Slashdot Mirror

It is a shame (though understandable) that the President gets many orders of magnitude more press attention than your county, city, school district, and other local officials. Everyone has an opinion about who the President should be, but the fact is that s/he:

• Does not have as direct an impact on your daily life as local government.
• Is not nearly as accountable to you as local government (want an appointment with a city councilperson? Sure. Want an appointment with the President? Fat chance).

Nowhere is this more true than in education. Local school boards aren't generally as sexy as, say, Sarah Palin, but these people DIRECTLY impact what happens to school budgets, hiring/firing teachers, etc.

I implore US readers to do your due diligence and get your research done today (if you haven't already). Good places to start include Project Vote Smart, your state or county web site and local newspapers.

I went to vote-smart.org to see how he did on their political courage test but apparently he refuses adamantly to take the test: http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=296

Here's the full voting record. If you click on a particular bill you will also get links to statements and speeches made around the time of the vote. There's no guarantee they'll be about the same issue though. http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

I went to vote-smart.org to see how he did on their political courage test but apparently he refuses adamantly to take the test: http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=296

Here's the full voting record. If you click on a particular bill you will also get links to statements and speeches made around the time of the vote. There's no guarantee they'll be about the same issue though. http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

And on the other hand, he may be just what this country needs. This is a guy that votes no on almost every piece of legislation that he comes across. So he may in fact veto a lot of legislation, but it may just make those demo-republi-tards in congress realize they should be working together instead of fighting each other at every turn.

Ah, my friend, you should pay more attention. It's not that he supports making abortion illegal across the board, it's that he believes it ought to be decided on a per-state basis. Indeed, this might be best for the "fetuses aren't human" side of the argument: if your legality is federal, then the feds (under a government run, for instance, by a former baptist minister) could make a sweeping decision that it's illegal. In fact, Ron Paul voted against a bill which would have forbidden minors from crossing state lines to get abortions without parental consent. This earned him no friends in pro-unwanted-life circles. The point is this: he votes in accordance with an accurate interpretation of the law, not according to what is popular.

Journey: Arlington, Tx asks: "For all the politically pro-life candidates. In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?"

Moderator: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.

Ron Paul: You know, it's not a federal function to determine the penalties for a crime of abortion if it is illegal in a state. It's up to the state, it's up to the juries. And, it should be up to discretion because it's not an easy issue to deal with. But the first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need.

But ...

Moderator: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

Ron Paul: I don't personally think so. I'm an O.B. Doctor, and I practiced medicine for 30 years, and I of course never saw one time when a medically necessary abortion had to be done. But, so I think it certainly is a crime, but I also understand the difficulties. I think when you're talking about third trimester deliberate abortion and partial-birth abortions, I mean there has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. But I really think it's the person who commits the crime, and I think that is the abortionist.

Moderator: So you're saying a doctor should be punished. What sort of punishment should they get?

Ron Paul: Well, I think it's up to the states. I'm not in the state... I'm not running for governor, and I think it's different, and I don't think it should be all fifty states the same way, so I don't think it should be up to the President to decide that.

Remember the key quotes from above:

Regarding abortion in general:
"But the first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it."
Regarding punishment:
"I don't think it should be all fifty states the same way"
"Well, I think it's up to the states."

Now I'll paste what he voted for from the vote smart website. You'll note that all of these bills impose fines and up to two years in prison. Ron Paul thought, when he voted for these bills, that it was the role of the federal government to intervene in what he now says is a state matter and establish a penalty for doctors who were willing to perform D&I abortions.

All are from the abortion section here: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

10/02/2003

Official Title of Legislation:

S 3: A bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

Project Vote Smart Synopsis:

Vote to adopt a conference report that prohibits any individual from knowingly performing the procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, in which a fetus is partially delivered before it is aborted.

Highlights:

- Permit the procedure if the life of the woman were in danger

- Penalize anyone who illegally performed the procedure with fines and up to two years imprisonment

06/04/2003

Official Title of Legislation:

HR 760: To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

Project Vote Smart Synopsis:

Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit any individual from knowingly performing the procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, in which a fetus is partially delivered before it is aborted. The only exception is if the life of the woman is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

Highlights:

- Allows for criminal prosecution of the individual that performs the act

- Prohibits prosecution of the woman on whom the abortion was performed

04/05/2000

Official Tit

Ummm...not meaning to be impolite, but are you on crack? The whole problem with spam is that it intrudes on someone else's private property. Ron Paul is a very strong defender of private property. He would be their worst nightmare.

