclusive in determining the selection of Electors. The law provides that if States have laws to determine controversies or contests as to the selection of Electors, those determinations must be completed six days prior to the day the Electors meet.

So did the appearance of "Runoff Election Indicated" on the official Fl. Secretary of State website indicate a possible runoff? Is this allowable under Florida statutes (btw, I'm browsing through them now but can't find any pertinent information. But I don't think my brain can handle legislative jargon at 6:20am.

But if there's nothing that doesn't allow it, I think it's very possible that Florida might have a run-off election, possibly between just Gore and Bush.

Which means no Nader.

Interesting.......

Well, there are two states that don't follow a winner-takes-all approach to the assignment of electoral votes, so your example also depends on what happens in those two states (Nebraska and Maine).

It's not like they wouldn't pick a winner in the above scenario:

"In the absence of a majority of electoral votes for president, the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES proceeds quickly to elect by ballot from the three candidates standing highest in electoral votes. Each state has only one vote, cast as a majority of its representatives determines, and a majority of all the states is necessary for election. For vice president, if a majority is lacking in the electoral college, the Senate elects from the two highest candidates. A majority vote is necessary for election."

Or, read the relevant federal commentary at NARA's electoral college site.

Nader could conceivably (its possible, though highly unprobable) become president if he managed to prevent either candidate from garnering a majority of electoral ballots.

Still, it would be a giggle-worthy situation all-around.

Well, there are two states that don't follow a winner-takes-all approach to the assignment of electoral votes, so your example also depends on what happens in those two states (Nebraska and Maine).

It's not like they wouldn't pick a winner in the above scenario:

"In the absence of a majority of electoral votes for president, the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES proceeds quickly to elect by ballot from the three candidates standing highest in electoral votes. Each state has only one vote, cast as a majority of its representatives determines, and a majority of all the states is necessary for election. For vice president, if a majority is lacking in the electoral college, the Senate elects from the two highest candidates. A majority vote is necessary for election."

Or, read the relevant federal commentary at NARA's electoral college site.

Nader could conceivably (its possible, though highly unprobable) become president if he managed to prevent either candidate from garnering a majority of electoral ballots.

Still, it would be a giggle-worthy situation all-around.

Well, there are two states that don't follow a winner-takes-all approach to the assignment of electoral votes, so your example also depends on what happens in those two states (Nebraska and Maine).

It's not like they wouldn't pick a winner in the above scenario:

"In the absence of a majority of electoral votes for president, the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES proceeds quickly to elect by ballot from the three candidates standing highest in electoral votes. Each state has only one vote, cast as a majority of its representatives determines, and a majority of all the states is necessary for election. For vice president, if a majority is lacking in the electoral college, the Senate elects from the two highest candidates. A majority vote is necessary for election."

Or, read the relevant federal commentary at NARA's electoral college site.

Nader could conceivably (its possible, though highly unprobable) become president if he managed to prevent either candidate from garnering a majority of electoral ballots.

Still, it would be a giggle-worthy situation all-around.

Given such a broken electoral system, I see nothing morally wrong with voting tactically.

The system is "broken" only from the perspective of one unaccepting of the electoral college -- you may disagree with the system as currently configured, but it works as designed (more or less).

I find it amazing that so many people fault the electoral college on the basis of a "what if" that has happened only once (iirc) in American history. Should such concern be so great, people ought to push more strenuously for Constitutional reform through or around Congress to eliminate the electoral college.

What's everyone waiting for?

(Informing and venting at the same time, please read gently)

Folks, those of us that vote in Tennessee (and KY, OH, TX, perhaps others?) have been able to vote for a couple of weeks now. I voted on 21 October 2000 and still had to wait in a couple of lines even that early. Relatives that voted a week later (still back in October), had no waiting. I first voted this way 4 years ago and would never trade the convenience and SANITY of this method.

BTW, I am not speaking of mail-in voting, we setup electronic machines in easy to get to places, I voted in a mall on a Saturday.

If the "mainstream press" were really interested if that boy from Washington, DC (Al Gore) is winning the State of TN then they should have been doing exit polling for a couple of weeks, not waiting until the last 150 people finally get to the voting places on the last day.

Actually, if /. was interested in early voting they would have posted one of the stories I submitted about early voting (not complaining, just stating). Hell, for all I know this will be the least read comment on this topic. However, people in the DC/NoVA area, where I work, seem to be fascinated with this "advanced technology" and that it is somehow "not right".

If the States out on the west coast would adopt a system like TN, KY, OH, TX then they could stop whining about the election being "over" before they voted. Well, probably would not stop the whining, but they would have had an opportunity to vote their choice long before Dixville Notch, N.H. counts its votes early "election day" morning.

If other States would adopt proportional voting like Maine and Nebraska, then folks can stop whining about the electoral college too. Check Electoral College Homepage for real info on how it works, instead of listening to reporters and victims of public education that post here. The EC is NOT "winner take all" by any means.

