Slashdot Mirror

It's not that far behind. Of course, this goes back to the age old adage, "Who watches the watchers?"

The theory you propose might be to some too extremist. However, it has come to be a socially acceptable way of controlling the masses in modern society, utilizing everything from public bookburnings, to jamming radio waves at territorial borders, to simply outlawing and prosecuting "offending" material.

Scary.
Vote Vader in 2000!
http://www.vaderfor2000.org

Again, they would lose that bit of tracking data.
However, they probably think that is an acceptable loss
Vote Vader in 2000!
http://www.vaderfor2000.org

Vader for 2000 Wow, Star Wars and the US elections all at once, sounds like a /. match made in heaven.

Still, even with California being democratic, 0% of the votes counted and they're saying he's won? Go ahead and say he probably will win it, but with no votes in, he definitely hasn't won. And don't forget Nader. They all say that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and we Bush people have been counting on that. Vote Vader Vaderfor2000.org

State Electoral Commissions oversee (in some places) County State Electoral Commissions oversee (in some places) Municipal Electoral Commissions. Voting technology can be specified at any level & are most often left to the local areas.

Results are generally tabulated & reported via telephone calls by designated offficials to specified telephone numbers using pre-agreed-upon passwords to identify themselves with call-backs to confirm authenticity. This also varies widely with computer-based systems becoming more common but the call/password/call-back is cheap, established & reliable.

The Press & Campaigns are notified via two methods - either they'll have a person on site at the Election Commission Office or they'll also use the call-in method using passwords.

Furthermore as most should know by now (it's a standard news story that gets dusted off & rerun every year) a vote for US President doesn't actually mean a vote-for-the-president. Instead there's an Electoral College making sure your Vader2000 write-ins don't go anywhere. Finally not all places use Simple Majority for local elections, for example Cambridge, Mass. uses Proportional Representation for it's local candidates.

Here's my choice for president.

PerlStalker

Sounds like that should be one of this guy's platform points. :)

---

Are you sure that's what he's saying? I thought his big thing was that the whole federal government, including Congress, should stay out of these things. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the president should be all powerful, outside of Cthulu and Vader. If I'm wrong, some Libertarian may feel free to set me straight.

Vote Vader. Or else.

The best presidential candidate site taht follows all rules explained at Scott Reines site is this.

It is outdated because people don't need guns to protect themselves anymore,

How then should we protect ourselves from someone that intends to do us harm? Some would answer that the local law encorcement is there to protect us, but that is simply wrong. The job of the police department is to arrest the perpertrator of a crime once the crime has been committed. They are not there to protect us from wrongdoers; as an example, there was a story in the local media here where a mother traded her daughter for crack in a crackhouse. The police knew that the house she was in was a crackhouse, but they did not have sufficient proof to legally execute a warrant. As a result, the 2 year old girl was found dead in a closet in the house 2 weeks later.

The only thing guns are used for is violent crime, where people are robbed, raped, mugged and killed by criminals who have easy access to the vast amount of guns in America.

Really? I know several people who own guns (I work with many of them) and I would not classify them as people that would "rob, rape, mug, or kill" someone. That argument is fundamentally flawed; a gun is just a tool, much like a wrench, or even a knife...you can use a knife to spread butter with, or to cut someone's throat. It is the person that uses the tool that determines the outcome.

And then there is all the shootings recently by children who took the guns from their parent's houses, where they were kept fully loaded in easy to reach places.

While that is true, we need to place the blame where it is due, on the parents. It is the parent's responsibility to ensure that their children are properly educated on the use of firearms and their potentially devastating effects on others. If these children had been told that these guns are not toys, that there is real consequences for their actions (something that IMHO is missing from a lot of households today...) then these events probably would not have happened. Granted, if a child knows what will happen when they pull the trigger, and they choose to do it anyway, then the child is at fault. Just don't go accusing the child of everything...the parents play a big role in this as well.

If we didn't allow the ownership of guns these wouldn't have happened, would they?

Let's not kid ourselves. The very definition of a criminal is someone that does not obey the laws. If a criminal has a gun, it is most likely illegally obtained. Gun control laws will do nothing more than ensure that the law-abiding populace will have no means of defending themselves, and thereby make themselves a better target for those that have little regard for the laws in the first place.

Now that I've put in my $.02...

Vote Vader in 2000!
http://www.vaderfor2000.org