Ron Paul is all for privacy in the sense that he would never authorize government to monitor citizens at large. But in the same breath he would never authorize government to regulate the communications other businesses, eterprises, or citizens would send to you either. Including advertisments, sales offers, unsolicited email, or spam.

Think I'm wrong? Remember the "Do not call list"? Well, when the FTC imposed it the telemarketing industry responded arguing that the FTC had no such authority to impose such a system, and a judge *agreed* with the telemarketing industry. So what do you think happened next?

Well, a bill was introduced in Congress to specifically authorize the FTC to create the do-not-call-list. It passed Congress 412-8, and it passed the senate 95-0. The 'people' had spoken, and our right to have dinner without being tele-offered a long distance plan was established!

Would it surprise you to know that Ron Paul, your champion of privacy, was one of those 8 that voted AGAINST authorizing the FTC to create the do-not-call-list? Don't beleive me? Look it up.

Here's some links to get you started - some background:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/congress.no.call/index.html
and

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929
Section: "Technology and Communication", Date: 09/25/2003, Bill: "Do-Not-Call-Registry Bill"

Or you can take my word for it: He voted "No".

I'm quite confident he'd vote *against* any bill that proposed the government some how step in and regulate email of ANY kind, including spam.

I also honestly don't know (I can only assume) how many others feel this way (I simply don't talk about this kind of thing on a day to day basis), but I am taking the first step (I don't know if its the right one) to "register to vote" in MA (I don't know if this is even the right thing to do considering I am never in MA!!). Anyways, to do the same as me and instructions for doing so can be found at: http://www.vote-smart.org/ ...which is the first thing I found in Google.

After that, my plan of action is as follows:
1) Read about the current officials in MA and see what writers are saying about them.
2) Determine my egibility to vote in various elections: primaries, presidential...etc because honestly (and I don't mind saying here in this forum) I don't know anything about the election process other than the presidential election process.
3) Continue to research potential and current officials.
4) Vote in all election processes that become available to me.

How does that sound? Anyone else in the same or similiar boat? My high school didn't teach me any of this stuff (...?) and at least should have had me reinforce a plan of action on how to vote and stay informed on politics..... cause God knows I am informed on other things (...not be mentioned).

Look at his voting records for Pete's sake!

He IS and DOES flip-flop routinely!

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53306

This won't change until...

the voters nominate and elect somebody besides the incumbents and Party members. This is the tail wagging the dog. Campaign contributions have more influence on the voters than anybody else. They're always voting for the person with the flashiest ads and ignoring the substance. Thoughtful voting takes more effort than most people want to spend. Ignore the ads and follow their record. That's the only thing that matters. That's the way to force a reduction in campaign spending so that anybody can afford to run.

Dennis Kucinich has a good record on this and many other issues too. From his campaign site:

A corrupt campaign finance system, coupled with vulnerable electronic voting have eroded America's confidence in our elections. The USA Patriot Act and secret strategy meetings to set policy tear into the very concept of We the People. As President, Dennis will protect individual liberty and privacy and restore balance and fairness in America's electoral system.

Democracy can not flourish when the government shrouds itself in secrecy and citizens lose their privacy. It should be the other way around.

The emphasis is mine.

See: H Amdt 674. He voted to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal anti-drug laws which conflicted with state laws.

I don't see how you could possibly consider him a neo-con. He's clearly an honest conservative. He's strongly against being in Iraq. He voted against the homeland security act and the patriot act. He voted in favor of the whistleblower protection act of 2007.

He's consistent. He voted against an act to prohibit cloning while at the same time voting against anything that would fund cloning. He's just against federal power.

Remember that it's all too easy for the federal government to gain more power. It's near impossible to force them to lose any power. If Ron Paul causes the federal government to give too much power back to the states then rest assured that future presidents will pull it back. But we should be grateful for any reprieve from the constant power grabbing that's going on in DC right now.

You can see his entire voting record at: Ron Paul voting record.

See: H Amdt 674. He voted to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal anti-drug laws which conflicted with state laws.

I don't see how you could possibly consider him a neo-con. He's clearly an honest conservative. He's strongly against being in Iraq. He voted against the homeland security act and the patriot act. He voted in favor of the whistleblower protection act of 2007.