Please check the http://www.2600.com for their polling results, then look at the current cover. I love the mag as well as the bias, that I do not always share, especially in this case.

Anyway, I voted last month and if Albert Gore Jr. wins the State of TN, it certainly will not be my fault. I want to see his face as he is counting the votes in January (if this sounds like a clueless statement, please check that EC link and refresh your knowledge of how this process works).

Hell, you would probably want to see mine if I am completely wrong about the outcome of this election, LOL!

Visit DC2600

4) electoral reform
by carleton

Response from a back room Republicrat lacky that can read and browse the web, to be fired from the campaign for failing to obfuscate the issue.

First of all, the way those votes are cast is NOT a federal issue, it is a State issue. The Constitution leaves the procedure of casting the electorial college votes to the States. See The Electorial College Homepage for detailed info like this:

Procedures
The States

The United States Constitution and Federal law place certain responsibilities relating to the Presidential election upon State executives and the electors for President and Vice President. Neither the Constitution nor Federal law prescribe the manner in which each State appoints its electors other than directing that they be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 7, 2000). The Constitution forbids a Senator, Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States from being appointed as an elector.

There is plenty of information on that site that, apparently, nobody that discusses this topic bothers to learn.

For one thing, it is Maine and Nebraska that have proportional electors, sort of. They have 2 electors that are elected "a large" and all other electors are elected by congressional district.

If you want it to be changed, lobby your own State legeslatures and skip the Constitutional Ammendment nonsense.

Also, the current system is the closest mechanism that would allow a less "popular" candidate to be elected. Since so many of the electors are bound by nothing but their own concience (some States do have penalties and/or other safeguards for electors that do not vote as they were pleged to do), they *could* elect someone that is not the winner of the popular vote. That has happened at least once.

Note: The only "electorial college" electors that meet in Washington, DC, are the electors from DC (per Amendment XXIII, currently 3), the rest meet in thier respective States and their ballots are counted by the President of the Senate (currently Albert Gore, Jr.) in December.

Another related non-issue: Calafornia hears the "winner" long before their polls are closed.

OK, west coast, do what TN, OH and KY do, open your polls 15 days early, let people vote at the mall, use a nice laid back easy system and then all you need to do is count votes on "election day" since everybody had plenty of time to vote already. Or you could encourage absantee balloting, like Washington State and keep the east coast in the dark as the snail-mail dribbles in for the count.

Either way, the States have the power. Leave the Constitution alone please.

Visit DC2600

4) electoral reform
by carleton

Response from a back room Republicrat lacky that can read and browse the web, to be fired from the campaign for failing to obfuscate the issue.

First of all, the way those votes are cast is NOT a federal issue, it is a State issue. The Constitution leaves the procedure of casting the electorial college votes to the States. See The Electorial College Homepage for detailed info like this:

Procedures
The States

The United States Constitution and Federal law place certain responsibilities relating to the Presidential election upon State executives and the electors for President and Vice President. Neither the Constitution nor Federal law prescribe the manner in which each State appoints its electors other than directing that they be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 7, 2000). The Constitution forbids a Senator, Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States from being appointed as an elector.

There is plenty of information on that site that, apparently, nobody that discusses this topic bothers to learn.

For one thing, it is Maine and Nebraska that have proportional electors, sort of. They have 2 electors that are elected "a large" and all other electors are elected by congressional district.

If you want it to be changed, lobby your own State legeslatures and skip the Constitutional Ammendment nonsense.

Also, the current system is the closest mechanism that would allow a less "popular" candidate to be elected. Since so many of the electors are bound by nothing but their own concience (some States do have penalties and/or other safeguards for electors that do not vote as they were pleged to do), they *could* elect someone that is not the winner of the popular vote. That has happened at least once.

Note: The only "electorial college" electors that meet in Washington, DC, are the electors from DC (per Amendment XXIII, currently 3), the rest meet in thier respective States and their ballots are counted by the President of the Senate (currently Albert Gore, Jr.) in December.

Another related non-issue: Calafornia hears the "winner" long before their polls are closed.

OK, west coast, do what TN, OH and KY do, open your polls 15 days early, let people vote at the mall, use a nice laid back easy system and then all you need to do is count votes on "election day" since everybody had plenty of time to vote already. Or you could encourage absantee balloting, like Washington State and keep the east coast in the dark as the snail-mail dribbles in for the count.

Either way, the States have the power. Leave the Constitution alone please.

Visit DC2600

1) The Electoral College is a throwback to a form of representative democracy born in an era when direct democracy was not technologically feasible. The notion that a person whom the majority of Americans hate could still become President because he won in three states should be quite troubling.

Perhaps you should read some of the comments from other posters as well as this: Electorial College Homepage. If what you suppose were really true then one of these guys that the other /.ers like so much might have a chance at winning. Yes, there have been instances where a less popular candidate won, please look into those circumstances on your own.

