Slashdot Mirror

I'd argue that there are plenty of voters who actually like their candidates, but the 'no one really' comment is merely an exaggeration - Obama, Bush, and Clinton weren't elected because 51% of the population thought he was the best candidate. Realistically, a statistically insignificant number of people is going to believe that their candidate is the 'most optimal choice', but a lot of people are voting for somebody they agree with barely half the time because they perceive the other guy as being even worse.

So when somebody goes to the polls and pulls the lever for Romney when they'd really prefer Ron Paul, they're voting for the 'least worst' candidate they think has a chance.

As a 'moderate libertarian', I'm the type where in preference polls I tend to hit about 40% for both candidates... Huh, this is new, in the 'selectsmart' test I scored 52% for Obama, 39% for Romney. I'll note that in previous tests I normally agreed with Ron Paul(48%) the most. Eh, I had been leaning Obama recently anyways, in the sense that I've seen nothing that suggests Romney would 'do better'.

2nd Opinion: 75% Ron Paul, 60% Obama, 51% Romney.

Given those results, I'd say that a candidate I could vote for without 'holding my nose' would have to at least be in the 70-80% range, average. I say this because Ron Paul is still hold the nose at 62%. Obama(57) clearly leads Romney(45), but not overwhelmingly.

Bingo. I think that rather than having a short televised debate, they should pre-record it and let the debate run for hours or even days. No question would go unasked to each candidate. Let candidates take as much time as they need to answer the questions (within reason). Then post the whole thing online in segments so that anyone can watch any part of it, random-access style. For example, if you wanted to know more about a candidate, you could watch a video that combines all of the segments where he or she speaks. If the debate took a day, there would be a good couple hours of the person explaining their views and qualifications. That would help to prevent all the canned responses and "me too" answers. Having each response in its own segment would allow the website to allow the viewer to enjoy the debate in as short or as long of a format as they desire. I think we really need something like this to expose the candidates that are unfit for command.

Unrelated, but... Check out this presidential selector... It asks for your views and opinions and it tells you which presidential candidates are the closest match.

By the way, http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html is a great resource for checking whether you're overlooking someone, or thinking too highly of someone who doesn't really fit your beliefs. I don't think most people realize how far to the left Edward's stated positions actually are. He's not moderate.

How is this something new? These sorts of quizes are all over livejournal already. http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client= serialkillers

My survey (>1000 participants over 3 years) says about 35% of people are racial bigots or straight up racist. So it's a fair guess that there's plenty enough racism to go around in IT - even though IT employees tend to be younger and smarter than average. There will continue to be until there's a political showdown. But that's a showdown nobody really wants to happen, which illustrates the greatness of MLK. He wasn't afraid of a showdown, no matter what the cost. Most people would just rather avoid conflict. http://selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=race man I would also like to add that if IT people weren't mushroomed, there would be a lot fewer Indians, Chinese and Russians working. If you look at the *real* software industry where salesmen from Oracle, SAP, Peoplesoft and Siebel are making million dollar deals you'll find almost zero Asians. Blacks do better in sales than folks with accents and hard-to-pronounce names in English. Indians who succeed in front office and f2f IT and software businesses change or shorten their last names.

My survey (>1000 participants over 3 years) says about 35% of people are racial bigots or straight up racist. So it's a fair guess that there's plenty enough racism to go around in IT - even though IT employees tend to be younger and smarter than average. There will continue to be until there's a political showdown. But that's a showdown nobody really wants to happen, which illustrates the greatness of MLK. He wasn't afraid of a showdown, no matter what the cost. Most people would just rather avoid conflict. http://selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=race man I would also like to add that if IT people weren't mushroomed, there would be a lot fewer Indians, Chinese and Russians working. If you look at the *real* software industry where salesmen from Oracle, SAP, Peoplesoft and Siebel are making million dollar deals you'll find almost zero Asians. Blacks do better in sales than folks with accents and hard-to-pronounce names in English. Indians who succeed in front office and f2f IT and software businesses change or shorten their last names.

I found this page very interesting - http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/who.php. They compiled a list based on everyone's responses what the idea candidate for everyone would be. I was surprised to see the results.

Winners of the presidential selector race:
36% Cobb, David - Green Party
31% Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat
18% Bush, President George W. - Republican
6% Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian
3% Brown, Walt - Socialist Party
2% Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat
2% Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat
1% Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat
1% Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat
0% Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat
0% Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat
0% Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat
0% Nader, Ralph - Independent
0% Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party
0% Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat
0% LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat
0% ideal theoretical candidate.