He's consistent. He voted against an act to prohibit cloning while at the same time voting against anything that would fund cloning. He's just against federal power.

Remember that it's all too easy for the federal government to gain more power. It's near impossible to force them to lose any power. If Ron Paul causes the federal government to give too much power back to the states then rest assured that future presidents will pull it back. But we should be grateful for any reprieve from the constant power grabbing that's going on in DC right now.

You can see his entire voting record at: Ron Paul voting record.

He voted for the patriot act. Screw him. He should hang. Along with all the others that voted for it. A slightly more important issue.

First, let me say I am pleasantly surprised. When I think of slashdot I normally think of a bunch of liberal, pro-evolution, anti-bush closed minded people who happen to also be a good forum for technology and sometimes non technical discussion. The number of "Hillary is a retard" posts has astounded me. Nevertheless, here is a glimpse of Hillary's record in the senate: (WARNING: It's a bit long, but interesting. Source: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_ id=WNY99268)

Votes for alternatives to abortion, but does not vote against abortion.

Voted against 'cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of any individual in custody or physical control of the U.S. government, regardless of geographical location"

Voted "Prohibits any US court, justice or judge from hearing or considering a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on the behalf of a non-U.S. citizen who is detained at Guantanamo Bay "

Voted "- Prohibits the use of funds to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, to motivate or coerce any individual to practice abortion, or perform involuntary sterilizations"

Voted for Tax cuts

Voted against "a resolution that increases the public debt limit to $8.97 trillion." which the Repub congress passed.

Voted to prohibit taxing of internet access, but to allow taxing of VOIP.

Did not vote on bankruptcy bill in 2005.

Voted YES to "Raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 in three incremental stages"

Voted against contitutional amendment to make illegal desecration of the flag.

Voted against congreesional sot of living raise in 2005, as did 95% of the rest of congress.

Voted YES to "To increase the maximum Federal Pell Grant award by $200 to $4,250."

Voted to extend unemployment benefits for 13 additional weeks.

Voted YES "on the confirmation of President Bush's nomination of Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense."

Voted NO "to confirm President George W. Bush's nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court"

Voted NO "to confirm President George W. Bush's nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to be the United States Chief Justice."

Voted ~ 50/50 on all other nominations

Voted for creation of department of Homeland Security - (which, btw, ate the Secret Service and the coast guard at the time of creation; I did not realize this)

Voted NO "To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law." as did 95% of congress.

Voted NO to "A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others."

Voted YES to "pass a bill that authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico and grants the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to take necessary steps to stop unlawful entry of undocumented immigrants into the U.S."

Voted YES to "- Allows immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for the past five years to be eligible for U.S. citizenship as long as they pass a background check, pay all back taxes and fines, maintain a job for six additional years, learn English, and pay a fine (Sec 601[245B])"

Voted against English as a national language.

Voted against making it a criminal offense to harm an unborn fetus in the progress of another crime.

Voted YES to war with Iraq.

Voted YES to Partiot Act, 2001.

Voted YES "Vote to pass a bill that allows for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that uses human embryonic stem cells."

Voted YES to Do Not Call Registry.

Senator Clinton voted for the PATRIOT Act in 2001, and again for its reauthorization in 2006. While this was likely a move to appear "strong on defense", it certainly destroys any claim that she is interested in Americans' privacy.

see her voting record at Project Vote Smart

she voted to renew the PATRIOT Act not one year ago.

• Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
• Randy Cunningham's Flag Desecration Resolution (thanks, Randy!)
• Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006
• Pledge Protection Act of 2006
• The CheeseBurger Bill
• Terri Schiavo Incapacitated Persons Protection Bill
• Independent Review of OSHA Act of 2005

• Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
• Randy Cunningham's Flag Desecration Resolution (thanks, Randy!)
• Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006
• Pledge Protection Act of 2006
• The CheeseBurger Bill
• Terri Schiavo Incapacitated Persons Protection Bill
• Independent Review of OSHA Act of 2005

• Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
• Randy Cunningham's Flag Desecration Resolution (thanks, Randy!)
• Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006
• Pledge Protection Act of 2006
• The CheeseBurger Bill
• Terri Schiavo Incapacitated Persons Protection Bill
• Independent Review of OSHA Act of 2005

• Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
• Randy Cunningham's Flag Desecration Resolution (thanks, Randy!)
• Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006
• Pledge Protection Act of 2006
• The CheeseBurger Bill
• Terri Schiavo Incapacitated Persons Protection Bill
• Independent Review of OSHA Act of 2005

• Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
• Randy Cunningham's Flag Desecration Resolution (thanks, Randy!)
• Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006
• Pledge Protection Act of 2006
• The CheeseBurger Bill
• Terri Schiavo Incapacitated Persons Protection Bill
• Independent Review of OSHA Act of 2005

• Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
• Randy Cunningham's Flag Desecration Resolution (thanks, Randy!)
• Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006
• Pledge Protection Act of 2006
• The CheeseBurger Bill
• Terri Schiavo Incapacitated Persons Protection Bill
• Independent Review of OSHA Act of 2005

• Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
• Randy Cunningham's Flag Desecration Resolution (thanks, Randy!)
• Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006
• Pledge Protection Act of 2006
• The CheeseBurger Bill
• Terri Schiavo Incapacitated Persons Protection Bill
• Independent Review of OSHA Act of 2005

Really?

The U.S. Senate voted 97-0 (with 3 nonvoting senators).
Congress voted in much a similar fashion: 392-5.

link

Jump off that hate bandwagon and realize you being screwed over by both parties.

The problem is that candidates don't feel the need to fill it out. They may get a little bit of bad publicity for not participating, but that's better for them than being pinned-down on where they stand on the issues. (See this article Politicians Grow Wary Of Survey as Internet Spreads Attack Ads on the topic from 10/25/26 issue of the Wall Street Journal).

Disclaimer: I used to work for Project Vote Smart about 10 years ago.

The problem is that candidates don't feel the need to fill it out. They may get a little bit of bad publicity for not participating, but that's better for them than being pinned-down on where they stand on the issues. (See this article Politicians Grow Wary Of Survey as Internet Spreads Attack Ads on the topic from 10/25/26 issue of the Wall Street Journal).

Disclaimer: I used to work for Project Vote Smart about 10 years ago.

The problem is that candidates don't feel the need to fill it out. They may get a little bit of bad publicity for not participating, but that's better for them than being pinned-down on where they stand on the issues. (See this article Politicians Grow Wary Of Survey as Internet Spreads Attack Ads on the topic from 10/25/26 issue of the Wall Street Journal).

Disclaimer: I used to work for Project Vote Smart about 10 years ago.

The problem is that candidates don't feel the need to fill it out. They may get a little bit of bad publicity for not participating, but that's better for them than being pinned-down on where they stand on the issues. (See this article Politicians Grow Wary Of Survey as Internet Spreads Attack Ads on the topic from 10/25/26 issue of the Wall Street Journal).

Disclaimer: I used to work for Project Vote Smart about 10 years ago.

I wrote an op-ed piece about this the other day:

DON'T VOTE!!!

Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html

I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.

First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.
Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are?
You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.

If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.

Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.

Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"

Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.

Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!

And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (which are written in plain English by the way), then PLEASE do no

http://www.vote-smart.org/ That's about all you need.

Go Here: http://www.vote-smart.org/

Get informed.

This is too easy not to do.

Problem solved.

old people vote; politicians don't dare screw with them.
young people don't vote; they get the butt end of legislation.

so yes, it's worth it just to say "cater to my demographic."

if you're concerned about making uninformed decisions, either get informed, or vote for yourself. That way you've not impacted what you're afraid to uninformedly impact, yet you've stood up to be counted.

Regardless, I found Project VoteSmart to be a reasonable way to quickly get up to speed on the candidates, the issues, and the intersection (voting record) between the two.

http://www.vote-smart.org/

Well, it's something to consider (first amendment and such), but let's not lose sight of the big picture here.

For example, I don't care if Rick Santorum backs the ESRB or not, his voting record (and general asshattery) is more than enough to dissuade me from voting for him.

I mean seriously, the man is against gay marriage and gay rights, tried to slip Intelligent Design into the No Child Left Behind act, has said that he doesn't belive in privacy rights, and is anti-abortion. If you have an opinion on any of those issues, then his stance on the ESRB is probably irrelevant when you decide whether or not to vote for him.

I completely agree with the gripe about the lack of solid information about candidates views (other than supporting non-controversial positions). The best source that I have found for such information is Project Vote Smart http://www.vote-smart.org/ and specifically candidates responses to the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) http://www.vote-smart.org/npat_about.php - which gathers information on the candidates' positions on political issues.