For one thing, the States determine the way their votes are cast, not the feds (feds only determine the number of votes per State). Every State could have a proportional system like Nebraska or Maine. If you don't live in those 2 states then I suggest you lobby your own State Legeslature and leave the Constitution alone please. It is your State government that is broken, not our Constitution.

I have never seen anything supporting the notion that the electorial college system was created because votes could not be counted fast enough or that the Founding Fathers actually wanted anything besides a Republic. If there is some actual discourse amoung the founding fathers about this then please let the rest of us know. Until then, please let this myth die along with that myth that Ammendment II has anything at all to do with hunting.


2) The Bill of Rights is in serious need of revision. Does anybody even pay any attention to the ninth and tenth amendments?

That would be these? IX and X

Another poster mentioned the Supreme Court knocks down the legeslative and executive branch with those 2 Ammendments whenever it can. It would be nice if this happened much more often, but it does happen.

I did not miss your comment on Ammendment III, but if you do not see the importance of that already then you never will.

Visit DC2600

The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the generalelection. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.

Don't tread on me!

You wouldn't believe how hard they have to work. The last movie my uncle saw in a movie theater was the origional star wars, in the late 70's. He's just that busy.

Oh please.

Why is government so different? We have a set of things we're given for our money. Its not like the government is turning a profit. They're in debt, remember?

My response to this astoundingly naive statement:

First, please read article 1, section 8 and the tenth amendment of the Constitution and then tell me if you believe the federal government can legally run Medicare and Social Security. The Constitution tells the government what it may legally take money from the people to do. Yes, building roads and providing for the defense of our country our in there. Most of the things you think are so great are not. The government is in debt because Congressmen just can't resist spending money on unconstitutional projects to pander to their electorate and hold on to their power.

You wouldn't believe how hard they have to work. The last movie my uncle saw in a movie theater was the origional star wars, in the late 70's. He's just that busy.

Oh please.

Why is government so different? We have a set of things we're given for our money. Its not like the government is turning a profit. They're in debt, remember?

My response to this astoundingly naive statement:

First, please read article 1, section 8 and the tenth amendment of the Constitution and then tell me if you believe the federal government can legally run Medicare and Social Security. The Constitution tells the government what it may legally take money from the people to do. Yes, building roads and providing for the defense of our country our in there. Most of the things you think are so great are not. The government is in debt because Congressmen just can't resist spending money on unconstitutional projects to pander to their electorate and hold on to their power.

Hmm. 1824, 1876, and 1888 are mentioned as examples of when this happened. It also gives a good explanation of how and why it happens.

-E

No. None of them do that. You are probably thinking of Maine and Nebraska. They use winner-take-all by the whole state to determine the two electors corresponding to their Senators. They then use winner-take-all within each Congressional district to determine each elector corrsponding to a Representative. This does allow for a split in the state's electoral votes, but it doesn't match the popular vote.

See here for more information.

The electoral college website

Actually due to something called The Electoral College your vote does not matter. You do not elect the president.
From the FAQ "Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes. It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely."

I want someone to give me a good reason why I should vote for the president. As long as we have The Electoral College I will not vote for president.

Actually due to something called The Electoral College your vote does not matter. You do not elect the president.
From the FAQ "Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes. It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely."

I want someone to give me a good reason why I should vote for the president. As long as we have The Electoral College I will not vote for president.

"Contrary to what people think, even though corporations influence politicians, the vote still counts (because that's how the prez gets elected, go figure), so they still pay a lot of attention to what the public considers acceptable. "
Actually due to something called The Electoral College your vote does not matter. You do not elect the president.
From the FAQ "Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes. It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely."

Now isn't that just special.

stores that ask to see your bags or hold them etc are attempting what amounts to illegal search and seizure

*sigh* When are people going to learn? The Bill of Rights and similar documents restrict what the government can do, not private entities like people and corporations. Ever notice how the Bill of Rights uses the phrase "Congress shall make no law" a lot? That's right, it prevents Congress from passing laws. It does not say one damn thing about what I'm allowed to do to you.

If I'm a store owner, I can make it a condition that, in order to enter my store -- which is my own property -- you have to submit yourself to search. You are in no way obligated to submit yourself to said search, but I am also in no way obligated to serve you. It's my store; I can tell you to get out if I want.

(Now, you could make the case that, since you never signed a contract, I cannot hold you to the agreement, but you would have to bring it before a court of law claiming damages or something. Hardly worth the effort. Just go to another store.)

Based upon the Magna Carta? (Coincidentally, I just got a letter with a 5 Magna Carta stamp on it) Looks like it's in there, sort of...


--
Chief Frog Inspector

If the RIAA can violate your rights in order to make a buck, they will (and are) do(ing) so without flinching.

This basically all stems back to the fact that most people don't vote. The election is so close right now that if even half of the students at my college voted, the election could be swayed.

I went out and registered the minute I turned 18, not because I felt it was my duty as an American or because I felt the need to flex my newfound Major muscles. I registered because I wanted my voice to be heard.

As a friend of mine once said:
"By definition if you don't stand up for anything, you stand for nothing"