According to this, it would be in America's best interest if David Cobb were president. We are being shafted, because I can't honestly say I've heard his name once on TV. I was also intersted to find that he got a 68% on my matchup, ranking in at #2 behind Badnarik (who got 69%). Nobody passed the 70% mark. After reading Cobb's positions, I want to vote for this guy, but I live in NH and its going to be a damned close battle. Kerry got a 46%, which I guess is close enough. If this was not a vote for my country's future, I'd vote Green. Unfortunatly, I have to vote for the viable candidate, Kerry. In 2008 I'll vote my heart.

This page was also interesting. 63% of Americans feel we must have a balanced budget, 80% support universal health care, 58% agree with the ACLU, and 54% agree with the League of Conservation Voters. I rarely *ever* hear CNN/FOX/ABC/NBC talk about these issues, yet they are of high importance to most Americans. That goes to show you just how poor quality broadcast journalism has become in this country.

I found this page very interesting - http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/who.php. They compiled a list based on everyone's responses what the idea candidate for everyone would be. I was surprised to see the results.

Winners of the presidential selector race:
36% Cobb, David - Green Party
31% Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat
18% Bush, President George W. - Republican
6% Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian
3% Brown, Walt - Socialist Party
2% Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat
2% Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat
1% Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat
1% Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat
0% Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat
0% Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat
0% Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat
0% Nader, Ralph - Independent
0% Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party
0% Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat
0% LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat
0% ideal theoretical candidate.

According to this, it would be in America's best interest if David Cobb were president. We are being shafted, because I can't honestly say I've heard his name once on TV. I was also intersted to find that he got a 68% on my matchup, ranking in at #2 behind Badnarik (who got 69%). Nobody passed the 70% mark. After reading Cobb's positions, I want to vote for this guy, but I live in NH and its going to be a damned close battle. Kerry got a 46%, which I guess is close enough. If this was not a vote for my country's future, I'd vote Green. Unfortunatly, I have to vote for the viable candidate, Kerry. In 2008 I'll vote my heart.

This page was also interesting. 63% of Americans feel we must have a balanced budget, 80% support universal health care, 58% agree with the ACLU, and 54% agree with the League of Conservation Voters. I rarely *ever* hear CNN/FOX/ABC/NBC talk about these issues, yet they are of high importance to most Americans. That goes to show you just how poor quality broadcast journalism has become in this country.

I found this page very interesting - http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/who.php. They compiled a list based on everyone's responses what the idea candidate for everyone would be. I was surprised to see the results.

Winners of the presidential selector race:
36% Cobb, David - Green Party
31% Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat
18% Bush, President George W. - Republican
6% Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian
3% Brown, Walt - Socialist Party
2% Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat
2% Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat
1% Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat
1% Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat
0% Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat
0% Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat
0% Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat
0% Nader, Ralph - Independent
0% Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party
0% Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat
0% LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat
0% ideal theoretical candidate.

According to this, it would be in America's best interest if David Cobb were president. We are being shafted, because I can't honestly say I've heard his name once on TV. I was also intersted to find that he got a 68% on my matchup, ranking in at #2 behind Badnarik (who got 69%). Nobody passed the 70% mark. After reading Cobb's positions, I want to vote for this guy, but I live in NH and its going to be a damned close battle. Kerry got a 46%, which I guess is close enough. If this was not a vote for my country's future, I'd vote Green. Unfortunatly, I have to vote for the viable candidate, Kerry. In 2008 I'll vote my heart.

This page was also interesting. 63% of Americans feel we must have a balanced budget, 80% support universal health care, 58% agree with the ACLU, and 54% agree with the League of Conservation Voters. I rarely *ever* hear CNN/FOX/ABC/NBC talk about these issues, yet they are of high importance to most Americans. That goes to show you just how poor quality broadcast journalism has become in this country.

I doubt that the LP gains many converts from the Democrats.

I've never voted for a Republican for President. I have voted for a Democrat. I'm about to vote for a Democrat for US Senate (Feingold). In fact, I've rarely voted for any Republican. I will most likely be voting for Badnarik for President.

A friend at work just took the SelectSmart test -- Badnarik was the first candidate on his list, the rest were Democrats until Bush showed up in position 17.

The only polling data I've seen on the subject of who Libertarian voters would otherwise cast their votes for indicates that Democrats and Republicans fair equally well (at 30%).

Here is a list of political quizzes, to help you determine where you really stand. Most of these are sponsored by libertarian groups.