I completely agree with the gripe about the lack of solid information about candidates views (other than supporting non-controversial positions). The best source that I have found for such information is Project Vote Smart http://www.vote-smart.org/ and specifically candidates responses to the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) http://www.vote-smart.org/npat_about.php - which gathers information on the candidates' positions on political issues.

> who works as a pole worker volunteer

Pole worker eh? Shiny brass or the ones with the power lines on them?

--

Go read NPATs on candidates at Vote Smart

DON'T VOTE!!!

Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html

I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.

First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.

Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are? Wan to know who supports them? Want to see their voting record?
You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.

If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.

Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.

Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"

Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.

Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!

And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (which are written in plain English by the way), then

You can try this website:

http://www.vote-smart.org/

You can try this website:

http://www.vote-smart.org/

I'm in Mass, and I think they do a decent job with handling the information. For those who are in a voting office, you can see their records. Another really helpful thing is to check the NPAT (National Political Awareness Test) results, if available. Being the day before the election, the site seems to be running a bit slow, so be patient. Hope the site is helpful. (I am not affilated with vote-smart.org in any way)

DON'T VOTE!!!

Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html

I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.

First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.

Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are? Want to read an incumbent's voting record in simple language? Want to know how interest groups rate the candidates?
You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.

If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.

Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.

Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"

Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.

Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!

And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/

Just for a start.

Your fellow Americans are dying by the thousands. You have a *duty* to be informed. You have time to read before you vote. Think as critically and openmindedly as if you were debugging a problem at work. This isn't some bleeding tribal football rivalry thing where you're supposed to cheer for "your side" and dismiss the other. Know what you care about, find out who REALLY supports it, and if nobody does then in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster then go vote against the worst ones! Thought experiment: imagine where Iraq would be today if they'd been able to pick the *lesser* of two evils every four years. Picking the lesser of two evils is worth dying for, let alone driving to the polls.

This election is pivotal. Turnout will decide it. Remember that usually only a third of voters turn out for midterms, so you're voting for three people. Drag along another three customary nonvoters from your LAN party and you're voting for a dozen people.

Start simple, check if you're registered to vote.

Project Vote Smart http://www.vote-smart.org/ already has factual information on candidates and incumbents for offices in the US. Want to see how they voted, where they get thier money, how they stand on an issue? If the information is available it will be there. While it doesn't necessarily say if a candidate is lying or not, you certainly can find out some more information about that candidate and perhaps find out if they lied about something or not.

Democracy dies when voters get their non-news from television instead of researching sites like Vote Smart, when voters leave school without a basic education and never get it later.

How can US voters make wise decisions if they don't know who borders whom, or the difference between Sunni and Shi'a (read to near the end)? /. readers in the US, help your country: use Google and go find things out.
I keep six faithful serving men
Who teach me well and true
Their names are What and Where and When
And How and Why and Who. -- Rudyard Kipling

I know I'm preaching to the Slashdot choir, and it's been said a thousand times before, but as long as we have closed voting processes, we're going to have people screwing up by doing things like having voting machines accessible with hotel minibar keys. We hate Microsoft for their closed-source software, yet we continue to accept this kind of idiocy.

Quick question: If we have viable alteratives, such as those presented by the Open Voting Consortium, why do we continue to bother with these stupid Diebold machines? I know, dumb answer, because Diebold pays the people who decide lots and lots of money.

I would say write to your Congresscritters and let them know that you want these screwed up pieces of junk out of our polling locations, but like I said, I know I'm preaching to the Slashdot choir, and you won't do it. >:-( But realistically, just know that until you do, we can look forward to many, many more articles about this kind of thing. Ooh, at least until we see the one that says, "Electronic voting machines hacked! Election results tainted!." Or even better, when we see nothing at all and Richard M. Stallman is mysteriously elected President in a write-in landslide.

sigh Oh well, it was worth a shot. Just give me my damn +5 and go back to reading about lasers on Intel's chips now.

Sided with Congress to force prolonging Terri Schiavo's life, against her and her husband's wishes.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/27/21395 5.shtml

Voted for Attorney General Gonzalez, who thinks the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and supports torturing detainees who are held indefinitely without trial or access to attorneys
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php ?vote_id=3452
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4000679.stm

Voted to stop debate/prevent filibuster so Alito could be added to the Supreme Court
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2& vote=00001