• World's Smallest Political Quiz
• Should you vote Libertarian?
• The Enhanced-Precision Political Quiz
• Libertarian Purity Test
• The Political Compass

This quote (from The Political Compass FAQ) is instructive.

"Some of the questions are slanted

Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.

Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.

A good website to check out is selectsmart.com. It tells you candidate who best represents you. It told me stuff I value lends itself well to the democratic party, as the top three recommendations for me were democrats.

Since the "Neo-Conservatives" (read: Bushite big military-indusrial complex goons) have co-opted true conservativism, it does get confusing. Nowadays, the old conservative view you are talking about is called "paleo-conservative."

You may find useful this article that offers nicely simplified definitions of the various political belief systems:

And even better, if you are curious about where you stand, try this Ideology Selector that gives you feedback about how well your views "fit" with each of the wide range of political beliefs discussed:

It is a very well done test. I've taken it and recommended it to many of my friends, and it has been very accurate with its picks.

The test asks you "Yes/No/Not Sure" questions like:
Do you support NAFTA? Should immigration into the US be greatly reduced? Do you support state lotteries as a means of raising revenue? ETC...
And then asks: "What priority do you place on your selection?" (High/Medium/Low) to balance the test even better.

I was surprised to see that I had a strong paleo-conservative leaning, even though it ranked me most likely to be paleo-libertarian. (Which I believe is very accurate. I am signed up for the Free State Project if that gives you a hint about my views.)

Give it a try. It can be a real eye-opener... (Especially to find out what your friends and family think!)

On another note, take this quiz. be sure to sure to uncheck

17. who have not yet announced their intention to run for President.

to find your disposition.

Well, i'm pretty sure this site must have a political agenda leaning to the left. I mean c'mon... under Bush's bio, this is what's listed for his foreign policy:
"Foreign Affairs: Has asked for a received Congressional backing to attack Iraq. " Compared to a 15 line paragraph about John Kerry's foreign policy.bio Where is Bush's position on Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, North Korea, etc etc? The guy is the freaking president, and all we get is "Has asked for a received Congressional backing to attack Iraq."?? Someone is very selective about what they choose to hear on the news, and that someone is the webmaster of this joke of a website.

I would also question the way certain questions are posed... there's a lot of rhetorical bull$hit going on here. Don't even try to convince me this is some kind of nonpartisan "let me help you decide who to vote for" public service. Propaganda Propaganda Propaganda!!

Broken promises don't upset me. I just think, why did they believe me? - Jack Handey

Well, i'm pretty sure this site must have a political agenda leaning to the left. I mean c'mon... under Bush's bio, this is what's listed for his foreign policy:
"Foreign Affairs: Has asked for a received Congressional backing to attack Iraq. " Compared to a 15 line paragraph about John Kerry's foreign policy.bio Where is Bush's position on Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, North Korea, etc etc? The guy is the freaking president, and all we get is "Has asked for a received Congressional backing to attack Iraq."?? Someone is very selective about what they choose to hear on the news, and that someone is the webmaster of this joke of a website.

I would also question the way certain questions are posed... there's a lot of rhetorical bull$hit going on here. Don't even try to convince me this is some kind of nonpartisan "let me help you decide who to vote for" public service. Propaganda Propaganda Propaganda!!

Broken promises don't upset me. I just think, why did they believe me? - Jack Handey

No offense, but is it really that hard to provide a link?

death please. oh, sorry i meant cake. thank goodness you are the church of england. :)

Keep pressing this to individuals you talk to. Suggest they try SelectSmart's Presidential selector to see how their opinions match with the candidates. So far, NONE of the people I've gotten to actually try it got either Gore or Bush in their top choices. If nothing else, it encourages them to click on the name that comes up first.

Second, stress that this is NOT a ball game. Winning at any cost is too expensive. Doing anything to make the "other guy" lose, makes us the losers. Only by voting our conscience will we get a government with a conscience. Personally, I think Browne presents the best message a citizen can send to Washington: Do your job and let us live our lives. But I don't want anyone to vote for him because I think he's best. I'd rather see everyone vote for who they believed would be best for the country. Explain that it's kind of like "Poll the audience." Who knows, it just might work...

Slashdot could work to change this... in a big way. If we unite as a force of change, it may be possible to introduce some diversity into the presidential race. Slashdot as a whole should endorse a candidate (decided by the slashdot poll), which everyone on Slashdot will work to get elected. Obviously we would become one of those special interest groups, but one which is composed of individuals who all have a say in the collective policies that we support.

Slashdot polls on all the major issues, and with our sheer numbers, we would be able to influence the campaign platform of our selected candidate. I put forward the name of Ralph Nader only because he happens to be the candidate that I support, but it could just as easily be David McReynolds, or anyone, other than Bush or Gore.

The best way to determine who your views are most in line with is at the Presidential Candidate Selector: http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/

Ralph Nader is here, and David McReynolds is here

Here's what select smart gave me (I was planning to vote for Bradley anyways):
81 Bill Bradley
69 David McReynolds
62 Ralph Nader
42 Donald Trump
39 John S. McCain
36 Warren Beatty

I'm somewhat between the Green Party, Socialist Party, and Democrats (Libertarians sometimes as well), but Bradley is really my top choice. More federalized education, GOOD health care for all. Ideally I want someone who's against patents, and who thinks Big Business is inherently evil.. and being a big Dune fan wouldn't hurt either.. eh.. I can hope/wish.

These sites show where the candidates stand on the issues: www.issues2000.org and www.selectsmart.com.

I went through the candidate selector thingie, too, just for giggles. Very interesting.

It leads me to wonder if a "geek platform" could exist at all. The original commenter said he might be in favor of supporting McReynolds. Now, granted, there weren't many questions that directly related to "geek issues", but on my results McReynolds was #16...dead last with a score of 3 (out of 100 I guess). (If you're curious, Howard Philips, whom I've never heard of, was at the top.)

This leads to believe (albeit scant evidence) that "geek issues" aren't a unifying force in the community. Other things are more important to us. Patent laws and such are rather nebulous. We want to know what the candidate thinks about things that affect us directly and daily. Now if a question regarding privacy was on that quiz, it would be more telling. The average joe would have an opinion, and it's something that geeks tend to be well-informed (and often opinionated) about.

What do you think? What questions would you add to that quiz, to possibly make it more geek-relevant?

The current Slashdot Poll is getting stale anyway. Why not make the 2000 election the next poll. Take the complete list of candidates from the candidate selector and see who we say we'd vote for. CmdrTaco, Hemos, are you listening?

• Pro-abortion-rights
• Pro-gay
• Pro-gun
• Pro-environment (duh)
• Pro-education-reform, including vouchers apparently
• Anti-WTO/GATT
• Pro-Linux (ok, this isn't on the website, but we know this about Nader from his recent comments.)

Frankly, the more I think about the alternatives, the more strongly I support Nader for President. He might not win, but fsckit, the idea is to vote for the (wo)man you want to be President, not necessarily for the winner.

People assume that one of the Big Two parties is going to win anyway, and voting for a third party is a waste of a vote. But what if everyone stood back for a second and voted *not* for the most likely candidate, but for the candidate that seemed most likely to be the right person for the job? What if we voted as individuals, not as a pack? Maybe we'd end up with 40 candidates and none get over 10% of the vote. Maybe we'll need a runoff election every four years. But would that be such a bad thing? Maybe it would give a suitable underdog a shot for once.

Myself, I really like Ralph Nader and the Green Party -- he got my vote in 1996 and he'll get it again this year. But a lot of the hackers I know are Libertarians or Free Marketeers or Socialists or whatever, and that's fine. I'm sure there are great candidates in all these camps, really. Why not give them a shot. "Gee Dubya" is pretty obviously an imbecile and a stuffed shirt for his corporate backers -- do you really want to see him win? Is Al Gore, proud internet innovator, any better? Fuck no he's not. The survey at Select Smart isn't a bad place to find a candidate that comes close to your ideology, whatever it may be. And Project Vote Smart is also a pretty good place to learn more. And don't forget about local elections either -- they're less glamorous, but they have far more impact over your day to day life than the high profile CNN elections. Be an informed and active voter above all else. It's worth it.

You know, I've never really given Nader much thought. Small potatoes, wasted vote, could never win, etc.

But I sure as hell ain't voting for Bush, and I'm less and less certain of Gore.

So I took the Presidential Candidate Selector. And, much to my surprise, I found that nobody even came close to my beliefs, save for good ol' Ralph Nader. (Though, to my fright, Orrin Hatch showed up, though way down on the list. :)

Nader really seems to be right up there on the geek ticket, if my results and those of several fellow geeks are any indicator. Anybody know his beliefs on copyrights, patents, etc?

It's clear that he doesn't think much of Microsoft. That's a hell of a start. :)

--